Safety of Eslicarbazepine Acetate in Elderly Versus Non-Elderly Patients with Focal Seizures: From Pooled Data of Clinical Studies to 8 Years of Post-Marketing Experience

Luís M. Magalhães (), Raquel Costa, Mariana Vieira, Joana Moreira, Helena Gama and Patrício Soares-da-Silva
Additional contact information
Luís M. Magalhães: Bial-Portela & Cª, S.A., À Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional
Raquel Costa: Bial-Portela & Cª, S.A., À Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional
Mariana Vieira: Bial-Portela & Cª, S.A., À Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional
Joana Moreira: Bial-Portela & Cª, S.A., À Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional
Helena Gama: Bial-Portela & Cª, S.A., À Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional
Patrício Soares-da-Silva: Bial-Portela & Cª, S.A., À Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional

Drug Safety, 2021, vol. 44, issue 10, No 8, 1099-1107

Abstract: Abstract Introduction The prevalence of epilepsy increases in elderly patients aged > 65 years, and treatment is challenging because clinical data are limited. Objective Our objective was to evaluate the safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients aged ≥ 65 years versus non-elderly patients with focal seizures. Methods The safety data of seven phase II and III, double-blind, open-label, randomized clinical studies of ESL in adults were pooled. At least possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) and ESL post-marketing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed separately by age categories. Results The most frequently reported at least possibly related TEAEs in elderly (N = 120) versus non-elderly patients (N = 1863) were dizziness (10.8 vs. 20.3%), somnolence (9.2 vs. 12.6%), and hyponatremia (6.7 vs. 1.5%). Elderly patients presented a higher incidence of serious TEAEs (22.5 vs. 7.6%) and at least possibly related serious TEAEs (6.7 vs. 2.5%), probably because treatment was complicated by comorbidities and comedications. After an estimated cumulative exposure of over 2 million patient-months worldwide and 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, hyponatremia was the most frequently reported ADR (n = 232), accounting for 14.6% and 6.8% of the ADRs reported in elderly (n = 473) and non-elderly patients (n = 2406), respectively. This was followed by ADR/safety information such as drug–dose titration not performed (7.0 vs. 5.4%), product use in unapproved indication (4.9 vs. 1.9%), off-label use (3.4 vs. 2.2%), dizziness (3.4 vs. 3.5%), and seizure (2.1 vs. 5.8%). Conclusion No specific safety issue was identified from the pooled studies for elderly compared with non-elderly patients. After 8 years of post-marketing surveillance, the qualitative safety of ESL remains similar to that observed in the clinical studies.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-021-01097-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:44:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s40264-021-01097-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01097-5

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().