Long-term efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: An open-label extension study
Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long-term treatment. Methods: An open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had receiv...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Estado: | Versão publicada |
| Data de publicação: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositório: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/48439 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/48439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/epi.16666 |
| Access Level: | Acceso aberto |
| Palavra-chave: | Antiseizure medication Carbamazepine Focal seizures Responder rate Retention Seizure freedom rate |
| Resumo: | Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long-term treatment. Methods: An open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had received monotherapy with either once-daily ESL or twice-daily controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In the OLE study, all patients received ESL (800-1600 mg/d) for 2 years. Primary efficacy outcome was retention time (from baseline of the OLE study). Secondary efficacy assessments included seizure freedom rate (no seizures during the OLE study) and responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline of double-blind trial). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Of 206 randomized patients, 96 who received ESL in the double-blind trial (ESL/ESL) and 88 who received CBZ-CR in the double-blind trial (CBZ-CR/ESL) were treated with ESL monotherapy (89.3% overall). Treatment retention time was similar between groups, with low probability of ESL withdrawal overall (<0.07 at any time). After 24 months, the probability of ESL withdrawal was 0.0638 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0292-0.1366) in the ESL/ESL group and 0.0472 (95% CI = 0.0180-0.1210) in the CBZ-CR/ESL group. Seizure freedom rates were 90.6% (ESL/ESL) and 80.7% (CBZ-CR/ESL; P = .0531). Responder rates remained >80% in both groups throughout the study. Incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between groups (7.3% vs 5.7%; 0% vs 1.1% possibly related), as were the incidences of TEAEs considered at least possibly related to treatment (17.7% vs 18.2%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (3.1% vs 4.5%). The types of TEAEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of ESL. Significance: ESL monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated over the long term, including in patients who transitioned from CBZ-CR monotherapy. No new safety concerns emerged. |
|---|