title: Profile of lacosamide and its role in the long-term treatment of epilepsy: a perspective from the updated NICE guideline.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The goal of antiepileptic treatment is to achieve seizure freedom or seizure control. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence for the use of lacosamide for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal seizures with or without secondary generalization, within the scope of the 2012 update of the Clinical Guideline published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
  
  
  METHODS
  Clinical evidence for the use of lacosamide and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was systematically reviewed, evaluated, and presented to the Guideline Development Group. Only randomized clinical trials were included. Outcomes of clinical efficacy (seizure freedom, 50% reduction in seizure frequency, time to first seizure, time to 12-month remission, treatment withdrawal, and time to treatment withdrawal), experience of adverse events, and cognitive and quality of life outcomes were reviewed. A decision model was built to weigh the clinical benefits of each adjunctive AED, measured by seizure control and seizure reduction, compared with the harm from adverse events, as measured by withdrawals from treatment due to adverse events.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Lacosamide was included as part of the recommended AEDS to be used in tertiary epilepsy centers. The evidence review showed that more participants who received lacosamide as an adjunctive treatment had at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared with those taking placebo. However, more participants on lacosamide were found to experience adverse events and withdrawal from treatment compared with those on placebo. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that compared with placebo, the benefits gained from adjunctive lacosamide were modest and uncertain, whereas the costs were significantly high. Compared with other AEDs licensed for adjunctive therapy in focal seizures, lacosamide was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life years and higher costs. Therefore, the Guideline Development Group noted that the balance of benefit and harm needs to be carefully monitored in all patients.
authors: National Clinical Guideline Centre, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
authors: Vanessa Delgado
authors: VD
authors: Nunes
authors: Laura
authors: L
authors: Sawyer
authors: Julie
authors: J
authors: Neilson
authors: Grammati
authors: G
authors: Sarri
authors: J Helen
authors: JH
authors: Cross
keywords: adjunctive therapy; anti-epileptic drug; clinical guideline; focal seizures
references: Health Technol Assess. 2007 Oct;11(37):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-134
references: 17903391
references: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Nov;61(5):433-43
references: 8965090
references: Eur J Neurol. 2008 Oct;15(10):1034-42
references: 18717721
references: BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
references: 18436948
references: Epilepsia. 2007 Jul;48(7):1308-17
references: 17635557
references: Epilepsia. 2010 Apr;51(4):676-85
references: 20196795
references: Epilepsia. 2010 Jun;51(6):958-67
references: 20132285
references: BMJ. 2008 May 10;336(7652):1049-51
references: 18467413
references: BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):995-8
references: 18456631
references: BMJ. 2008 May 24;336(7654):1170-3
references: 18497416
references: Ann Med. 2012 Nov;44(7):674-9
references: 22380697
references: Epilepsia. 2009 Mar;50(3):443-53
references: 19183227
references: BMJ. 2008 May 17;336(7653):1106-10
references: 18483053
references: BMJ. 2008 Jul 31;337:a744
references: 18669566
references: Epilepsia. 2009 Sep;50 Suppl 8:57-62
references: 19702735