ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00220337Updated Jul 24, 2023Results posted

A Trial to Assess the Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Lacosamide in Subjects With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

A Phase 3 interventional study of Lacosamide in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy, sponsored by UCB Pharma. Completed at 1 site in Germany. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-07-24.

Sponsored by UCB Pharma (part of UCB S.A.) · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
371
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if lacosamide (SPM 927) is safe if taken for a longer period of time and whether it continues to work well to treat pain.

Subjects will receive lacosamide at a dose that will be individually determined to be the one that provides most pain relief with the least side effects. The maximum dose will be 600mg/day. Subjects may participate in this trial until October 2007. This time may be extended to allow them to participate until lacosamide is commercially available.

If a subject meet the requirements for the study at Visit 1 and after a two weeks phase without trial medication, s/he enters a Titration Phase to determine the personal optimal dose of lacosamide. When this dose is reached s/he will enter the Maintenance Phase and will be asked to return for visits every 4 weeks for the first 24 weeks and every 12 weeks thereafter.

02

Conditions studied

  • Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Painful diabetic neuropathy
  • Lacosamide
03

In context

Diabetic Neuropathies

629 studies on the registry are indexed under Diabetic Neuropathies; 92 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 371 is above the median of 72 across 522 interventional studies indexed under Diabetic Neuropathies.

Browse Diabetic Neuropathies studies →

Lead sponsor

UCB Pharma is the lead sponsor of 242 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Painful diabetic neuropathy

Exclusion Criteria:

  • no clinically relevant liver enzyme abnormalities and impaired renal function, no cardiac abnormalities, no pregnant or nursing females

Exclusion Criteria:

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
371 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Lacosamide (LCM)

    Open label active treatment

    Drug: Lacosamide

Interventions

  • Lacosamide film-coated tablets; two times per day; up to 400 mg/day for 2.75 years

    Also known as: SPM 927

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Subjects With Adverse Events (AE) Reported Spontaneously by the Subject or Observed by the Investigator

    An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.

    Time frame: From Screening until Safety Follow up Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  2. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Hematology Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Titration Period

    Changes in hematology parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Hematocrit (\<=.85x Lower Limit Normal \[LLN\] or \>= 1.15x Upper Limit Normal \[ULN\] - Hemoglobin (\<=.85x LLN or \>=1.15x ULN) - White Blood Cell (WBC) Count (\<=3.0 or \>=16.0 G/l) - Basophils (\>=5.0%) - Eosinophils (\>=10%) - Monocytes (\>=20%) - Platelet Count (\<=100 or \>=600 G/l)

    Time frame: During the titration period (up to Week 8)

  3. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Hematology Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Maintenance Period

    Changes in hematology parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Hematocrit (\<=.85x Lower Limit Normal \[LLN\] or \>= 1.15x Upper Limit Normal \[ULN\] - Hemoglobin (\<=.85x LLN or \>=1.15x ULN) - White Blood Cell (WBC) Count (\<=3.0 or \>=16.0 G/l) - Basophils (\>=5.0%) - Eosinophils (\>=10%) - Monocytes (\>=20%) - Platelet Count (\<=100 or \>=600 G/l)

    Time frame: During the maintenance period (up to 136 weeks)

  4. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities Clinical Chemistry Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Titration Period

    Changes in clinical chemistry parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 3x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 5x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase \[(ALT\] 10x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 3x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 5x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 10x ULN) - Alkaline Phosphatase (3x ULN) - Gamma-glutamyltransferase (\[GGT\] 3x ULN) - Total Bilirubin (2x ULN) - Albumin (\<26 g/l) - Blood Urea Nitrogen (\>=14.28 mmol/l) - Creatinine (\>=2.0 mg/dl) - Calcium (\<=7.6 or \>=11.0 mg/dl) - Chloride (\<=90 or \>=112 mmol/l) - Phosphorus (\<=2.0 or \>=6.0 mg/dl) - Potassium (\<=3.0 or \>=6.0 mmol/l) - Sodium (\<127 or \>151 mmol/l) - Glucose (\<50 or \>=200 mg/dl) - Total Cholesterol (\>6.5 mmol/l) - Uric Acid (\>565.06 umol/l)

    Time frame: During the titration period (up to Week 8)

  5. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities Clinical Chemistry Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Maintenance Period

    Changes in clinical chemistry parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 3x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 5x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase \[(ALT\] 10x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 3x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 5x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 10x ULN) - Alkaline Phosphatase (3x ULN) - Gamma-glutamyltransferase (\[GGT\] 3x ULN) - Total Bilirubin (2x ULN) - Albumin (\<26 g/l) - Blood Urea Nitrogen (\>=14.28 mmol/l) - Creatinine (\>=2.0 mg/dl) - Calcium (\<=7.6 or \>=11.0 mg/dl) - Chloride (\<=90 or \>=112 mmol/l) - Phosphorus (\<=2.0 or \>=6.0 mg/dl) - Potassium (\<=3.0 or \>=6.0 mmol/l) - Sodium (\<127 or \>151 mmol/l) - Glucose (\<50 or \>=200 mg/dl) - Total Cholesterol (\>6.5 mmol/l) - Uric Acid (\>565.06 umol/l)

    Time frame: During the maintenance period (up to 136 weeks)

  6. Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 5.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  7. Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 6.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  8. Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 6.5 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  9. Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 7.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  10. Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 7.5 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  11. Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 8.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  12. Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  13. Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  14. Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  15. Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  16. Number of Subjects With Urine Nitrite Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Nitrite Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive, not done (data not available). Positive category indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  17. Number of Subjects With Urine Nitrite Status 'Positive' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Nitrite Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive, not done (data not available). Positive category indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  18. Number of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 3 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: 3 µmol/l, 16 µmol/l, 33 µmol/l, 66 µmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  19. Number of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 16 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: 3 µmol/l, 16 µmol/l, 33 µmol/l, 66 µmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  20. Number of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 66 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: 3 µmol/l, 16 µmol/l, 33 µmol/l, 66 µmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  21. Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  22. Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  23. Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  24. Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  25. Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  26. Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Trace (N)' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  27. Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Trace (H)' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  28. Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  29. Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  30. Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  31. Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  32. Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Small' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  33. Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Moderate' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  34. Number of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive +, positive ++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  35. Number of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive +, positive ++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  36. Number of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive +, positive ++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  37. Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  38. Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 5.5 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  39. Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 14 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  40. Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 28 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  41. Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 55 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  42. Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value >=111 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

    Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

    Time frame: Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  43. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Vital Signs After Start of Treatment

    Changes in vital signs examination findings is reported as percentage of subjects with marked abnormalities in - Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) \>=180 mmHg and increase of \>=20 mmHg - Systolic Blood Pressure \>=90 mmHg and decrease of \>=20 mmHg - Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) \>=105 mmHg and increase of \>=15 mmHg - Diastolic Blood Pressure \>=50 mmHg and decrease of \>=15 mmHg - Pulse Rate (PR) \>=120 beats/min and increase of \>=15 beats/min - Pulse Rate \>=50 beats/min and decrease of \>=15 beats/min

    Time frame: During study period (up to 140 weeks)

  44. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Physical Examination Findings After Start of Treatment.

    Changes in physical examination findings is reported as percentage of subjects with marked abnormalities in following categories: - Ears, Eyes, Nose, Mouth, Throat - Cardiovascular - Peripheral vascular - Pulmonary - Musculoskeletal - Hepato- / Gastrointestinal - Renal / Genitourological - Neurological - Metabolic / Endocrine - Psychiatric - Hematological / Lymphatic Nodes - Dermatological - Other The percentages are based on the number of subjects with examinations done at each visit for each body system.

    Time frame: Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  45. Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Neurological Examination Findings After Start of Treatment

    Changes in neurological examination findings is reported as percentage of subjects with marked abnormalities in following categories: - General - Cranial Nerves - Reflexes - Muscle Strength and Tone - Coordination and Cerebellar Function - Motor System - Sensation: Upper Extremities - Sensation: Lower Extremities The percentages are based on the number of subjects with examinations done at last visit for each category or parameter.

    Time frame: Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  46. Percentage of Subjects With Abnormal Electrocardiogram (ECG) Findings

    Changes in 12-lead ECGs is reported as percentage of subjects with abnormal ECG findings categorized in 'Abnormal, possibly insignificant' and 'Abnormal, possibly significant' based on the alert criterion by the ECG vendor and not on the investigator's assessment.

    Time frame: Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

  47. Percentage of Subjects Who Withdrew Due to Adverse Events (AEs)

    An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.

    Time frame: During the study period (up to 140 weeks)

  48. Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive +++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

    Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

    Time frame: Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in Average Pain Interference With Sleep From the Baseline Week to the 7 Days Prior to Each Visit

    Pain interference scores at each visit (sleep and activity respectively) were defined as the average of the respective daily interference scores during the 7 last available days prior to the corresponding visit. An 11-point Likert scale was used to assess the subject's sleep. The subject rated how the pain had interfered with sleep over the past 12 hours, from 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference). A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. Subjects rated pain interference over the past 12 hours for 7 days prior to each visit and an average value was calculated for each subject.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 2.1, Visit 2.2, Visit 2.4, Visit 2.5, Visit 3, Visit 4, Visit 5, Visit 6, Visit 7, Visit 8, Visit 9.0, Visit 9.1, Visit 9.2, Visit 9.3, Visit 9.4, Visit 9.5, Visit 9.6, Visit 9.7, Visit 9.8, Visit 9.9

  2. Change in Average Pain Interference With General Activity From the Baseline Week to the 7 Days Prior to Each Visit

    Pain interference scores at each visit (sleep and activity respectively) were defined as the average of the respective daily interference scores during the 7 last available days prior to the corresponding visit. An 11-point Likert scale was used to assess the subject's sleep. The subject rated how the pain had interfered with sleep over the past 12 hours, from 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference). A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. Subjects rated pain interference over the past 12 hours for 7 days prior to each visit and an average value was calculated for each subject.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 2.1, Visit 2.2, Visit 2.4, Visit 2.5, Visit 3, Visit 4, Visit 5, Visit 6, Visit 7, Visit 8, Visit 9.0, Visit 9.1, Visit 9.2, Visit 9.3, Visit 9.4, Visit 9.5, Visit 9.6, Visit 9.7, Visit 9.8, Visit 9.9

  3. Change in Current Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Each Subsequent Visit as Measured by a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

    A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the subject's current pain. The subject rated their current pain from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst possible pain). A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 2.1, Visit 2.2, Visit 2.4, Visit 2.5, Visit 3, Visit 4, Visit 5, Visit 6, Visit 7, Visit 8, Visit 9.0, Visit 9.1, Visit 9.2, Visit 9.3, Visit 9.4, Visit 9.5, Visit 9.6, Visit 9.7, Visit 9.8, Visit 9.9

  4. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 4

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 4

  5. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 6

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 6

  6. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.0

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.0

  7. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.1

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.1

  8. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.2

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.2

  9. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.3

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.3

  10. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.4

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.4

  11. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.5

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.5

  12. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.6

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.6

  13. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.7

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.7

  14. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.8

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Visit 9.8

  15. Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Termination Visit

    The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

    Time frame: Termination Visit (last treatment visit)

  16. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 4

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the Neuropathic Pain Symptoms Inventory (NPSI) at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 4

  17. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 6

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 6

  18. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.0

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.0

  19. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.1

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain), and are reported in categories below and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available. Total NPSI scale ranged from 0 (no pain) to 100 (maximum pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.1

  20. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.2

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.2

  21. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.3

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.3

  22. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.4

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.4

  23. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.5

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.5

  24. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.6

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.6

  25. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.7

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.7

  26. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.8

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.8

  27. Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Termination Visit

    Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Baseline, Termination Visit (last treatment visit)

  28. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 2 (Baseline)

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 2 (Baseline)

  29. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 4

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 4

  30. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 6

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 6

  31. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.0

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.0

  32. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.1

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.1

  33. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.2

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.2

  34. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.3

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.3

  35. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.4

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.4

  36. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.5

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.5

  37. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.6

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.6

  38. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.7

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.7

  39. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.8

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.8

  40. Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Termination Visit

    Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Termination Visit (last treatment visit)

  41. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 2 (Baseline)

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 2 (Baseline)

  42. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 4

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 4

  43. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 6

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 6

  44. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.0

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.0

  45. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.1

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.1

  46. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.2

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.2

  47. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.3

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.3

  48. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.4

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.4

  49. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.5

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.5

  50. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.6

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.6

  51. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.7

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.7

  52. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.8

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Visit 9.8

  53. Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Termination Visit

    Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

    Time frame: Termination Visit (last treatment visit)

  54. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 4

    Quality of life was analyzed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the physical component Summary (PCS) score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the mental component summary (MCS) score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 4

  55. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 6

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 6

  56. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.0

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.0

  57. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.1

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.1

  58. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.2

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.2

  59. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.3

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.3

  60. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.4

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.4

  61. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.5

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.5

  62. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.6

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.6

  63. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.7

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.7

  64. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.8

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Visit 9.8

  65. Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Termination Visit

    Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

    Time frame: Baseline, Termination Visit (last treatment visit)

07

Results

Posted Jul 24, 2023

Participant flow

The study started to enroll patients in December 2004 and concluded in October 2007.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneLacosamide
Started371
Completed192
Not completed179
Withdrew: Adverse event70
Withdrew: Lack of efficacy17
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject68
Withdrew: Protocol violation2
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up5
Withdrew: Other12
Withdrew: Unsatisfactory compliance5

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Adverse Events (AE) Reported Spontaneously by the Subject or Observed by the Investigator

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.

Time frame:
From Screening until Safety Follow up Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Adverse Events (AE) Reported Spontaneously by the Subject or Observed by the Investigator
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Percentage of Subjects With Adverse Events (AE) Reported Spontaneously by the Subject or Observed by the Investigator80.9
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Hematology Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Titration Period

Changes in hematology parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Hematocrit (\<=.85x Lower Limit Normal \[LLN\] or \>= 1.15x Upper Limit Normal \[ULN\] - Hemoglobin (\<=.85x LLN or \>=1.15x ULN) - White Blood Cell (WBC) Count (\<=3.0 or \>=16.0 G/l) - Basophils (\>=5.0%) - Eosinophils (\>=10%) - Monocytes (\>=20%) - Platelet Count (\<=100 or \>=600 G/l)

Time frame:
During the titration period (up to Week 8)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Hematology Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Titration Period
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Hematocrit0.8
Hemoglobin0.5
White Blood Cell1.4
Basophils1.1
Eosinophils0
Monocytes0
Platelet Count1.1
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Hematology Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Maintenance Period

Changes in hematology parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Hematocrit (\<=.85x Lower Limit Normal \[LLN\] or \>= 1.15x Upper Limit Normal \[ULN\] - Hemoglobin (\<=.85x LLN or \>=1.15x ULN) - White Blood Cell (WBC) Count (\<=3.0 or \>=16.0 G/l) - Basophils (\>=5.0%) - Eosinophils (\>=10%) - Monocytes (\>=20%) - Platelet Count (\<=100 or \>=600 G/l)

Time frame:
During the maintenance period (up to 136 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Hematology Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Maintenance Period
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Hematocrit6.2
Hemoglobin5.5
WBC Count2.8
Basophils2.8
Eosinophils2.8
Monocytes0.3
Platelet Count4.4
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities Clinical Chemistry Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Titration Period

Changes in clinical chemistry parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 3x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 5x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase \[(ALT\] 10x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 3x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 5x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 10x ULN) - Alkaline Phosphatase (3x ULN) - Gamma-glutamyltransferase (\[GGT\] 3x ULN) - Total Bilirubin (2x ULN) - Albumin (\<26 g/l) - Blood Urea Nitrogen (\>=14.28 mmol/l) - Creatinine (\>=2.0 mg/dl) - Calcium (\<=7.6 or \>=11.0 mg/dl) - Chloride (\<=90 or \>=112 mmol/l) - Phosphorus (\<=2.0 or \>=6.0 mg/dl) - Potassium (\<=3.0 or \>=6.0 mmol/l) - Sodium (\<127 or \>151 mmol/l) - Glucose (\<50 or \>=200 mg/dl) - Total Cholesterol (\>6.5 mmol/l) - Uric Acid (\>565.06 umol/l)

Time frame:
During the titration period (up to Week 8)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities Clinical Chemistry Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Titration Period
percentage of participantsLacosamide
ALT 3xULN0.5
ALT 5xULN0
ALT 10xULN0
AST 3xULN0
AST 5xULN0
AST 10xULN0
Alkaline Phosphatase0
GGT 3xULN0.6
Total Bilirubin0.5
Albumin0
Blood Urea Nitrogen0.8
Creatinine0
Calcium1.7
Chloride0.3
Phosphorus1.4
Potassium0.3
Sodium0
Glucose40.6
Total Cholesterol3.2
Uric Acid1.1
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities Clinical Chemistry Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Maintenance Period

Changes in clinical chemistry parameters is reported as incidence of marked abnormalities in - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 3x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase (\[ALT\] 5x ULN) - Alanine aminotransferase \[(ALT\] 10x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 3x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 5x ULN) - Aspartate aminotransferase (\[AST\] 10x ULN) - Alkaline Phosphatase (3x ULN) - Gamma-glutamyltransferase (\[GGT\] 3x ULN) - Total Bilirubin (2x ULN) - Albumin (\<26 g/l) - Blood Urea Nitrogen (\>=14.28 mmol/l) - Creatinine (\>=2.0 mg/dl) - Calcium (\<=7.6 or \>=11.0 mg/dl) - Chloride (\<=90 or \>=112 mmol/l) - Phosphorus (\<=2.0 or \>=6.0 mg/dl) - Potassium (\<=3.0 or \>=6.0 mmol/l) - Sodium (\<127 or \>151 mmol/l) - Glucose (\<50 or \>=200 mg/dl) - Total Cholesterol (\>6.5 mmol/l) - Uric Acid (\>565.06 umol/l)

Time frame:
During the maintenance period (up to 136 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities Clinical Chemistry Parameters After Start of Treatment During the Maintenance Period
percentage of participantsLacosamide
ALT 3xULN0.6
ALT 5xULN0.3
ALT 10xULN0
AST 3xULN0
AST 5xULN0
AST 10xULN0
Alkaline Phosphatase0.3
GGT 3xULN4.7
Total Bilirubin0.3
Albumin0.3
Blood Urea Nitrogen2.1
Creatinine0.6
Calcium2.5
Chloride3.4
Phosphorus3.4
Potassium2.8
Sodium0
Glucose66.8
Total Cholesterol0.7
Uric Acid1.5
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine pH= 5.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 5.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
pH= 5.0194
pH= 6.035
pH= 6.52
pH= 7.03
pH= 7.51
pH= 8.00
pH= 8.50
not done4
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine pH= 6.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 6.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
pH= 5.052
pH= 6.031
pH= 6.54
pH= 7.02
pH= 7.51
pH= 8.01
pH= 8.50
not done2
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine pH= 6.5 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 6.5 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
pH= 5.010
pH= 6.07
pH= 6.55
pH= 7.00
pH= 7.50
pH= 8.01
pH= 8.50
not done1
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine pH= 7.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 7.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
pH= 5.04
pH= 6.03
pH= 6.51
pH= 7.00
pH= 7.50
pH= 8.00
pH= 8.50
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine pH= 7.5 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 7.5 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
pH= 5.03
pH= 6.00
pH= 6.53
pH= 7.00
pH= 7.50
pH= 8.00
pH= 8.50
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine pH= 8.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: pH= 5.0, pH= 6.0, pH= 6.5, pH= 7.0, pH= 7.5, pH= 8.0, pH= 8.5, not done (data not available). Baseline value taken at Visit 2 or at screening for parameters not collected at Visit 2. Last visit is the last post-baseline visit observed under exposure of trial medication, including unscheduled visits.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine pH= 8.0 at Baseline, Categorized by Urine pH at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
pH= 5.00
pH= 6.00
pH= 6.51
pH= 7.00
pH= 7.50
pH= 8.00
pH= 8.50
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
negative321
trace7
positive +3
positive ++5
positive +++1
not done7
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
negative13
trace1
positive +0
positive ++0
positive +++1
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
negative3
trace2
positive +0
positive ++1
positive +++0
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine White Blood Cell Count 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine White Blood Cell Count at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
negative3
trace0
positive +2
positive ++1
positive +++0
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Nitrite Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Nitrite Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive, not done (data not available). Positive category indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Nitrite Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Nitrite Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
negative353
positive5
not done7
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Nitrite Status 'Positive' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Nitrite Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive, not done (data not available). Positive category indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Nitrite Status 'Positive' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Nitrite Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
negative3
positive3
not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 3 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: 3 µmol/l, 16 µmol/l, 33 µmol/l, 66 µmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 3 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
3 µmol/l351
16 µmol/l3
33 µmol/l0
66 µmol/l0
Not done7
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 16 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: 3 µmol/l, 16 µmol/l, 33 µmol/l, 66 µmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 16 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
3 µmol/l7
16 µmol/l1
33 µmol/l1
66 µmol/l0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 66 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: 3 µmol/l, 16 µmol/l, 33 µmol/l, 66 µmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Urobilinogen Value 66 µmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Urobilinogen Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
3 µmol/l1
16 µmol/l0
33 µmol/l0
66 µmol/l0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive categories (+,++,+++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative292
Trace13
Positive +3
Positive ++1
Positive +++2
Not done6
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative27
Trace7
Positive +4
Positive ++0
Positive +++0
Not done1
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative3
Trace1
Positive +1
Positive ++2
Positive +++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative2
Trace0
Positive +3
Positive ++0
Positive +++1
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative319
Trace (N)7
Trace (H)1
Positive +3
Positive ++4
Positive +++4
Not done7
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Trace (N)' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Trace (N)' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative14
Trace (N)2
Trace (H)0
Positive +1
Positive ++0
Positive +++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Trace (H)' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Trace (H)' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative4
Trace (N)2
Trace (H)0
Positive +0
Positive ++0
Positive +++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative1
Trace (N)0
Trace (H)0
Positive +0
Positive ++0
Positive +++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace (H), positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Blood Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Blood Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative1
Trace (N)1
Trace (H)0
Positive +0
Positive ++0
Positive +++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative328
Trace8
Small1
Moderate0
Not done7
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Trace' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative19
Trace0
Small2
Moderate0
Not Done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Small' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Small' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative2
Trace2
Small0
Moderate0
Not Done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Moderate' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace (N), trace, small, moderate, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Ketone Status 'Moderate' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Ketone Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative2
Trace0
Small0
Moderate0
Not Done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive +, positive ++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative351
Positive +2
Positive ++0
Not done7
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive +, positive ++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Positive +' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative8
Positive +0
Positive ++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, positive +, positive ++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Bilirubin Status 'Positive ++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Bilirubin Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative3
Positive +0
Positive ++0
Not done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 'Negative' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative194
5.5 mmol/l30
14 mmol/l16
28 mmol/l12
55 mmol/l4
>=111 mmol6
Not Done4
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 5.5 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 5.5 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative18
5.5 mmol/l15
14 mmol/l2
28 mmol/l1
55 mmol/l0
>=111 mmol0
Not Done1
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 14 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 14 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative6
5.5 mmol/l8
14 mmol/l0
28 mmol/l1
55 mmol/l2
>=111 mmol0
Not Done1
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 28 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 28 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative10
5.5 mmol/l3
14 mmol/l3
28 mmol/l3
55 mmol/l0
>=111 mmol1
Not Done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 55 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value 55 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative5
5.5 mmol/l5
14 mmol/l1
28 mmol/l3
55 mmol/l1
>=111 mmol4
Not Done0
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value >=111 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit

Categories are as following: negative, 5.5 mmol/l, 14 mmol/l, 28 mmol/l, 55 mmol/l, \>= 111 mmol/l, not done (data not available).

Time frame:
Baseline, Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Glucose Value >=111 mmol/l at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Glucose Value at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative3
5.5 mmol/l2
14 mmol/l0
28 mmol/l2
55 mmol/l2
>=111 mmol1
Not Done1
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Vital Signs After Start of Treatment

Changes in vital signs examination findings is reported as percentage of subjects with marked abnormalities in - Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) \>=180 mmHg and increase of \>=20 mmHg - Systolic Blood Pressure \>=90 mmHg and decrease of \>=20 mmHg - Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) \>=105 mmHg and increase of \>=15 mmHg - Diastolic Blood Pressure \>=50 mmHg and decrease of \>=15 mmHg - Pulse Rate (PR) \>=120 beats/min and increase of \>=15 beats/min - Pulse Rate \>=50 beats/min and decrease of \>=15 beats/min

Time frame:
During study period (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Vital Signs After Start of Treatment
percentage of participantsLacosamide
SBP >=180 and increase of >=20 mmHg7.5
SBP <=90 and decrease of >=20 mmHg0.3
DBP >=105 and increase of >=15 mmHg3.5
DBP <=50 and decrease of >=15 mmHg0.8
PR >=120 and increase of >=15 beats/min0.3
PR <=50 and decrease of >=15 beats/min0.8
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Physical Examination Findings After Start of Treatment.

Changes in physical examination findings is reported as percentage of subjects with marked abnormalities in following categories: - Ears, Eyes, Nose, Mouth, Throat - Cardiovascular - Peripheral vascular - Pulmonary - Musculoskeletal - Hepato- / Gastrointestinal - Renal / Genitourological - Neurological - Metabolic / Endocrine - Psychiatric - Hematological / Lymphatic Nodes - Dermatological - Other The percentages are based on the number of subjects with examinations done at each visit for each body system.

Time frame:
Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Physical Examination Findings After Start of Treatment.
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Ears, Eyes, Nose, Mouth, Throat12.2
Cardiovascular15.2
Peripheral vascular14.2
Pulmonary2.1
Musculoskeletal13.3
Hepato- / Gastrointestinal5.2
Renal / Genitourological1.3
Neurological49.5
Metabolic / Endocrine19.5
Psychiatric1.5
Hematological / Lymphatic Nodes0.6
Dermatological16.7
Other93.3
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Neurological Examination Findings After Start of Treatment

Changes in neurological examination findings is reported as percentage of subjects with marked abnormalities in following categories: - General - Cranial Nerves - Reflexes - Muscle Strength and Tone - Coordination and Cerebellar Function - Motor System - Sensation: Upper Extremities - Sensation: Lower Extremities The percentages are based on the number of subjects with examinations done at last visit for each category or parameter.

Time frame:
Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Marked Abnormalities in Neurological Examination Findings After Start of Treatment
percentage of participantsLacosamide
General3.6
Cranial Nerves13.4
Reflexes69.9
Muscle Strength and Tone13.4
Coordination and Cerebellar Function7.0
Motor System3.7
Sensation: Upper Extremities21.1
Sensation: Lower Extremities87.5
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects With Abnormal Electrocardiogram (ECG) Findings

Changes in 12-lead ECGs is reported as percentage of subjects with abnormal ECG findings categorized in 'Abnormal, possibly insignificant' and 'Abnormal, possibly significant' based on the alert criterion by the ECG vendor and not on the investigator's assessment.

Time frame:
Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Abnormal Electrocardiogram (ECG) Findings
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Abnormal, possibly insignificant4.7
Abnormal, possibly significant18.0
PrimaryPercentage of Subjects Who Withdrew Due to Adverse Events (AEs)

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.

Time frame:
During the study period (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects Who Withdrew Due to Adverse Events (AEs)
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Percentage of Subjects Who Withdrew Due to Adverse Events (AEs)16.4
SecondaryChange in Average Pain Interference With Sleep From the Baseline Week to the 7 Days Prior to Each Visit

Pain interference scores at each visit (sleep and activity respectively) were defined as the average of the respective daily interference scores during the 7 last available days prior to the corresponding visit. An 11-point Likert scale was used to assess the subject's sleep. The subject rated how the pain had interfered with sleep over the past 12 hours, from 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference). A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. Subjects rated pain interference over the past 12 hours for 7 days prior to each visit and an average value was calculated for each subject.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 2.1, Visit 2.2, Visit 2.4, Visit 2.5, Visit 3, Visit 4, Visit 5, Visit 6, Visit 7, Visit 8, Visit 9.0, Visit 9.1, Visit 9.2, Visit 9.3, Visit 9.4, Visit 9.5, Visit 9.6, Visit 9.7, Visit 9.8, Visit 9.9
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Average Pain Interference With Sleep From the Baseline Week to the 7 Days Prior to Each Visit
units on a scaleLacosamide
Visit 2.1-0.99 ± 1.614
Visit 2.2-1.35 ± 1.939
Visit 2.3-1.77 ± 1.916
Visit 2.4-1.25 ± 1.218
Visit 2.5-1.38 ± 1.003
Visit 3-2.62 ± 2.166
Visit 4-3.05 ± 2.313
Visit 5-3.29 ± 2.311
Visit 6-3.27 ± 2.269
Visit 7-3.37 ± 2.307
Visit 8-3.45 ± 2.273
Visit 9.0-3.51 ± 2.328
Visit 9.1-3.44 ± 2.256
Visit 9.2-3.45 ± 2.229
Visit 9.3-3.65 ± 2.154
Visit 9.4-3.56 ± 2.130
Visit 9.5-3.60 ± 2.130
Visit 9.6-3.47 ± 2.247
Visit 9.7-3.54 ± 2.185
Visit 9.8-3.62 ± 2.124
Visit 9.9-3.35 ± 1.875
SecondaryChange in Average Pain Interference With General Activity From the Baseline Week to the 7 Days Prior to Each Visit

Pain interference scores at each visit (sleep and activity respectively) were defined as the average of the respective daily interference scores during the 7 last available days prior to the corresponding visit. An 11-point Likert scale was used to assess the subject's sleep. The subject rated how the pain had interfered with sleep over the past 12 hours, from 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference). A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. Subjects rated pain interference over the past 12 hours for 7 days prior to each visit and an average value was calculated for each subject.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 2.1, Visit 2.2, Visit 2.4, Visit 2.5, Visit 3, Visit 4, Visit 5, Visit 6, Visit 7, Visit 8, Visit 9.0, Visit 9.1, Visit 9.2, Visit 9.3, Visit 9.4, Visit 9.5, Visit 9.6, Visit 9.7, Visit 9.8, Visit 9.9
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Average Pain Interference With General Activity From the Baseline Week to the 7 Days Prior to Each Visit
units on a scaleLacosamide
Visit 2.1-0.99 ± 1.571
Visit 2.2-1.38 ± 1.827
Visit 2.3-1.66 ± 1.962
Visit 2.4-1.21 ± 1.279
Visit 2.5-1.62 ± 0.951
Visit 3-2.56 ± 2.130
Visit 4-2.97 ± 2.273
Visit 5-3.14 ± 2.292
Visit 6-3.17 ± 2.291
Visit 7-3.27 ± 2.321
Visit 8-3.32 ± 2.317
Visit 9.0-3.45 ± 2.307
Visit 9.1-3.52 ± 2.221
Visit 9.2-3.50 ± 2.123
Visit 9.3-3.62 ± 2.177
Visit 9.4-3.60 ± 2.129
Visit 9.5-3.65 ± 2.116
Visit 9.6-3.50 ± 2.263
Visit 9.7-3.53 ± 2.189
Visit 9.8-3.66 ± 2.158
Visit 9.9-3.56 ± 1.703
SecondaryChange in Current Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Each Subsequent Visit as Measured by a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the subject's current pain. The subject rated their current pain from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst possible pain). A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 2.1, Visit 2.2, Visit 2.4, Visit 2.5, Visit 3, Visit 4, Visit 5, Visit 6, Visit 7, Visit 8, Visit 9.0, Visit 9.1, Visit 9.2, Visit 9.3, Visit 9.4, Visit 9.5, Visit 9.6, Visit 9.7, Visit 9.8, Visit 9.9
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Current Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Each Subsequent Visit as Measured by a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
units on a scaleLacosamide
Visit 2.1-12.32 ± 19.671
Visit 2.2-20.79 ± 23.955
Visit 2.3-27.87 ± 23.218
Visit 2.4-14.80 ± 14.148
Visit 2.5-20.33 ± 14.742
Visit 3-35.23 ± 24.986
Visit 4-37.01 ± 24.952
Visit 5-37.91 ± 24.446
Visit 6-37.71 ± 24.269
Visit 7-40.06 ± 23.653
Visit 8-40.25 ± 23.433
Visit 9.0-40.24 ± 23.739
Visit 9.1-41.47 ± 22.797
Visit 9.2-40.08 ± 24.447
Visit 9.3-41.56 ± 24.140
Visit 9.4-41.00 ± 22.533
Visit 9.5-41.45 ± 23.199
Visit 9.6-40.88 ± 24.142
Visit 9.7-41.69 ± 23.089
Visit 9.8-41.83 ± 23.278
Visit 9.9-43.63 ± 21.543
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 4

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 4
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 4
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse0
Mildly Worse0.9
No Change6.0
Mildly Better27.1
Moderately Better32.5
Much Better33.4
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 6

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 6
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 6
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse0
Mildly Worse2
No Change8.4
Mildly Better23.7
Moderately Better34.8
Much Better31.1
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.0

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.0
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.0
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse0.7
Mildly Worse1.4
No Change6.1
Mildly Better18.8
Moderately Better35.7
Much Better37.2
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.1

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.1
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.1
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0.7
Moderately Worse0.4
Mildly Worse2.6
No Change5.6
Mildly Better18.2
Moderately Better37.2
Much Better35.3
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.2

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.2
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.2
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0.4
Moderately Worse0.8
Mildly Worse4.0
No Change4.4
Mildly Better17.3
Moderately Better34.5
Much Better38.6
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.3

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.3
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.3
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse1.3
Mildly Worse3.0
No Change4.2
Mildly Better20.7
Moderately Better34.6
Much Better36.3
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.4

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.4
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.4
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse0.9
Mildly Worse4.4
No Change5.8
Mildly Better18.6
Moderately Better35.0
Much Better35.4
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.5

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.5
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.5
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse1.9
Mildly Worse3.3
No Change6.6
Mildly Better18.4
Moderately Better34.4
Much Better35.4
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.6

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.6
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.6
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse3.0
Mildly Worse1.5
No Change7.9
Mildly Better19.3
Moderately Better31.2
Much Better37.1
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.7

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.7
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.7
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0.5
Moderately Worse2.2
Mildly Worse3.8
No Change6.0
Mildly Better20.1
Moderately Better31.5
Much Better35.9
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.8

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Visit 9.8
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Visit 9.8
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0
Moderately Worse2.0
Mildly Worse4.1
No Change8.2
Mildly Better10.2
Moderately Better36.7
Much Better38.8
SecondaryPercentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Termination Visit

The PGIC is a 7-point categorical rating scale in which the subject rates the change in his/her pain since starting trial medication. Categories are as following: much worse, moderately worse, mildly worse, no change, mildly better, moderately better, much better.

Time frame:
Termination Visit (last treatment visit)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Patients With Categorized Patient's Global Impression of Change in Pain (PGIC) at Termination Visit
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Much Worse0.9
Moderately Worse2.4
Mildly Worse3.6
No Change13.4
Mildly Better20.4
Moderately Better28.6
Much Better30.7
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 4

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the Neuropathic Pain Symptoms Inventory (NPSI) at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 4
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 4
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.1 ± 3.00
Squeezing-1.5 ± 3.53
Pressure-2.6 ± 3.47
Electric shocks-2.3 ± 3.41
Stabbing-2.6 ± 3.56
Brushing-1.0 ± 2.90
Increased by pressure-1.9 ± 3.49
Contact with cold-1.4 ± 2.51
Pins and needles-2.7 ± 3.36
Tingling-2.3 ± 3.58
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 6

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 6
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 6
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-2.9 ± 3.28
Squeezing-1.7 ± 3.35
Pressure-2.5 ± 3.10
Electric shocks-2.5 ± 3.20
Stabbing-2.6 ± 3.18
Brushing-1.2 ± 3.12
Increased by pressure-1.8 ± 3.36
Contact with cold-1.2 ± 2.90
Pins and needles-3.3 ± 2.89
Tingling-2.9 ± 3.58
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.0

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.0
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.0
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.0 ± 2.78
Squeezing-2.2 ± 3.16
Pressure-2.7 ± 3.00
Electric shocks-2.9 ± 3.04
Stabbing-2.9 ± 3.10
Brushing-1.0 ± 2.99
Increased by pressure-2.4 ± 3.13
Contact with cold-1.2 ± 3.23
Pins and needles-3.2 ± 3.05
Tingling-2.9 ± 3.20
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.1

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain), and are reported in categories below and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available. Total NPSI scale ranged from 0 (no pain) to 100 (maximum pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.1
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.1
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.1 ± 3.33
Squeezing-2.1 ± 3.20
Pressure-2.8 ± 3.10
Electric shocks-3.1 ± 3.36
Stabbing-2.9 ± 3.17
Brushing-1.0 ± 2.92
Increased by pressure-2.3 ± 3.00
Contact with cold-1.4 ± 2.78
Pins and needles-3.1 ± 3.25
Tingling-2.9 ± 3.33
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.2

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.2
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.2
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.2 ± 3.11
Squeezing-2.4 ± 3.15
Pressure-2.7 ± 3.37
Electric shocks-2.8 ± 3.41
Stabbing-3.0 ± 3.35
Brushing-1.0 ± 2.88
Increased by pressure-2.3 ± 3.00
Contact with cold-1.7 ± 2.56
Pins and needles-3.2 ± 3.18
Tingling-3.0 ± 3.19
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.3

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.3
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.3
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.1 ± 3.00
Squeezing-1.9 ± 2.64
Pressure-2.6 ± 2.82
Electric shocks-3.0 ± 3.02
Stabbing-2.8 ± 3.38
Brushing-0.8 ± 2.88
Increased by pressure-2.5 ± 3.13
Contact with cold-1.5 ± 2.88
Pins and needles-2.9 ± 3.13
Tingling-3.3 ± 3.44
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.4

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.4
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.4
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-2.8 ± 2.97
Squeezing-1.5 ± 2.74
Pressure-2.3 ± 3.01
Electric shocks-2.3 ± 3.61
Stabbing-2.8 ± 3.50
Brushing-0.9 ± 2.93
Increased by pressure-2.2 ± 2.97
Contact with cold-1.4 ± 2.76
Pins and needles-2.8 ± 3.3
Tingling-3.1 ± 3.26
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.5

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.5
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.5
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.1 ± 3.09
Squeezing-2.0 ± 2.86
Pressure-2.4 ± 2.92
Electric shocks-2.8 ± 3.20
Stabbing-2.8 ± 3.36
Brushing-1.0 ± 2.65
Increased by pressure-2.3 ± 3.20
Contact with cold-1.6 ± 2.91
Pins and needles-3.0 ± 3.20
Tingling-3.1 ± 3.64
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.6

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.6
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.6
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.0 ± 3.23
Squeezing-2.0 ± 3.02
Pressure-2.8 ± 2.84
Electric shocks-3.1 ± 3.37
Stabbing-2.8 ± 3.43
Brushing-0.8 ± 2.55
Increased by pressure-2.7 ± 3.04
Contact with cold-1.4 ± 2.65
Pins and needles-3.1 ± 3.25
Tingling-3.5 ± 3.31
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.7

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.7
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.7
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-3.2 ± 3.34
Squeezing-2.1 ± 3.29
Pressure-2.2 ± 3.31
Electric shocks-2.9 ± 3.27
Stabbing-2.5 ± 3.52
Brushing-1.0 ± 2.87
Increased by pressure-2.5 ± 3.12
Contact with cold-1.2 ± 2.79
Pins and needles-3.2 ± 3.00
Tingling-3.3 ± 3.17
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.8

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.8
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.8
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-2.3 ± 3.43
Squeezing-2.0 ± 2.89
Pressure-1.7 ± 2.00
Electric shocks-3.0 ± 2.65
Stabbing-2.5 ± 2.82
Brushing-0.4 ± 2.45
Increased by pressure-1.6 ± 2.06
Contact with cold-1.4 ± 1.92
Pins and needles-3.0 ± 2.94
Tingling-3.2 ± 3.15
SecondaryChange in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Termination Visit

Subjects were asked to assess different symptoms of neuropathic pain with respect to severity using the NPSI at different visits. It comprised of 10 descriptive symptom questions (pain feels like burning, squeezing, pressure electric shocks, stabbing, pins/needles, tingling, provoked or increased by brushing, pressure or contact with something cold), and 2 temporal questions (duration of pain, number of pain attacks). The NPSI scores of the descriptive questions are reported in categories below, which were rated on an 11-point scale from 0 (absence of pain) to 10 (maximum intensity of pain). Higher scores indicate a greater intensity of pain. A negative value indicates improvement in symptoms from Baseline. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Baseline, Termination Visit (last treatment visit)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Different Symptoms of Neuropathic Pain From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Termination Visit
units on a scaleLacosamide
Burning-2.6 ± 3.47
Squeezing-1.5 ± 3.20
Pressure-2.0 ± 3.21
Electric shocks-2.1 ± 3.54
Stabbing-2.3 ± 3.45
Brushing-1.0 ± 3.35
Increased by pressure-1.8 ± 3.16
Contact with cold-0.7 ± 3.15
Pins and needles-2.7 ± 3.36
Tingling-2.5 ± 3.83
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 2 (Baseline)

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 2 (Baseline)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 2 (Baseline)
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently37.6
Between 8 and 12 h21.3
Between 4 and 7 h19.1
Between 1 and 3 h14.2
Less than 1 h7.8
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 4

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 4
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 4
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently10.9
Between 8 and 12 h13.6
Between 4 and 7 h17.3
Between 1 and 3 h20.9
Less than 1 h37.3
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 6

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 6
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 6
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently12.6
Between 8 and 12 h7.8
Between 4 and 7 h11.7
Between 1 and 3 h24.3
Less than 1 h43.7
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.0

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.0
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.0
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently11.1
Between 8 and 12 h8.9
Between 4 and 7 h10.0
Between 1 and 3 h22.2
Less than 1 h47.8
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.1

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.1
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.1
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently9.3
Between 8 and 12 h8.1
Between 4 and 7 h15.1
Between 1 and 3 h26.7
Less than 1 h39.5
Not done1.2
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.2

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.2
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.2
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently5.6
Between 8 and 12 h9.7
Between 4 and 7 h8.3
Between 1 and 3 h22.2
Less than 1 h54.2
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.3

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.3
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.3
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently3.1
Between 8 and 12 h3.1
Between 4 and 7 h15.6
Between 1 and 3 h28.1
Less than 1 h50.0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.4

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.4
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.4
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently6.3
Between 8 and 12 h11.1
Between 4 and 7 h15.9
Between 1 and 3 h22.2
Less than 1 h44.4
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.5

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.5
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.5
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently8.3
Between 8 and 12 h6.7
Between 4 and 7 h15.0
Between 1 and 3 h21.7
Less than 1 h48.3
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.6

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.6
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.6
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently3.6
Between 8 and 12 h10.7
Between 4 and 7 h23.2
Between 1 and 3 h17.9
Less than 1 h44.6
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.7

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.7
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.7
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently7.4
Between 8 and 12 h7.4
Between 4 and 7 h14.8
Between 1 and 3 h16.7
Less than 1 h53.7
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.8

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.8
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Visit 9.8
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently0
Between 8 and 12 h10.5
Between 4 and 7 h26.3
Between 1 and 3 h26.3
Less than 1 h36.8
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Termination Visit

Presence of spontaneous pain was analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of duration of pain are as following: permanently, between 8 and 12 h, between 4 and 7 h, between 1 and 3 h, Less than 1 h. This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Termination Visit (last treatment visit)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Presence of Spontaneous Pain Categorized by Duration of Pain at Termination Visit
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Permanently16.1
Between 8 and 12 h13.6
Between 4 and 7 h16.9
Between 1 and 3 h18.6
Less than 1 h34.7
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 2 (Baseline)

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 2 (Baseline)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 2 (Baseline)
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack6.4
Between 1 and 533.3
Between 6 and 1020.6
Between 11 and 2020.6
More than 2019.1
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 4

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 4
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 4
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack29.1
Between 1 and 539.1
Between 6 and 1020.9
Between 11 and 205.5
More than 205.5
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 6

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 6
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 6
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack26.9
Between 1 and 542.3
Between 6 and 1020.2
Between 11 and 207.7
More than 202.9
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.0

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.0
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.0
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack36.7
Between 1 and 535.6
Between 6 and 1020.0
Between 11 and 205.6
More than 202.2
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.1

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.1
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.1
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack28.7
Between 1 and 534.5
Between 6 and 1020.7
Between 11 and 204.6
More than 2010.3
Not done1.1
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.2

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.2
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.2
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack27.4
Between 1 and 549.3
Between 6 and 109.6
Between 11 and 209.6
More than 204.1
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.3

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.3
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.3
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack27.0
Between 1 and 544.4
Between 6 and 1020.6
Between 11 and 203.2
More than 204.8
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.4

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.4
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.4
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack31.7
Between 1 and 533.3
Between 6 and 1019.0
Between 11 and 2011.1
More than 204.8
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.5

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.5
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.5
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack35.0
Between 1 and 535.0
Between 6 and 1021.7
Between 11 and 203.3
More than 205.0
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.6

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.6
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.6
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack30.4
Between 1 and 544.6
Between 6 and 1014.3
Between 11 and 205.4
More than 205.4
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.7

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.7
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.7
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack33.3
Between 1 and 537.0
Between 6 and 1016.7
Between 11 and 205.6
More than 207.4
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.8

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Visit 9.8
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Visit 9.8
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack26.3
Between 1 and 552.6
Between 6 and 1015.8
Between 11 and 200
More than 205.3
Not done0
SecondaryPercentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Termination Visit

Pain attacks were analyzed using the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). This questionnaire comprises 10 descriptive questions, which are rated on 0 to 10 point scales, and 2 temporal questions. Categories of number of pain attacks are as following: no pain attack, between 1 and 5, between 6 and 10, between 11 and 20, more than 20, not done (data not available). This assessment was done only in subjects from countries in which a validated version of the NPSI was available.

Time frame:
Termination Visit (last treatment visit)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Subjects With Pain Attacks in Last the 24 Hours Categorized by Number of Pain Attacks at Termination Visit
percentage of participantsLacosamide
No pain attack28.8
Between 1 and 535.6
Between 6 and 1015.3
Between 11 and 2011.0
More than 209.3
Not done0
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 4

Quality of life was analyzed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the physical component Summary (PCS) score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the mental component summary (MCS) score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 4
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 4
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning7.4 ± 19.99
Role-Physical13.1 ± 39.88
Bodily Pain20.8 ± 20.14
General health6.1 ± 16.18
Vitality8.5 ± 18.69
Social Functioning8.2 ± 23.79
Role-Emotional7.1 ± 45.48
Mental Health5.6 ± 18.20
PCS5.3 ± 7.62
MCS2.2 ± 10.68
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 6

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 6
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 6
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning8.0 ± 20.55
Role-Physical12.1 ± 39.37
Bodily Pain22.4 ± 21.02
General health7.2 ± 17.48
Vitality8.4 ± 17.80
Social Functioning8.4 ± 24.47
Role-Emotional8.2 ± 45.11
Mental Health5.0 ± 17.79
PCS5.7 ± 8.13
MCS2.2 ± 10.66
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.0

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.0
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.0
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning10.4 ± 21.86
Role-Physical17.5 ± 41.17
Bodily Pain25.3 ± 20.54
General health8.8 ± 16.56
Vitality10.5 ± 18.89
Social Functioning10.3 ± 25.41
Role-Emotional12.1 ± 49.96
Mental Health5.0 ± 18.01
PCS7.1 ± 7.90
MCS2.6 ± 11.39
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.1

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.1
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.1
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning10.6 ± 20.97
Role-Physical18.4 ± 39.92
Bodily Pain24.6 ± 20.45
General health7.3 ± 17.95
Vitality9.6 ± 18.66
Social Functioning10.6 ± 23.58
Role-Emotional14.7 ± 47.66
Mental Health5.6 ± 17.83
PCS6.7 ± 8.18
MCS3.0 ± 10.83
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.2

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.2
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.2
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning9.6 ± 21.54
Role-Physical19.2 ± 42.94
Bodily Pain23.8 ± 21.33
General health6.7 ± 18.83
Vitality9.7 ± 19.08
Social Functioning9.9 ± 24.79
Role-Emotional13.9 ± 48.28
Mental Health6.7 ± 18.18
PCS6.3 ± 8.31
MCS3.3 ± 11.39
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.3

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.3
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.3
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning10.3 ± 21.03
Role-Physical20.2 ± 42.35
Bodily Pain26.3 ± 21.60
General health8.3 ± 17.29
Vitality9.9 ± 18.40
Social Functioning9.8 ± 24.74
Role-Emotional14.8 ± 50.82
Mental Health5.1 ± 18.52
PCS7.2 ± 8.03
MCS2.7 ± 11.76
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.4

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.4
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.4
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning9.3 ± 21.35
Role-Physical17.3 ± 45.59
Bodily Pain24.1 ± 22.76
General health6.8 ± 18.43
Vitality8.7 ± 19.70
Social Functioning9.0 ± 28.04
Role-Emotional12.1 ± 49.30
Mental Health5.0 ± 18.17
PCS6.4 ± 8.63
MCS2.4 ± 11.74
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.5

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.5
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of participants
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.5
percentage of participantsLacosamide
Physical Functioning8.6 ± 20.88
Role-Physical19.1 ± 45.41
Bodily Pain25.9 ± 22.49
General health7.9 ± 18.64
Vitality7.5 ± 18.55
Social Functioning8.2 ± 25.00
Role-Emotional9.9 ± 51.74
Mental Health3.7 ± 17.51
PCS7.0 ± 8.53
MCS1.4 ± 11.29
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.6

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.6
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.6
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning8.6 ± 21.46
Role-Physical18.4 ± 46.02
Bodily Pain24.8 ± 22.45
General health7.0 ± 18.18
Vitality7.9 ± 18.39
Social Functioning8.8 ± 24.60
Role-Emotional12.7 ± 48.39
Mental Health4.9 ± 18.78
PCS6.5 ± 8.79
MCS2.3 ± 11.51
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.7

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.7
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.7
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning9.4 ± 21.60
Role-Physical18.6 ± 46.18
Bodily Pain25.3 ± 22.4
General Health7.1 ± 19.13
Vitality7.4 ± 19.87
Social Functioning8.7 ± 26.12
Role-Emotional8.2 ± 54.47
Mental Health4.3 ± 17.44
PCS7.0 ± 8.62
MCS1.4 ± 11.93
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.8

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Visit 9.8
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Visit 9.8
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning6.9 ± 23.22
Role-Physical2.0 ± 41.09
Bodily Pain22.2 ± 20.13
General health0.2 ± 20.85
Vitality3.2 ± 22.95
Social Functioning4.3 ± 26.21
Role-Emotional-7.5 ± 52.38
Mental Health3.3 ± 19.48
PCS4.6 ± 8.33
MCS-0.9 ± 12.92
SecondaryChange in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Termination Visit

Quality of life was analyzed using the SF-36 Health Survey quality of life questionnaire. The SF-36 is a participant self-rated questionnaire which consists of 8 sub-scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating a better health state. The sub-scores are: 1. Physical Functioning, 2. Role-Physical, 3. Bodily Pain, 4. General Health, 5. Vitality, 6. Social Functioning, 7. Role-Emotional, 8. Mental Health. Items 1-4 primarily contribute to the PCS score of the SF-36. Items 5-8 primarily contribute to the MCS score of the SF-36. The PCS and MCS were based on the standardized values of the 8 domains. The maximum and minimum possible values for PCS and MCS is 0-100, where higher scores indicate good condition. A positive value indicates improvement from baseline in quality of life.

Time frame:
Baseline, Termination Visit (last treatment visit)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Quality of Life From Visit 2 (Baseline) to Termination Visit
units on a scaleLacosamide
Physical Functioning5.0 ± 22.90
Role-Physical7.8 ± 41.56
Bodily Pain19.3 ± 23.63
General Health4.1 ± 18.72
Vitality4.5 ± 18.96
Social Functioning4.2 ± 25.94
Role-Emotional2.5 ± 51.05
Mental Health1.2 ± 18.72
PCS4.7 ± 8.44
MCS0.1 ± 11.41
PrimaryNumber of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive +++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit

Urinalysis was performed locally at all visits using a urine dipstick test. Categories are as following: negative, trace, positive +, positive ++, positive +++, not done (data not available). Positive category (+, ++, +++) indicate worsening from Baseline.

Time frame:
Last Visit (up to 140 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · Participants
Number of Subjects With Urine Protein Status 'Positive +++' at Baseline, Categorized by Urine Protein Status at Last Visit
ParticipantsLacosamide
Negative0
Trace0
Positive +0
Positive ++1
Positive +++1
Not done0

Adverse events

Collected over From Baseline through Safety follow up visit (up to 140 weeks). Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Lacosamide7/371 (1.9%)83/371 (22.4%)229/371 (61.7%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 99
Most frequent serious events
EventLacosamide
Myocardial infarctionCardiac disorders3/371
Cerebrovascular accidentNervous system disorders3/371
HypertensionVascular disorders3/371
Angina pectorisCardiac disorders2/371
Myocardial ischaemiaCardiac disorders2/371
Coronary artery diseaseCardiac disorders2/371
Vestibular disorderEar and labyrinth disorders2/371
Retinal detachmentEye disorders2/371
Diabetic retinopathyEye disorders2/371
CataractEye disorders2/371
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 13
Most frequent other events
EventLacosamide
DizzinessNervous system disorders75/371
NauseaGastrointestinal disorders49/371
VertigoEar and labyrinth disorders45/371
HeadacheNervous system disorders44/371
NasopharyngitisInfections and infestations43/371
SomnolenceNervous system disorders34/371
FatigueGeneral disorders31/371
Back painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders26/371
HypertensionVascular disorders26/371
TremorNervous system disorders24/371

Baseline characteristics

Baseline Characteristics refer to the Safety Set which consisted of all subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Lacosamide
<=18 years0
Between 18 and 65 years262
>=65 years109
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Lacosamide
Mean58.6 ± 9.99
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Lacosamide
Female181
Male190
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Monheim, Germany
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 24, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00220337
Lead sponsor
UCB Pharma
Collaborators
SCHWARZ BIOSCIENCES GmbH - Part of UCB Group
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 22, 2005
Start date
Dec 21, 2004
Primary completion
Oct 31, 2007
Completion
Oct 31, 2007
Results posted
Jul 24, 2023
Last update
Jul 24, 2023

Study contacts

UCB Cares
study director · UCB (+1 844 599 2273)
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Lacosamide

Start the discussion