IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v44y2021i10d10.1007_s40264-021-01097-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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
    University of Porto
    University of Porto)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Luís M. Magalhães & Raquel Costa & Mariana Vieira & Joana Moreira & Helena Gama & Patrício Soares-da-Silva, 2021. "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," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(10), pages 1099-1107, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:44:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s40264-021-01097-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01097-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-021-01097-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-021-01097-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:44:y:2021:i:10:d:10.1007_s40264-021-01097-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.