scholarly journals Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy in clinical practice: ESLADOBA study

2017 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. 407-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Chaves ◽  
P. Breia ◽  
J. Pimentel ◽  
R. Pelejão ◽  
M. Carvalho ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (10) ◽  
pp. A7.1-A7
Author(s):  
McMurray Rob ◽  
Delanty Norman ◽  
Villanueva Vicente

PurposeTo assess eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as monotherapy in everyday clinical practice.MethodEuro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European studies. In a subanalysis, data were compared for patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy, and for patients treated at last visit with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy.Assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit) and incidence of adverse events (AEs).ResultsESL was used as monotherapy in 88/2045 and 229/1340 patients initially and at last visit, respectively. At 12 months, responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy (responder: 94.1% versus 74.8%; seizure freedom: 88.2% versus 39.0%), and in patients treated at last visit with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy (responder: 93.2% versus 70.4%; seizure freedom: 77.4% versus 25.9%). Overall incidence of AEs was similar in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy and adjunctive therapy (29.4% versus 34.4%), and in patients treated at last visit with ESL monotherapy and adjunctive therapy (27.1% versus 30.8%).ConclusionESL was significantly more effective when used as monotherapy compared with adjunctive therapy; safety/tolerability was generally comparable.Supported by Eisai


2010 ◽  
Vol 89 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 278-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Ben-Menachem ◽  
A.A. Gabbai ◽  
A. Hufnagel ◽  
J. Maia ◽  
L. Almeida ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. 106574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Weissinger ◽  
Florian Losch ◽  
Yaroslav Winter ◽  
Silvia Brecht ◽  
Dirk Lendemans ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. e4.143-e4
Author(s):  
R Costa ◽  
N Lopes ◽  
H Gama ◽  
R Sousa ◽  
T Nunes ◽  
...  

PurposeTo evaluate the safety/tolerability and efficacy of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in elderly patients with partial-onset seizures (POS).MethodPhase III, multicentre, open-label, non-controlled study in patients aged ≥65 years with ≥2 POS during an 8-week baseline and treated with 1–2 antiepileptic drugs. Following baseline, patients entered a 26-week maintenance period. ESL was initiated at 400 mg once-daily and adjusted (400–1200 mg/day) based on individual response. Safety/tolerability evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiogram and physical/neurological examinations. Efficacy evaluations included change in standardised seizure frequency (SSF; seizure frequency/4 weeks).ResultsOf the 72 patients included, 47 (65.3%) experienced 152 TEAEs; most commonly, dizziness (12.5%), somnolence (9.7%), fatigue (8.3%), convulsion (8.3%) and hyponatraemia (8.3%). Three patients died of cardiac failure, glioblastoma multiforme and ischaemic stroke (relationship unlikely/not related). Overall, 16 (22.2%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs. Incidence of clinically significant findings was low for vital signs, electrocardiogram and physical/neurological examinations. SSF decreased from 2.9 at baseline to 1.2 during the maintenance period (median relative change: –54.1%).ConclusionOnce-daily ESL (400–1200 mg) as adjunctive therapy in elderly subjects with POS did not raise major safety concerns and was efficacious. Supported by Bial.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document