Purpose To assess eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as monotherapy in everyday clinical practice.

Method Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European studies. In a subanalysis, data were compared for patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy, and for patients treated at last visit with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy.

Assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), seizure freedom rate (seizure freedom at least since prior visit) and incidence of adverse events (AEs).

Results ESL was used as monotherapy in 88/2045 and 229/1340 patients initially and at last visit, respectively. At 12 months, responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy (responder: 94.1% versus 74.8%; seizure freedom: 88.2% versus 39.0%), and in patients treated at last visit with ESL monotherapy versus adjunctive therapy (responder: 93.2% versus 70.4%; seizure freedom: 77.4% versus 25.9%). Overall incidence of AEs was similar in patients treated initially with ESL monotherapy and adjunctive therapy (29.4% versus 34.4%), and in patients treated at last visit with ESL monotherapy and adjunctive therapy (27.1% versus 30.8%).

Conclusion ESL was significantly more effective when used as monotherapy compared with adjunctive therapy; safety/tolerability was generally comparable.

Supported by Eisai