SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Lacosamide;
  • Oral contraceptive;
  • Epilepsy;
  • Drug–drug interaction;
  • Pharmacokinetics;
  • Pharmacodynamics

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References

Purpose

To determine whether the antiepileptic drug lacosamide affects the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of a combined oral contraceptive (OC; ethinylestradiol 0.03 mg plus levonorgestrel 0.15 mg).

Methods

This was an open-label trial in healthy female volunteers. Eligible women entered cycle 1 of the trial on the first day of menstruation. Cycle 1 was a medication-free, run-in phase of approximately 28 days to confirm that normal ovulation occurred. Volunteers with confirmed ovulation entered the subsequent cycle and started taking OCs. After establishing ovulation suppression (defined as progesterone serum concentration <5.1 nm on day 21 of the menstrual cycle) in volunteers taking the OCs in cycle 2, lacosamide 400 mg/day was administered concomitantly in the subsequent cycle (cycle 3). The pharmacokinetic parameters of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum steady-state plasma drug concentration (Cmax), and time to maximum concentration (tmax) were measured for the OC components and lacosamide.

Key Findings

A total of 37 volunteers completed cycle 1, and 32 completed cycle 2. In each of the 31 volunteers who completed the trial (through cycle 3), pharmacodynamic assessment showed progesterone serum concentration was <5.1 nm on day 21 of cycle 2, when the OC was administered alone, and on day 21 of cycle 3, when lacosamide was administered concomitantly. The AUC of ethinylestradiol alone versus together with lacosamide was 1,067 ± 404 versus 1,173 ± 330 pg h/ml. Corresponding values of Cmax were 116.9 ± 48.8 versus 135.7 ± 28.6 pg/ml. For levonorgestrel, the AUC alone was 74.2 ± 21.4 versus 80.9 ± 18.5 ng h/ml with lacosamide. Corresponding values of Cmax were 6.7 ± 1.9 versus 7.4 ± 1.5 ng/ml. The AUC and Cmax point estimates and almost all 90% confidence intervals (except for Cmax of ethinylestradiol) for ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel (with and without lacosamide) were within the conventional bioequivalence range, and no relevant changes in tmax were observed for ethinylestradiol (1.5 ± 0.6 h alone vs. 1.4 ± 0.7 h with lacosamide) or for levonorgestrel (1.5 ± 1.0 h alone vs. 1.1 ± 0.6 h with lacosamide). Lacosamide pharmacokinetics were consistent with those observed in previous studies of lacosamide alone, with values for AUC of 113.5 ± 20.7 μg h/ml, Cmax of 13.8 ± 2.2 μg/ml, and tmax of 1.1 ± 0.4 h.

Significance

Lacosamide and an OC containing ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel have low potential for drug–drug interaction; therefore, coadministration of the two drugs is unlikely to result in contraceptive failure or loss of seizure control.

Women with epilepsy or other nonepileptic neurologic conditions receiving antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are often prescribed combination oral contraceptives (OCs) containing progesterone and estrogen (Doose et al., 2003; Penovich, 2004), both of which are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A system (Guengerich, 1988, 1990; Reddy, 2010). Approximately 17% of women with epilepsy, age 15–45 years, who are treated with an AED use combination OCs (Back & Orme, 1990; Shorvon et al., 2002; Sabers, 2008). AEDs with the potential to induce drug-metabolizing CYP enzymes (e.g., phenobarbital, carbamazepine, phenytoin, felbamate, topiramate, primidone, and oxcarbazepine) may cause a reduction in steroid contraceptive levels during concomitant administration, resulting in unplanned pregnancies (Crawford et al., 1990; Gatti et al., 2000; Wilbur & Ensom, 2000; Ragueneau-Majlessi et al., 2002; Reddy, 2010). Conversely, in some instances, OCs can alter the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of AEDs (e.g., lamotrigine, valproic acid) and decrease their effectiveness in controlling seizures (Reddy, 2010).

Alternative or special contraceptive measures, including OCs with high estrogen content, have been recommended when using certain AEDs such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, and topiramate, since these agents have enzyme-inducing activity leading to reduced plasma steroid concentrations (Wilbur & Ensom, 2000; Doose et al., 2003; Reddy, 2010). Some newer AEDs such as gabapentin, levetiracetam, pregabalin, as well as vigabatrin, do not appear to possess significant CYP-inducing properties, and consequently, may not significantly alter the PK profile of concomitantly administered OCs (Bartoli et al., 1997; Eldon et al., 1998; Johannessen Landmark & Patsalos, 2010).

Lacosamide, is indicated as adjunctive therapy for adults with partial-onset seizures. It demonstrates linear PK properties with single doses of 100–800 mg or multiple doses of 200–500 mg administered twice daily, negligible first-pass metabolism, low plasma protein binding (≤15%) (Cawello et al., 2013; Fountain et al., 2012), a half-life of approximately 13 h, maximal concentrations in about 1–4 h following oral administration, and complete absorption with almost 100% bioavailability (Horstmann et al., 2002; Doty et al., 2007). Steady state plasma levels are achieved within 3 days of repeated oral administration (Horstmann et al., 2002).

Lacosamide and its major metabolite (an O-desmethyl metabolite) are eliminated primarily by the kidneys (Doty et al., 2007). The metabolism of lacosamide has not been fully characterized, but CYP2C19 and possibly CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 are involved in the formation of the O-desmethyl-metabolite (Cawello et al., 2010, 2012). Lacosamide did not induce or inhibit the activity of CYP isoenzymes at therapeutic concentrations, with the exception of potential inhibition of CYP2C19; however, an in vivo study with the CYP2C19 substrate omeprazole did not show an inhibitory effect on omeprazole pharmacokinetics (UCB, 2011). In other clinical studies, no PK interaction between lacosamide and carbamazepine, valproic acid, metformin, or digoxin was reported (Doty et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2007; Cawello et al., 2010; Cawello & Bonn, 2012). A population PK analysis estimated that concomitant treatment with other AEDs known to be enzyme inducers (carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, in various doses) decreased lacosamide plasma concentrations by 15–20% (UCB, 2011).

The present study assesses the effect of lacosamide on ovulation suppression by a combination OC containing ethinylestradiol, a synthetic estrogen, and levonorgestrel, a synthetic progesterone. A further objective was to evaluate the effect of lacosamide on the PK parameters of the OC and vice versa, and the tolerability of coadministration of the medications.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References

This study was carried out in accordance with the relevant International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)-guidelines, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), the regulations of the German Drug Law, and the principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki, revision of Edinburgh, Scotland (October 2000). An independent ethics committee (IEC) at the Chamber of Physicians, Berlin (Ärztekammer, Berlin) and at the Chamber of Physicians, Brandenburg (Ärztekammer, Brandenburg) reviewed and approved the protocol and its amendments and informed consent forms. The IEC provided ongoing review of the clinical trial.

Study participants

This study included 40 premenopausal nonpregnant Caucasian women 18–40 years of age who were eligible if they weighed between 50 and 100 kg (body mass index [BMI] 20–30 kg/m2), were considered to be in good health as determined by medical history, physical examination, vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG), and clinical laboratory findings, were nonsmokers, and had negative blood tests for human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and negative alcohol (breath test) and drug tests (urinalysis). Women were excluded if they had undergone hysterectomy or ovariectomy; did not agree to use a barrier method of contraception; were pregnant or breastfeeding; had any clinically significant laboratory, medical, or psychiatric disturbance likely to jeopardize the volunteer's ability to participate in the study; received any medication within 2 weeks of first day of dosing with test substance, had received an investigational medication within the past 3 months; had a history of chronic alcohol or drug abuse within past 6 months; or had a serious medical condition. Written informed consent was obtained prior to performing the trial eligibility assessments.

Trial design

This was an open-label, one-arm trial with a duration of approximately 90 days (Fig. 1). Eligible women entered cycle 1 of the study on the first day of menstruation. Cycle 1 was a medication-free, run-in phase of approximately 28 days to confirm that normal ovulation occurred. Serum progesterone was measured 7 days before the expected onset of menstruation (approximately day 21 of cycle 1). Women not ovulating during cycle 1 were excluded from the remainder of the trial.

image

Figure 1. Trial design. Only volunteers with confirmed ovulation in cycle 1 were eligible to enter cycle 2, and only volunteers with confirmed suppression of ovulation were eligible to enter cycle 3. All PK and PD evaluations took place during cycle 3. D, day; LCM, lacosamide; OC, oral contraceptive (0.03 mg ethinylestradiol plus 0.15 mg levonorgestrel).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Ovulating women who completed cycle 1 received the OC containing 0.03 mg ethinylestradiol and 0.15 mg levonorgestrel (Microgynon; Schering AG, Berlin, Germany) once daily for the first 21 days of cycle 2. On day 21, the ovulation status of each volunteer was determined by the measurement of serum progesterone. Those who ovulated during cycle 2 were excluded from the remainder of the trial. A 24-h PK profile of the OC components was assessed on day 12.

Cycle 3 evaluated potential pharmacodynamic (PD) and PK interactions between lacosamide (Vimpat; UCB Pharma, Monheim, Germany) and the OC. Volunteers received the OC for the first 21 days of cycle 3, lacosamide 400 mg/day (200 mg twice daily) for 9 days from days 3 to 11, and a single morning dose of lacosamide 200 mg on day 12. On day 12, the 24-h PK profile of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel was evaluated, and from days 12 to 15 the 72-h PK profile of lacosamide. On day 21, ovulation was determined by measuring serum progesterone.

On day 1 of each cycle, volunteers received a diary to document intake of concomitant medication and any adverse event (AE). Pregnancy screening based on measurement of the β subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) in serum was conducted during the screening cycle, 7 days prior to the expected onset of cycle 2, and days 1 and 22 of cycle 3 (post study follow-up).

Volunteers stayed in the study center (3C Clinical Research Unit ar Charité University Hospital; Berlin, Germany) for 12 h on day 12 (PK profiling day) of cycle 2 and on days 3–13 of cycle 3. On days 1–21 of cycles 2 and 3 volunteers were asked to take their OC at the study clinic; if logistically not possible, they could take it at home, but were required to return to the clinic for a single day between days 9 and 11 of cycle 3 for blood sampling for lacosamide PK assessment. While in the clinic, volunteers fasted overnight and had breakfast 1 h after dosing on days 3–11 of cycle 3. On PK profiling days (day 12 of cycles 2 and 3), no breakfast was given, and lunch, snack, and dinner were served at approximately 4, 8, and 10 h, respectively, post dose.

The consumption of food and beverages containing caffeine, grapefruit juice, and quinine was not allowed within 24 h of screening, day 1 and days 11–13 of cycle 2, days 2–15 of cycle 3, and day 21 of cycles 1–3. Volunteers were also asked to refrain from alcohol consumption within 24 h of screening and from 24 h before check-in (day 3 of cycle 3) up to the end of the experimental parts of the study.

Pharmacodynamic assessment

Successful ovulation suppression was defined as a serum progesterone concentration of <5.1 nm on day 21 of cycle 2, when volunteers received OC alone, and on day 21 of cycle 3, when they received concomitant lacosamide 400 mg/day and OC. Unfrozen blood samples (1.1 ml) were sent to the analytical laboratory (Gesellschaft mbH für Labortechnologie in Wissenschaft und Technik, Berlin, Germany), and progesterone levels were measured by radioimmunoassay as soon as possible. Frozen aliquots were stored after analysis.

Pharmacokinetic assessment

For the PK analyses, at least 9 ml (ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel assessment) or 4.9 ml (lacosamide assessment) of blood was collected into glass lithium heparin tubes at each sample collection time point. Within 30 min, the samples were centrifuged (~1,500 g) for 10 min at 4°C. Plasma was separated and transferred into two glass tubes and stored at −20°C or less until assayed at the bioanalytical lab (NUVISAN, Neu-Ulm, Germany). Ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) with a lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 10 pg/ml and 0.25 ng/ml, respectively. Lacosamide was analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and the LLOQ was 0.1 μg/ml.

Ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel

Plasma concentration-time curves for ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel (24 h) were assessed on day 12 of cycle 2. On day 12, blood sampling for measuring the PK parameters was performed before, and at the following intervals after OC dosing: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 h. Predose samples were also taken on days 1 (blank) and 21. During cycle 3, blood samples were obtained on days 1 (predose blank sample), 12, and 21 (predose). On day 12, blood samples were collected predose, and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 h after OC dosing.

The PK parameters derived from the individual concentration-time curves of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel (24-h profiles on day 12 in cycles 2 and 3) included the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve at steady state during a dosing interval (AUC0-24 h,ss), calculated using the log/linear trapezoidal method, the maximum steady-state plasma drug concentration (Cmax,ss), and tmax,ss, the time to reach Cmax,ss.

Lacosamide

Plasma concentration-time curves for lacosamide (72 h) were assessed beginning on day 12 of cycle 3. On day 12, blood samples were obtained predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h postdose. Predose samples were also obtained on day 3 (blank) and before the morning dose of lacosamide on a selected day between days 9 and 11. PK parameters derived from the individual concentration-time curves of lacosamide (72-h profiles beginning on day 12 of cycle 3) included AUC0-12 h,ss, Cmax,ss, and tmax,ss.

Tolerability and safety

Volunteers were monitored for AEs during the entire trial. AEs were graded by degree of seriousness and intensity, estimated for causality, and assessed for outcome. Clinical laboratory parameters (including hematology, biochemistry, and urinalysis), vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, body temperature), and 12-lead ECG recordings were assessed at the eligibility visit, day 1 (predose OC) and day 21 of cycle 2, day 3 (predose lacosamide) and day 13 of cycle 3, and at follow-up (day 22 of cycle 3).

Statistical evaluation

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS Version 6.12 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, U.S.A.). Only data for volunteers who entered cycle 2 were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used for continuous variables. Ovulation suppression was analyzed as a categorical variable, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of volunteers with successful suppression of ovulation were calculated separately for cycles 2 and 3 according to Clopper & Pearson (1934). Progesterone concentrations were summarized by descriptive statistics and 90% CIs for differences between cycles 2 and 3.

PK data were summarized with descriptive statistics. Noncompartmental PK parameters were derived from the individual concentration-time curves of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel (24-h profiles of day 12 in cycles 2 and 3). For lacosamide, noncompartmental PK parameters were derived from the 72-h profile, beginning predose on day 12 in cycle 3. Unless otherwise stated, all values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Safety variables were summarized for all volunteers who entered cycle 2. AEs were summarized by cycle and stratified by AEs starting prior to and those starting or worsening after first lacosamide dose administered concomitantly with OC.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References

Study participants

Of the 40 volunteers enrolled, 37 completed cycle 1, 32 completed cycle 2, and 31 completed the trial as scheduled; nine volunteers withdrew. Of the nine women who withdrew, three had no ovulation during cycle 1, 2 withdrew their consent, two were noncompliant, and two withdrew due to AEs. Volunteers who entered cycle 2 (n = 37) had a mean (SD) age of 30.5 (5.3) years, and a height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) of 169.5 (6.5) cm, 63.65 (7.26) kg, and 22.12 (1.83) kg/m2, respectively.

Primary outcome (pharmacodynamics)

The primary objective of this trial was to ascertain the effect of lacosamide on the suppression of ovulation by the OC as assessed by measuring progesterone serum concentration. In the 31 volunteers who completed the trial according to protocol, serum progesterone concentration on day 21 ranged from 0.2 to 2.3 nm in both cycle 2 (OC alone) and cycle 3 (lacosamide plus OC) (Table 1). Because serum progesterone level remained <5.1 nm on both test dates, the predefined criterion for successful suppression of ovulation was considered to have been met. Although there was a slight increase of 0.21 nm in mean serum progesterone level from cycle 2 (OC alone) to cycle 3 (lacosamide plus OC) (Table 1), the maximum level was the same for each cycle (2.3 nm) and still well below 5.1 nm, indicating that lacosamide did not alter the PD effect of the OCs. Serum progesterone levels in cycle 1 (no medication) confirmed normal ovulation prior to the administration of OCs (Table 1).

Table 1. Progesterone levels by cycle in volunteers who completed all three cycles (n = 31)
 P4 levels in serum (nm) on day 21ΔP4 cycles 2 and 3 (nm)
Cycle 1 No medicationCycle 2 OC aloneCycle 3 LCM plus OC
  1. LCM, lacosamide; P4, progesterone; OC, oral contraceptive (0.03 mg ethinylestradiol plus 0.15 mg levonorgestrel).

Mean ± SD35.81 ± 13.090.93 ± 0.581.14 ± 0.550.21 ± 0.68
90% CI31.00–40.600.71–1.140.93–1.330.00–0.41
Minimum5.50.20.2−1.3
Maximum57.02.32.31.6
Median38.780.921.180.13

Pharmacokinetic outcomes

The PK profile of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel in cycle 2 was evaluated in the 36 volunteers who took the OCs from day 1 to day 21. In cycle 3, 31 volunteers took the OCs from day 1 to day 21 and contributed data for the PK analyses of the OC components and lacosamide. The 24-h plasma concentration-time curves for ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel on day 12 of cycle 2 (OC alone) and cycle 3 (lacosamide plus OC) were similar with or without the presence of lacosamide (Fig. 2). The PK parameters of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel were similar in cycles 2 and 3 (Table 2), with a slight increase in AUC0-24 h,ss and Cmax,ss for both OC components during co-administration of lacosamide compared with treatment with OC alone. All differences and their 90% confidence intervals were within the conventional bioequivalence range (80–125%), except for Cmax,ss of ethinylestradiol, where the upper limit of the CI was slightly above 125%.

Table 2. Pharmacokinetic parameters of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel on day 12 of cycle 2 (alone) and cycle 3 (with lacosamide), and lacosamide on day 12 of cycle 3 (with ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel)
Pharmacokinetic parameterCycle 2 (n = 36)Cycle 3 (n = 31)Ratio cycle 3/cycle 2 Point estimatea (90% CI)
  1. NP, comparison not performed. Data presented for Cycle 2 and 3 are mean ± SD

  2. a

    Degrees of Freedom = 30.

Ethinylestradiol   
AUC0-24 h,ss (pg h/ml)1,067 ± 4041,173 ± 3301.113 (1.052–1.117)
Cmax,ss (pg/ml)116.9 ± 48.8135.7 ± 28.61.205 (1.106–1.312)
tmax,ss (h)1.5 ± 0.61.4 ± 0.7NP
Levonorgestrel   
AUC0-24 h,ss (ng h/ml)74.2 ± 21.480.9 ± 18.51.092 (1.046–1.140)
Cmax,ss (ng/ml)6.7 ± 1.97.4 ± 1.51.120 (1.053–1.192)
tmax,ss (h)1.5 ± 1.01.1 ± 0.6NP
Lacosamide   
AUC0-12 h,ss (μg h/ml)113.5 ± 20.7
Cmax,ss (μg/ml)13.8 ± 2.2
tmax,ss (h)1.1 ± 0.4
t1/2 (h)15.3 ± 2.0
Clf (L/h)1.8 ± 0.3
Vz/f39.4 ± 5.1
image

Figure 2. Mean plasma concentration of ethinylestradiol (A) and levonorgestrel (B) with and without coadministration of lacosamide. Results include all volunteers who completed cycle 3 (n = 31).

Download figure to PowerPoint

The PK characteristics of lacosamide when taken concurrently with the OCs (Table 2) were consistent with the known PK profile of lacosamide alone (Horstmann et al., 2002; Hovinga, 2003; Bialer et al., 2007; Cawello et al., 2010).

Safety outcomes

During coadministration of OCs and lacosamide, no serious AEs were observed. Of the 40 enrolled participants, 37 reported 288 AEs. Two of the nine volunteers who withdrew from the study, did so as a result of AEs—1 due to fever and infection in cycle 1, and one due to an elevated eosinophil count on day 1 of cycle 2 before coadministration of lacosamide. Of the 288 events 228 (79%) were mild and 59 (20.5%) events were of moderate intensity. Only one event (acute bronchitis) experienced by one volunteer on day 6 of cycle 2 was considered by the investigator as severe.

During cycle 3, in the time interval when the OC and lacosamide were coadministered, an increase in the frequency of skin- and central nervous system (CNS)–related AEs was observed compared with cycle 2 when the OC was administered alone. Skin-related AEs included erythema, exanthema, itching, pruritus, pustular rash, rosacea, and dry skin. The most frequent CNS-related AEs judged as probably related to lacosamide were paresthesia of the mouth (13), tiredness (8), and dizziness (7). Three women reported ongoing AEs at follow-up: one with paraesthesia, tinnitus, impaired writing and hematoma; one with eosinophilia; and one with headache dizziness and ear pain. With the exception of the one volunteer with eosinophilia (reported as an AE in cycle 2, OC alone) there were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, ECG studies, vital signs, or physical examination.

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References

In this open-label trial in healthy females, lacosamide 400 mg/day did not affect ovulation suppression by an OC (ethinylestradiol plus levonorgestrel) as confirmed by serum progesterone levels. In each of the 31 women who completed the trial, serum progesterone concentration did not exceed 5.1 nm on day 21 of cycle 3 (lacosamide plus OC), the criterion for successful ovulation suppression. Although there was a slight increase in serum progesterone levels when lacosamide was coadministered with the OC, the upper limit of the 90% CI remained well below the 5.1 nm threshold.

The PK parameters of the OC components measured with and without lacosamide coadministration were almost all within the bioequivalence range, indicating that lacosamide did not significantly affect the PK profile of the OC. There was a tendency for increased AUC0-24,ss and Cmax,ss for both ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel during lacosamide coadministration; however, with the exception of the point estimate and 90% CIs for ethinylestradiol for Cmax,ss (1.205, 1.106–1.312), the remaining point estimates and 90% CIs for the AUC0-24,ss and Cmax,ss ratios for ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel were entirely contained within the acceptance range of 80–125%. The increase in ethinylestradiol Cmax,ss is not considered clinically relevant.

The PK characteristics of lacosamide when taken concurrently with the OC (AUC of 113.5 ± 20.7 μg h/ml, Cmax of 13.8 ± 2.2 μg/ml, tmax of 1.1 ± 0.4 h, t½ of 15.3 ± 2.0) were consistent with those reported earlier for lacosamide alone (with adaptation for the ~30% difference in body weight): AUC of 79.7 ± 13.4 and 82.7 ± 13.9 μg h/ml, Cmax of 9.1 ± 1.6 μg/ml, tmax of 2.4 ± 1.0, and 0.5 (0.5–1.0) h (Cawello et al., 2010; Cawello & Bonn, 2012), and t½ of approximately 13 h (Horstmann et al., 2002; Hovinga, 2003; Bialer et al., 2007), indicating that the OC did not alter the PK profile of lacosamide. These results suggest that concomitant administration of lacosamide and OCs will not affect the anticonvulsant properties of lacosamide.

No serious AEs occurred during this trial. A greater number of AEs—including skin-related reactions, tiredness, dizziness, and paresthesia of the mouth—were reported during coadministration of lacosamide and the OC compared with treatment with the OC alone; however, these were mild or moderate in intensity and none led to study withdrawal. No clinically relevant changes in clinical laboratory values, cardiovascular, or ECG parameters were observed during coadministration of lacosamide and the OCs.

The limitation of this trial is that only the PK and PD interactions of lacosamide with the ethinylestradiol plus levonorgestrel combination OC were evaluated. Therefore, the extent to which the results are applicable to women with epilepsy who may be using different OCs or may be taking additional concomitant AEDs is not known.

In conclusion, coadministration of the ethinylestradiol plus levonorgestrel combination OC with lacosamide was generally well tolerated and did not appear to result in clinically meaningful PD or PK interactions. These results suggest that the ethinylestradiol plus levonorgestrel combination OCs can be used in patients receiving lacosamide without the risk of contraceptive failure or loss of seizure control.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References

This study was funded by UCB Pharma. The cooperation and contribution made by the volunteers and their families is gratefully recognized. The clinical study, as well the statistical analysis, was performed by PAREXEL International GmbH, Berlin, Germany. Laboratory services were provided by Dr. H. Tabel and Dr. T. Wurche, Gesellschaft mbH für Labortechnologie in Wissenschaft und Technik, Berlin, Germany, and measurements of drug concentrations in plasma were performed by NUVISAN GmbH, Neu-Ulm, Germany. Merrilee Johnstone, PhD, from Prescott Medical Communications Group (Chicago, IL) as well as Azita Tofighy, PhD, from UCB Pharma (Brussels, Belgium) provided writing assistance.

Disclosure

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References

Willi Cawello is an employee of UCB Pharma, Monheim, Germany. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest. We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgments
  7. Disclosure
  8. References