4.5 Article

Long-term efficacy of add-on lacosamide treatment in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsies: A single-center observational study

期刊

EPILEPSIA
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 1004-1010

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/epi.14071

关键词

children; efficacy; lacosamide; refractory epilepsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo assess long-term efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) as adjunctive treatment through a retrospective study in children and adolescents with refractory epilepsies. MethodsAll patients consecutively treated with LCM as add-on for refractory focal and generalized epilepsy and followed at the Neuroscience Center of Excellence of the Meyer Children's Hospital of Florence between January 2011 and September 2015 were included in the study. Responder rate, relapse-free survival, and retention rate were calculated. Tolerability was assessed by reporting adverse events. ResultsA total of 88 individuals (41 female) aged 4months to 18years (median 10.5years; meanSD 10.6 +/- 4.8years) received add-on LCM treatment for refractory epilepsy. Thirty-four patients (38.6%) were responders with a median time to relapse of 48months. Nine (26.4%) of the 34 responders were seizure-free. For all 88 patients, the probability of remaining on LCM without additional therapy was 74.4% at 6months, 47.7% at 12months, 27.9% at 24months, 18.0% at 48months, and 8.2% at 72months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences in relapse and retention time were observed with regard to epilepsy and seizure types, duration and course of epilepsy, number and type of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs; sodium channel blockers vs others) used in add-on. The most frequent adverse events were dermatological (4/11) and behavioral (3/11). SignificanceThis study documents a real-world progressive and significant loss of LCM efficacy over time in a pediatric population. Further prospective studies on larger populations are required to confirm the remarkable loss of LCM efficacy over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据