Cenobamate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Although most people with epilepsy achieve complete seizure cessation, approximately one-third of those with the condition continue experiencing seizures despite the use of antiseizure medications (ASMs) given as monotherapy or polytherapy. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about cenobamate as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on oral cenobamate for the treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures, defined as seizures persisting despite treatment with one or more ASMs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (September 2022). In addition, we contacted the manufacturer of cenobamate and experts in the field to enquire after any ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing add-on cenobamate to placebo or another ASM in people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessment, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency, seizure freedom, and the occurrence of adverse events. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. For each outcome we estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We summarised the estimates of effects and certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (659 adult participants, 442 allocated to cenobamate and 217 to placebo). The overall RR for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 2.17 (52% versus 24%, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.84; 2 studies, 605 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 4.45 (16% versus 5%, 95% CI 2.25 to 8.78; 2 studies, 605 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for the occurrence of adverse events for add-on cenobamate at any dose compared to placebo was 1.14 (77% versus 67%, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 2 studies, 659 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We judged the two included RCTs as at low or unclear risk of bias. Both studies were sponsored by the drug company that produces cenobamate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Add-on cenobamate is probably better than placebo in reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50% and in achieving seizure freedom in adults with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant ASMs (moderate level of certainty). Its use is probably associated with an increased risk of adverse events (moderate level of certainty). Further prospective, controlled trials are required to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of add-on cenobamate compared to other ASMs. The efficacy and tolerability of cenobamate as adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy in children should be further investigated. Finally, the long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on cenobamate treatment in people with other epilepsy types (e.g. generalised epilepsy) or specific epilepsy syndromes, as well as its use as monotherapy, require additional study.

Cenobamate as an Early Adjunctive Treatment in Drug-Resistant Focal-Onset Seizures: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cenobamate (CNB) is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) to treat drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. Data on its use in early therapy lines are not yet available, and clinicians frequently consider CNB to be a later ASM drug choice. We investigated the efficacy and safety of CNB as an early adjunctive treatment in drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. METHODS: The study population were patients with drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures who were initiated with CNB after they did not respond to two or three lifetime ASMs, including all prior and concomitant ASMs. These patients were matched (1:2) by sex, age, and seizure frequency to controls who were initiated with any ASM other than CNB. All participants participated in the Mainz Epilepsy Registry. We evaluated the retention rate after 12 months of CNB and after each new adjunctive ASM in the control group. In addition, seizure freedom and the response rate (reduction of seizure frequency by ≥ 50% from baseline) after 12 months were estimated. RESULTS: We included 231 patients aged 44.4 ± 15.8 years. Of these, 33.3% (n = 77) were on CNB, 19.0% (n = 44) on valproate (VPA), 17.3% (n = 40) on lacosamide (LCS), 16.4% (n = 38) on levetiracetam (LEV), and 13.9% (n = 32) on topiramate (TPM). The highest retention rate after 12 months since the beginning of the early adjunctive therapy was observed on CNB (92.0%), compared with LCS (80.0%), LEV (73.3%), VPA (68.2%), or TPM (62.5%) (p < 0.05). Seizure freedom and response rate were also the best on CNB (19.5% and 71.4%, respectively) compared with other ASMs (8.3% and 52.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). No significant differences in adverse events between CNB and other ASMs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that CNB is an effective ASM with a good safety profile in the early therapy lines of drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. This data should support medical decision making in the management of patients with refractory epilepsy. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT05267405.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Treatment simplification to optimize cenobamate effectiveness and tolerability: A real-world retrospective study in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the impact of co-antiseizure medication (co-ASM) optimization on the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This unicentric, retrospective, observational study included adults with focal-onset seizures who had received ≥2 previous ASMs. The main effectiveness endpoints included responder rates and seizure frequency reduction at 3, 6, and 12-month visits. The number of co-ASMs and defined daily dose (DDD) were analyzed at every visit. Safety endpoints included adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with a median epilepsy duration of 22 years and a median of 15.5 seizures/month were analyzed. The median number of prior ASMs was 12, and the mean number of co-ASMs was 2.9 (SD 1). There was a reduction in seizure frequency/month from baseline to the last visit (p < 0.0001). Between baseline and the end of the study, the mean number of co-ASMs in the per-protocol (PP) population was reduced from 2.9 to 1.6 (p < 0.0001), and DDD was reduced from 3.6 to 1.4 (p < 0.0001). Sodium channel blockers (carbamazepine and lacosamide) and GABAergic drugs (clobazam) were the agents with the most significant reductions in DDD after 12 months. The percentage of patients in the PP population with ≥3 co-ASMs was reduced from 61.8% at baseline to 14.3% at 12 months; 1 patient was receiving CNB as monotherapy at the last visit. At the last visit, 85.7% of the PP population were ≥50% responders, and 33.3% were seizure-free. The percentage of patients with ADRs in the PP population was 71.9% at 3 months and 52.3% at 12 months. SIGNIFICANCE: Following rational polytherapy, optimization of co-ASM management during CNB treatment allowed high seizure freedom rates despite meaningful reductions in co-medication, while also achieving both good tolerability and patient satisfaction scores in a highly drug-resistant population. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many patients with epilepsy still have seizures, even after being treated with several different epilepsy drugs. In this study of 34 patients from a Spanish clinic, we show that the epilepsy drug cenobamate can reduce the number of seizures in these patients, even after many other epilepsy drugs have failed. We also show that patients treated with cenobamate can reduce the dose or even stop taking certain other epilepsy drugs. This allows them to simplify their treatment and reduce adverse effects while still keeping control of their epilepsy.

A Practical Review of Encorafenib and Binimetinib Therapy Management in Patients with BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

According to current guidelines, targeted therapy with a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 PHAROS trial (NCT03915951), the combination of encorafenib, a potent BRAF inhibitor, and binimetinib, a potent MEK inhibitor, demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. On the basis of the results of this study, the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on October 11, 2023, for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib from the PHAROS study. In addition, we discuss strategies to manage adverse reactions with this combination therapy with the intent of minimizing unnecessary treatment discontinuations in these patients.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate based on patient etiology: Post-hoc analysis of YKP3089C017 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adjunctive cenobamate was effective and safe for the treatment of uncontrolled focal onset seizures in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study (YKP3089C017; NCT01866111). This post-hoc analysis assessed the efficacy of adjunctive cenobamate in the treatment of patients with different epileptic etiologies during the study. METHODS: Adult patients with uncontrolled focal seizures who previously received 1 to 3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo or cenobamate 100, 200 or 400 mg/day. Patients were further stratified based on their etiologic causes as genetic/presumed genetic, unknown cause, structural cause, and not reported (NR) groups. The frequency per 28 days for an 18-week double-blind treatment period, responder rates (≥50 %, ≥75 %, ≥90 %, and 100 %) during the maintenance phase (12 weeks), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 394 patients were categorized into the genetic/presumed genetic (n = 9; 2.28 %), unknown cause (n = 199; 50.51 %), structural cause (n = 177; 44.92 %), and NR (n = 13; 3.30 %) groups, with 4 patients were classified into either of the two etiological causes each. The baseline characteristics were comparable. The percentage of reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days was significantly higher in the cenobamate-treated structural (p = 0.01) and unknown cause (p = 0.0003) groups compared with the placebo group. Responder rates of ≥50 %, ≥75 %, ≥90 %, and 100 % were also higher with cenobamate therapy. Notably, no serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed in the genetic/presumed genetic group treated with cenobamate. The most common TEAEs (≥10 %) occurring in patients treated with cenobamate were nervous system disorders by system organ class, and somnolence was the most commonly reported TEAE. CONCLUSION: Cenobamate reduces seizures in adult patients previously treated with ASMs, with high responder rates and acceptable safety, regardless of underlying causes.

Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in children 3-17 years old with hepatitis C virus infection.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in children aged 3-17 years with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection of any genotype were evaluated. METHODS: In this Phase 2, multicenter, open-label study, patients received once daily for 12 weeks either sofosbuvir-velpatasvir 400/100 mg tablet (12-17 years), 200/50 mg low dose tablet or oral granules (3-11 years and ≥17 kg), or 150/37.5 mg oral granules (3-5 years and <17 kg). The efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after therapy (SVR12). Dose appropriateness was confirmed by intensive pharmacokinetics in each age group. FINDINGS: Among 216 patients treated, 76% had HCV genotype 1% and 12% had genotype 3. Rates of SVR12 were 83% (34/41) among 3-5-year-olds, 93% (68/73) among 6-11-year-olds, and 95% (97/102) among 12-17-year-olds. Only two patients experienced virologic failure. The most common adverse events were headache, fatigue, and nausea in 12-17-year-olds; vomiting, cough, and headache in 6-11-year-olds; and vomiting in 3-5-year-olds. Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Four patients had serious adverse events; all except auditory hallucination (n = 1) were considered unrelated to study drug. Exposures of sofosbuvir, its metabolite GS-331007, and velpatasvir were comparable to those in adults in prior Phase 2/3 studies. Population pharmacokinetic simulations supported weight-based dosing for children in this age range. INTERPRETATION: The pangenotypic regimen of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir is highly effective and safe in treating children 3-17 years with chronic HCV infection.

Safety and Efficacy of Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab for BRAFV600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of the Japanese Expanded Access Program.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 BEACON CRC study demonstrated the survival benefits of encorafenib and cetuximab, with or without binimetinib (the BEACON triplet or doublet regimen), for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This expanded access program (EAP) and subsequent follow-up study assessed the efficacy and safety of the BEACON triplet regimen in Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EAP was an open-label, single-arm study including Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC whose disease progressed after 1 to 2 prior regimens. The patients received the BEACON triplet regimen with 28-day cycles. The subsequent follow-up study assessed the survival outcomes following EAP completion. Safety was assessed only during the EAP. RESULTS: Among the 86 enrolled patients, 81 received the BEACON triplet regimen. The objective response rate and median progression-free survival were 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0%-39.1%) and 5.26 (95% CI, 4.14-5.52) months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events and treatment-related adverse events occurred in 43.2% and 28.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were observed during the EAP. Among 58 patients with confirmed survival at EAP completion, 57 were included in the follow-up study. With a median observation period of 9.17 months through the EAP and follow-up study, the median overall survival was 10.38 (95% CI, 9.00-16.16) months. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of the BEACON triplet regimen in Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC were consistent with those reported in the BEACON CRC trial, supporting its use as a standard treatment for pretreated patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Safety and efficacy of givinostat in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (EPIDYS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common childhood muscular dystrophy, is caused by dystrophin deficiency. Preclinical and phase 2 study data have suggested that givinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, might help to counteract the effects of this deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of givinostat in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 41 tertiary care sites in 11 countries. Eligible participants were ambulant, male, and aged at least 6 years, had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, completed two four-stair climb assessments with a mean of 8 s or less (≤1 s variance), had a time-to-rise of at least 3 s but less than 10 s, and had received systemic corticosteroids for at least 6 months. Participating boys were randomly assigned (2:1, allocated according to a list generated by the interactive response technology provider) to receive either oral givinostat or matching placebo twice a day for 72 weeks, stratified by concomitant steroid use. Boys, investigators, and site and sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment. The dose was flexible, based on weight, and was reduced if not tolerated. Boys were divided into two groups on the basis of their baseline vastus lateralis fat fraction (VLFF; measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy): group A comprised boys with a VLFF of more than 5% but no more than 30%, whereas group B comprised boys with a VLFF of 5% or less, or more than 30%. The primary endpoint compared the effects of givinostat and placebo on the change in results of the four-stair climb assessment between baseline and 72 weeks, in the intention-to-treat, group A population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned boys who received at least one dose of study drug. When the first 50 boys in group A completed 12 months of treatment, an interim futility assessment was conducted, after which the sample size was adapted using masked data from the four-stair climb assessments. Furthermore, the starting dose of givinostat was reduced following a protocol amendment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02851797, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2017, and Feb 22, 2022, 359 boys were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 179 were enrolled into the study (median age 9·8 years [IQR 8·1-11·0]), all of whom were randomly assigned (118 to receive givinostat and 61 to receive placebo); 170 (95%) boys completed the study. Of the 179 boys enrolled, 120 (67%) were in group A (81 givinostat and 39 placebo); of these, 114 (95%) completed the study. For participants in group A, comparing the results of the four-stair climb assessment at 72 weeks and baseline, the geometric least squares mean ratio was 1·27 (95% CI 1·17-1·37) for boys receiving givinostat and 1·48 (1·32-1·66) for those receiving placebo (ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·745-0·989; p=0·035). The most common adverse events in the givinostat group were diarrhoea (43 [36%] of 118 boys vs 11 [18%] of 61 receiving placebo) and vomiting (34 [29%] vs 8 [13%]); no treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Among ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, results of the four-stair climb assessment worsened in both groups over the study period; however, the decline was significantly smaller with givinostat than with placebo. The dose of givinostat was reduced after an interim safety analysis, but no new safety signals were reported. An ongoing extension study is evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of givinostat in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. FUNDING: Italfarmaco.

A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

Efficacy and safety of DAA in children and adolescents with chronic HCV infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pan-genotypic regimens, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) and other direct-acting antivirals (DAA) regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected adolescents (12-18 years), older children (6-11 years), and young children (3-5 years). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to inform the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. METHODS: We included clinical trials and observational studies published up to August 11, 2021, that evaluated DAA regimens in HCV-infected adolescents, older children, and young children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and key conference abstracts. Sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12), adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuation were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the ROBINS-I tool. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 49 studies including 1882 adolescents, 436 older children, and 166 young children were considered. The SVR12 was 100% (95% Confidence Interval: 96-100), 96% (90-100), and 96% (83-100) for GLE/PIB in adolescents, older, and young children, respectively; 95% (90-99), 93% (86-98), and 83% (70-93), for SOF/VEL, respectively; and 100% (97-100) and 100% (94-100) for SOF/DCV in adolescent and older children, respectively. There was a clear trend towards a higher rate of any reported AE from adolescents (50%), older children (53%), to young children (72%). Serious AEs and treatment discontinuations were uncommon in adolescents and older children (<1%) but slightly higher in young children (3%). CONCLUSIONS: All three pan-genotypic DAA regimens were highly effective and well-tolerated and are now recommended by the WHO for use in adults, adolescents, and children down to 3 years, which will simplify procurement and supply chain management. The evidence was based largely on single-arm non-randomized controlled studies. Moreover, there were also missing data regarding key variables such as route of HCV acquisition, presence or absence of cirrhosis, or HIV co-infection that precluded evaluation of the impact of these factors on outcomes. PROSPERO RECORD: CRD42020146752.

Solriamfetol: A Review in Excessive Daytime Sleepiness Associated with Narcolepsy and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea.

Solriamfetol (SUNOSI®) is an oral selective dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved in the EU and the USA for improving wakefulness in adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In phase III studies, 12 weeks' therapy with solriamfetol within the recommended dosage range for narcolepsy (75 mg or 150 mg once daily) or OSA (37.5 mg, 75 mg or 150 mg once daily) provided early and sustained reductions in excessive sleepiness and improvements in wakefulness relative to placebo. These effects were generally sustained through 52 weeks. The drug's effectiveness in adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy is supported by results from real-world studies. Solriamfetol demonstrated a consistent safety and tolerability profile across clinical studies, with commonly reported adverse reactions generally occurring within 2 weeks of treatment initiation and mostly resolving within 2 weeks. Thus, solriamfetol represents a useful treatment option for adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy or OSA.

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a common condition in which an individual is unable to stay awake during periods when they typically would be awake. Dopamine and norepinephrine are among the chemical messengers involved in sleep­wake regulation. Solriamfetol (SUNOSI^®), a selective dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a once-daily oral treatment approved in the EU and the USA for improving wakefulness in adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In such patients, solriamfetol reduced excessive sleepiness and improved wakefulness compared with placebo over 12 weeks. Onset was rapid and generally sustained through 52 weeks. The safety and tolerability profile of solriamfetol was consistent over the short and longer term; the most common adverse reactions were headache, decreased appetite, nausea, anxiety and insomnia in adults with narcolepsy and nausea and decreased appetite in those with OSA. Thus, solriamfetol represents a useful treatment option for adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy or OSA.

Efficacy and safety of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir-based therapy in HCV patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence inchronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is significantly higher than in the general population. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combined ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir-based therapy in HCV patients with renal impairment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study included 829 patients with normal kidney functions (group 1) and 829 patients with CKD (group 2),which were subdivided into patients not requiring dialysis (group 2a) and those on hemodialysis (group2b). Patients received regimens of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with or without ribavirin or sofosbuvir/ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks. Clinical and laboratory assessment was done before treatment, and patients were followed up for12 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: The sustained virological response (SVR) at week 12 was significantly higher in group 1 than in the other three groups/subgroups, being 94.2% vs 90.2%, 90%, and 90.7%, respectively. The regimen with the highest SVR was ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with ribavirin. The most common adverse event was anemia, which was more common in group 2. CONCLUSION: Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir-based therapy in chronic HCV patients with CKD is highly effective, with minimal side effects despite ribavirin-induced anemia.

Effects of solriamfetol on on-the-road driving in participants with narcolepsy: A randomised crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving performance in participants with narcolepsy. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, driving performance during a 1 h on-road driving test was assessed at 2 and 6 h post-dose following 7 days of treatment with solriamfetol (150 mg/day for 3 days, followed by 300 mg/day for 4 days) or placebo. The primary endpoint was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) at 2 h post-dose. RESULTS: The study included 24 participants (54% male; mean age, 40 years); 22 had evaluable SDLP data. At 2 h post-dose, median SDLP was significantly lower (improved) with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.08 vs. 20.46 cm [median difference, -1.9 cm], p = 0.002). Four participants on solriamfetol and 7 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. At 6 h post-dose, median SDLP was not statistically significantly different with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.59 vs. 19.78 cm [median difference, -1.1 cm], p = 0.125). Three participants on solriamfetol and 10 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. Common adverse events (≥5%) included headache, decreased appetite, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Solriamfetol 300 mg/day improved on-the-road driving performance, at 2 h post-administration in participants with narcolepsy.

Safety and Efficacy of Direct-acting Antiviral Therapies for Chronic HCV Infection in Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of a direct-acting antiviral treatment, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir, without ribavirin, in a real-life setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study including 108 patients undergoing hemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease, referred to our clinic for antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Patients received treatment with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir, for 12 weeks. Sustained virologic response (SVR) was defined as undetectable viremia at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. For safety analysis, we monitored serum levels of hemoglobin, albumin, total bilirubin, alanine-aminotransferase and aspartate- aminotransferase at the beginning and end of therapy, as well as at SVR. Verbal Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the presence of nausea, headaches and fatigue. RESULTS: We noted a high prevalence of diabetic and hypertensive nephropathy as the underlying cause of chronic kidney disease. Most of the patients had F2 and F3 liver fibrosis (32.40% and 34.25%, respectively). The SVR rate was 96.2% (103/107 patients). We recorded an unrelated death after the completion of antiviral therapy. We found increased levels of nausea, headaches and fatigue at the end of therapy compared to at initiation, The presence and degree of symptoms did not correlate with the underlying cause of renal disease (p=0.72) nor with the degree of fibrosis (p=0.08). Minimal increases in transaminases and bilirubin were recorded at the end of treatment, with no statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Oral antiviral therapy with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir can be safely used in hemodialysis patients, with similar response rates compared to the general population.

A Real-World Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Paritaprevir/Ombitasvir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir, with or without Ribavirin, in 587 Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C at the Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.

BACKGROUND In the European Union, a tablet with fixed doses of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir combined with dasabuvir is an authorized treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Ribavirin is a broad-spectrum antiviral used in several treatment regimens for patients with HCV infection. This real-world study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir combined with dasabuvir, with or without ribavirin, in 587 patients with chronic hepatitis C attending the Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania. MATERIAL AND METHODS This is an observational prospective study including 315 patients with F4 degree of fibrosis and compensated cirrhosis, 185 patients with F3 fibrosis, and 83 patients with F2 fibrosis. Liver fibrosis was evaluated by liver biopsy or Fibromax. Efficacy was defined as undetectable HCV-RNA at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. In terms of safety, we monitored the development of adverse reactions, liver cytolysis, cholestasis, and hematologic disorders. RESULTS Of the 587 patients, 2 patients with B-cell lymphoma died during therapy. In total, 3/585 patients (0.51%) did not achieve sustained virologic response. Common adverse effects were nausea and asthenia (especially in patients with other medical treatments; P=0.03 and P=0.04, respectively) and anemia in patients who received ribavirin (P<0.01). None of the patients discontinued antiviral treatment. Patients with kidney transplant or end-stage kidney disease did not receive or discontinued ribavirin. CONCLUSIONS Ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir combined with dasabuvir, with or without ribavirin had an efficacy rate of over 99% in HCV genotype 1b infection. We report no serious adverse reactions.