品牌拉科沙胺与非专利拉科沙胺治疗癫痫的疗效和安全性:一项回顾性现实世界研究。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Giuseppe Salafica, Diana Tilenni, Attilio Vinaccia, Giovanni Tripepi, Chiara Martellino, Salvatore Maria Lima, Giorgia Atanasio, Fabio Lamanna, Orazio Pardeo, Mariangela Panebianco, Angelina Laganà, Angelo Labate
{"title":"品牌拉科沙胺与非专利拉科沙胺治疗癫痫的疗效和安全性:一项回顾性现实世界研究。","authors":"Giuseppe Salafica, Diana Tilenni, Attilio Vinaccia, Giovanni Tripepi, Chiara Martellino, Salvatore Maria Lima, Giorgia Atanasio, Fabio Lamanna, Orazio Pardeo, Mariangela Panebianco, Angelina Laganà, Angelo Labate","doi":"10.1007/s10072-025-08563-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Lacosamide (LCS) is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) approved for focal-onset seizures and generalized epilepsy. Although the branded formulation, Vimpat<sup>®</sup>, has shown efficacy and safety, the introduction of generic versions, such as Stutan<sup>®</sup>, raises concerns about clinical equivalence, especially considering the potential for therapeutic fluctuations that could result in breakthrough seizures or adverse events. This study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy, safety and tolerability of branded lacosamide (Vimpat<sup>®</sup>) versus its generic counterpart (Stutan<sup>®</sup>) in patients with focal or generalized epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted at two epilepsy centers in Southern Italy. Sixty adult patients were included and divided into two groups: Group A (n = 30) received branded LCS and Group B (n = 30) received the generic formulation. Data were collected at treatment initiation (T0) and the first follow-up (T1), including seizure frequency, adverse events and dose adjustments. The primary outcome was the responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency), with secondary outcomes including seizure freedom, adverse events and dose changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The average daily LCS dose was significantly higher in the Vimpat<sup>®</sup> group (275 ± 121 mg) compared to the Stutan<sup>®</sup> group (168 ± 89 mg, p < 0.001). Despite this, efficacy outcomes were comparable, with 60.0% of patients in Group A and 43.3% in Group B achieving a ≥ 50% seizure reduction (p = 0.08). Adverse events were mild or moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this real-world setting, generic LCS (Stutan<sup>®</sup>) demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability to Vimpat<sup>®</sup>, supporting its clinical use as a valid alternative in epilepsy management.</p>","PeriodicalId":19191,"journal":{"name":"Neurological Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of branded vs generic lacosamide in epilepsy: a retrospective real-world study.\",\"authors\":\"Giuseppe Salafica, Diana Tilenni, Attilio Vinaccia, Giovanni Tripepi, Chiara Martellino, Salvatore Maria Lima, Giorgia Atanasio, Fabio Lamanna, Orazio Pardeo, Mariangela Panebianco, Angelina Laganà, Angelo Labate\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10072-025-08563-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Lacosamide (LCS) is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) approved for focal-onset seizures and generalized epilepsy. Although the branded formulation, Vimpat<sup>®</sup>, has shown efficacy and safety, the introduction of generic versions, such as Stutan<sup>®</sup>, raises concerns about clinical equivalence, especially considering the potential for therapeutic fluctuations that could result in breakthrough seizures or adverse events. This study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy, safety and tolerability of branded lacosamide (Vimpat<sup>®</sup>) versus its generic counterpart (Stutan<sup>®</sup>) in patients with focal or generalized epilepsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted at two epilepsy centers in Southern Italy. Sixty adult patients were included and divided into two groups: Group A (n = 30) received branded LCS and Group B (n = 30) received the generic formulation. Data were collected at treatment initiation (T0) and the first follow-up (T1), including seizure frequency, adverse events and dose adjustments. The primary outcome was the responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency), with secondary outcomes including seizure freedom, adverse events and dose changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The average daily LCS dose was significantly higher in the Vimpat<sup>®</sup> group (275 ± 121 mg) compared to the Stutan<sup>®</sup> group (168 ± 89 mg, p < 0.001). Despite this, efficacy outcomes were comparable, with 60.0% of patients in Group A and 43.3% in Group B achieving a ≥ 50% seizure reduction (p = 0.08). Adverse events were mild or moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this real-world setting, generic LCS (Stutan<sup>®</sup>) demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability to Vimpat<sup>®</sup>, supporting its clinical use as a valid alternative in epilepsy management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurological Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-025-08563-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-025-08563-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:拉科沙胺(Lacosamide, LCS)是第三代抗癫痫药物(ASM),被批准用于局灶性癫痫发作和全面性癫痫。尽管品牌制剂Vimpat®已显示出有效性和安全性,但引入仿制药版本,如Stutan®,引起了对临床等效性的担忧,特别是考虑到可能导致突破性癫痫发作或不良事件的治疗波动的可能性。本研究旨在比较品牌拉科沙胺(Vimpat®)与仿制药(Stutan®)在局局性或全身性癫痫患者中的实际疗效、安全性和耐受性。方法:在意大利南部的两个癫痫中心进行了一项多中心、回顾性、观察性研究。纳入60例成人患者,分为两组:A组(n = 30)接受品牌LCS治疗,B组(n = 30)接受仿制制剂治疗。在治疗开始(T0)和第一次随访(T1)收集数据,包括癫痫发作频率、不良事件和剂量调整。主要结局是应答率(癫痫发作频率降低≥50%),次要结局包括癫痫发作自由、不良事件和剂量变化。结果:两组间基线特征相似。Vimpat®组的平均每日LCS剂量(275±121 mg)显著高于Stutan®组(168±89 mg)。结论:在现实世界中,仿制药LCS (Stutan®)表现出与Vimpat®相当的疗效、安全性和耐受性,支持其作为癫痫治疗的有效替代药物的临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of branded vs generic lacosamide in epilepsy: a retrospective real-world study.

Purpose: Lacosamide (LCS) is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) approved for focal-onset seizures and generalized epilepsy. Although the branded formulation, Vimpat®, has shown efficacy and safety, the introduction of generic versions, such as Stutan®, raises concerns about clinical equivalence, especially considering the potential for therapeutic fluctuations that could result in breakthrough seizures or adverse events. This study aimed to compare the real-world efficacy, safety and tolerability of branded lacosamide (Vimpat®) versus its generic counterpart (Stutan®) in patients with focal or generalized epilepsy.

Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted at two epilepsy centers in Southern Italy. Sixty adult patients were included and divided into two groups: Group A (n = 30) received branded LCS and Group B (n = 30) received the generic formulation. Data were collected at treatment initiation (T0) and the first follow-up (T1), including seizure frequency, adverse events and dose adjustments. The primary outcome was the responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency), with secondary outcomes including seizure freedom, adverse events and dose changes.

Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The average daily LCS dose was significantly higher in the Vimpat® group (275 ± 121 mg) compared to the Stutan® group (168 ± 89 mg, p < 0.001). Despite this, efficacy outcomes were comparable, with 60.0% of patients in Group A and 43.3% in Group B achieving a ≥ 50% seizure reduction (p = 0.08). Adverse events were mild or moderate.

Conclusions: In this real-world setting, generic LCS (Stutan®) demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability to Vimpat®, supporting its clinical use as a valid alternative in epilepsy management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurological Sciences
Neurological Sciences 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
743
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Neurological Sciences is intended to provide a medium for the communication of results and ideas in the field of neuroscience. The journal welcomes contributions in both the basic and clinical aspects of the neurosciences. The official language of the journal is English. Reports are published in the form of original articles, short communications, editorials, reviews and letters to the editor. Original articles present the results of experimental or clinical studies in the neurosciences, while short communications are succinct reports permitting the rapid publication of novel results. Original contributions may be submitted for the special sections History of Neurology, Health Care and Neurological Digressions - a forum for cultural topics related to the neurosciences. The journal also publishes correspondence book reviews, meeting reports and announcements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信