Influence of dose and antiepileptic comedication on brivaracetam serum concentrations in patients with epilepsy.

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on brivaracetam (BRV) trough serum concentrations. A total number of 368 routinely collected blood samples from 148 inpatients from Mara Hospital (Bethel Epilepsy Center) and von Bodelschwingh Foundation Bethel were retrospectively evaluated. Generalized estimation equations (GEEs) were used for statistical analysis. GEE analyses showed that BRV trough serum concentrations were significantly lower in patients with strong enzyme-inducing AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, and/or phenobarbital/primidone, -49%), but were not affected by concomitant intake of oxcarbazepine or eslicarbazepine. Age and gender did not have a significant effect. An alternative GEE model analyzing the BRV level-to-dose ratios yielded comparable results. Our results from routine therapeutic drug monitoring data indicate that the effect of enzyme-inducing AEDs on BRV serum concentrations is stronger than the 20%-30% reduction in BRV exposure previously reported in pharmacokinetics studies. Further research is necessary to evaluate these differences and to elucidate possible clinical consequences.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy for refractory focal-onset seizures in children: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase-III clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This was a phase-III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). METHODS: Children (2-18 years old) with FOS, receiving 1-2 antiepileptic drugs, were randomized to ESL or placebo. Treatment was started at 10 mg/kg/day, up-titrated up to 20-30 mg/kg/day, and maintained for 12 weeks, followed by one-year open-label follow-up. Primary efficacy endpoints were relative reduction in standardized seizure frequency (SSF) and proportion of responders (≥50% SSF reduction) from baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat (ITT) set included 134 patients randomized to ESL and 129 to placebo; 89.6% and 91.5%, respectively, completed the trial. An unbalanced number of seizures at baseline were observed between groups. Least square (LS) mean relative change in SSF from baseline was higher in the ESL group (-18.1%) than in placebo (-8.6%). Proportion of responders between ESL and placebo groups was not statistically different. A post hoc analysis showed greater relative reduction in SSF in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 20 or 30 mg/kg/day compared with placebo; this was significant in patients above 6 years old treated with ESL 30 mg/kg/day (LS mean difference: 31.9%; p = 0.0478). The observed safety profile in children was consistent with that established in adult studies. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive ESL treatment was well-tolerated, but this trial failed to demonstrate that ESL was more effective than placebo in the predefined efficacy endpoints; factors that may have contributed to this outcome, affecting particularly the young age group, include etiological heterogeneity, difficulty in recognizing simple partial seizures, high seizure frequency with risk of imbalance, and underestimation of the efficacious dose range.

Simultaneous measurement of epinastine and its metabolite, 9,13b-dehydroepinastine, in human plasma by a newly developed ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and its application to pharmacokinetic studies.

Epinastine is an antiallergic drug with high selectivity for histamine receptors. It has been reported that 9,13b-dehydroepinastine is present as a metabolite in vivo in humans, but there was little information about their pharmacokinetics (PKs) in humans. Although several analytical methods have been reported for epinastine analysis in different matrices, none are available for its metabolite. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop an analytical method to simultaneously measure epinastine and its metabolite, 9,13b-dehydroepinastine, in human plasma samples using an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometer. Analytes were separated on a C18 column. Quantification of this analysis was performed on a triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer. Chromatograms showed high sensitivity, selectivity, and resolution with no interference with plasma constituents. Calibration curves for both epinastine and 9,13b-dehydroepinastine in human plasma were 0.1-50 ng/ml and displayed excellent linearity with correlation coefficients (r2 ) >0.99. The developed analytical method satisfied the criteria of international guidance and was validated. The method could be successfully applied to pharmacokinetic studies of epinastine and, for the first time, the metabolite kinetics of epinastine to 9,13b-dehydroepinastine in humans after oral administration of 20 mg epinastine hydrochloride tablets. Our study is expected to be useful in future studies such as dosage settings and clinical pharmacotherapy.

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Epinastine Using Developed Human Plasma Assays.

The purpose of the study was to develop two new methods, HPLC-UV and UPLC-MS/MS, for quantifying epinastine in human plasma and to compare pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters obtained using them. Even in the same sample, there may be a difference in the quantitative value of drug depending on the assay, so that minor changes in PK parameter values may affect drug dose and usage settings. Therefore, selection and establishment of analytical methods are very important in PK studies of drugs, and a comparison of PK parameters according to analytical methods will be vital. For this study of PK parameter change, we newly developed two methods, HPLC-UV and UPLC-MS/MS, which are most commonly used to quantify epinastine concentrations in human plasma. All developed methods satisfied the international guidelines and criteria for successful application to PK study of 20 mg epinastine hydrochloride tablets after oral administration to twenty-six humans. A comparison of these two methods for in vivo analysis of epinastine was performed for the first time. This comparison study confirmed that different dose and usage settings might be possible based on PK parameters calculated using other analyses. Such changes in calculated PK parameters according to analytical methods would be crucial in the clinic.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy in patients converting from carbamazepine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of prior use of carbamazepine (CBZ) and other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with a putatively similar mechanism of action (inhibition of voltage-gated sodium channels; VGSCs) on seizure outcomes and tolerability when converting to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), using data pooled from 2 controlled conversion-to-ESL monotherapy trials (studies: 093-045, 093-046). METHODS: Adults with treatment-resistant focal (partial-onset) seizures were randomized 2:1 to ESL 1600 or 1200 mg once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was study exit (meeting predefined exit criteria related to worsening seizure control) versus an historical control group. Other endpoints included change in seizure frequency, responder rate, and tolerability. Endpoints were analyzed for subgroups of patients who received CBZ (or any VGSC inhibitor [VGSCi]) during baseline versus those who received other AEDs. RESULTS: Of 365 patients in the studies, 332 were evaluable for efficacy. The higher risk of study exit in the subgroups that received CBZ (or any VGSCi) during baseline, versus other AEDs, was not statistically significant (hazard ratios were 1.49 for +CBZ vs -CBZ [P = .10] and 1.27 for +VGSCi vs. -VGSCi [P = .33]). Reductions in seizure frequency and responder rates were lower in patients who converted from CBZ or other VGSCi compared with those who converted from other AEDs. There were no notable differences in overall tolerability between subgroups, but the incidence of some adverse events (eg, dizziness, somnolence, nausea) differed between subgroups and/or between treatment periods. SIGNIFICANCE: Baseline use of CBZ or other major putative VGSC inhibitors did not appear to significantly increase the risk of study exit due to worsening seizure control, or to increase the frequency of side effects when converting to ESL monotherapy. However, bigger improvements in efficacy may be possible in patients converting to ESL monotherapy from an AED regimen that does not include a VGSC inhibitor.

Efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate versus controlled-release carbamazepine monotherapy in newly diagnosed epilepsy: A phase III double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily eslicarbazepine acetate in comparison with twice-daily (BID) controlled-release carbamazepine (carbamazepine-CR) monotherapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial (NCT01162460) utilized a stepwise design with 3 dose levels. Patients who remained seizure-free for the 26-week evaluation period (level A: eslicarbazepine acetate 800 mg/carbamazepine-CR 200 mg BID) entered a 6-month maintenance period. If a seizure occurred during the evaluation period, patients were titrated to the next target level (level B: eslicarbazepine acetate 1200 mg/carbamazepine-CR 400 mg BID, level C: eslicarbazepine acetate 1600 mg/carbamazepine-CR 600 mg BID) and the evaluation period began again. The primary endpoint was the proportion of seizure-free patients for 6 months after stabilization in the per protocol set. The predefined noninferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifteen patients were randomly assigned; 785 (388 in the eslicarbazepine acetate group and 397 in the carbamazepine-CR group) were included in the per protocol set, and 813 (401 in the eslicarbazepine acetate group and 412 in the carbamazepine-CR group) were included in the full analysis set for the primary analysis. Overall, 71.1% of eslicarbazepine acetate-treated patients and 75.6% of carbamazepine-CR-treated patients were seizure-free for ≥6 months at the last evaluated dose (average risk difference = -4.28%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.30 to 1.74; relative risk difference = -5.87%, 95% CI = -13.50 to 2.44) in the per protocol set. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups for patients in the safety set. Noninferiority was also demonstrated in the full analysis set, as 70.8% of patients with eslicarbazepine acetate and 74.0% with carbamazepine-CR were seizure-free at the last evaluated dose (average risk difference = -3.07, 95% CI = -9.04 to 2.89). SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment with eslicarbazepine acetate was noninferior to BID carbamazepine-CR. With its once-daily formulation, eslicarbazepine acetate provides a useful option for first-line monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy and focal onset seizures.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive treatment in partial-onset epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the clinical response to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as add-on therapy in adult patients with partial-onset epilepsy by means of the time-to-baseline seizure count method. METHODS: We retrospectively identified consecutive patients with partial-onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization, prescribed to ESL add-on therapy. The primary endpoint was the time-to-baseline monthly seizure count. Subgroup analysis was performed according to carbamazepine (CBZ)/oxcarbazepine (OXC) status (prior vs never use). Secondary outcomes were the rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and the AEs affecting ≥5% of patients. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighteen patients were included. The median time-to-baseline monthly seizure count was 46 (35-101) days in the overall study cohort. The number of concomitant anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) was associated with the time-to-endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]=2.22, 95% CI 1.18-4.14, P=.013 for two AEDs vs one; adj HR=3.65, 95% CI 1.66-8.06, P=.001 for three or more AEDs vs one). Groupwise, the median times-to-baseline seizure count were 47 (35-97) and 43 (34-103) in patients with prior and never exposure to CBZ/OXC, respectively (P for log-rank test=.807). Adverse events occurred in 53.4% (63 of 118) of patients; the most frequently reported were dizziness (13.6%), somnolence (11.9%), nausea (6.8%), and fatigue (5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Add-on ESL improved seizure control and was overall well-tolerated in adult patients with partial-onset epilepsy.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as a replacement for levetiracetam in people with epilepsy developing behavioral adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric and behavioral side effects (PBSEs) are a major cause of antiepileptic drug (AED) withdrawal. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a recognized first-line AED with good seizure outcomes but recognized with PBSEs. Eslicarbazepine (ESL) is considered to function similarly to an active metabolite of the commonly used carbamazepine (CBZ). Carbamazepine is used as psychotropic medication to assist in various psychiatric illnesses such as mood disorders, aggression, and anxiety. AIM: The aim was to evaluate the psychiatric profile of ESL in people who had LEV withdrawn due to PBSEs in routine clinical practice to see if ESL can be used as a possible alternative to LEV. METHODS: A retrospective observational review was conducted in two UK epilepsy centers looking at all cases exposed to ESL since its licensing in 2010. The ESL group was all patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy who developed intolerable PBSEs to LEV, subsequently trialed on ESL. The ESL group was matched to a group who tolerated LEV without intolerable PBSEs. Psychiatric disorders were identified from case notes. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) was used to outcome change in mood. Clinical diagnoses of a mental disorder were compared between groups using the Fisher's exact test. Group differences in HAM-D scores were assessed using the independent samples t-test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: The total number of people with active epilepsy in the two centers was 2142 of whom 46 had been exposed to ESL. Twenty-six had previous exposure to LEV and had intolerable PBSEs who were matched to a person tolerating LEV. There was no statistical differences in the two groups for mental disorders including mood as measured by HAM-D (Chi-square test: p=0.28). CONCLUSION: The ESL was well tolerated and did not produce significant PBSEs in those who had PBSEs with LEV leading to withdrawal of the drug. Though numbers were small, the findings suggest that ESL could be a treatment option in those who develop PBSEs with LEV and possibly other AEDs.

EARLY-ESLI study: Long-term experience with eslicarbazepine acetate after first monotherapy failure.

PURPOSE: Evaluate real-life experience with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) after first monotherapy failure in a large series of patients with focal epilepsy. METHOD: Multicentre, retrospective, 1-year, observational study in patients older than 18 years, with focal epilepsy, who had failed first antiepileptic drug monotherapy and who received ESL. Data from clinical records were analysed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess effectiveness and tolerability. RESULTS: Eslicarbazepine acetate was initiated in 253 patients. The 1-year retention rate was 92.9%, and the final median dose of ESL was 800 mg. At 12 months, 62.3% of patients had been seizure free for 6 months; 37.3% had been seizure free for 1 year. During follow-up, 31.6% of the patients reported ESL-related adverse events (AEs), most commonly somnolence (8.7%) and dizziness (5.1%), and 3.6% discontinued due to AEs. Hyponatraemia was observed in seven patients (2.8%). After starting ESL, 137 patients (54.2%) withdrew the prior monotherapy and converted to ESL monotherapy; 75.9% were seizure free, 87.6% were responders, 4.4% worsened, and 23.4% reported ESL-related AEs. CONCLUSION: Use of ESL after first monotherapy failure was associated with an optimal seizure control and tolerability profile. Over half of patients were converted to ESL monotherapy during follow-up.

Overnight switching from oxcarbazepine to eslicarbazepine acetate: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: There are clinical situations where it might be appropriate to switch patients from immediate-release oxcarbazepine (OXC) to eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). We investigated the effects of transitioning patients overnight from OXC to ESL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted in which patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy on a stable dose of immediate-release OXC for at least 4 weeks were switched overnight to ESL. Patients were switched because they experienced persistent seizures with OXC but were unable to tolerate increased OXC dosing due to adverse events. Tolerability was assessed using the Adverse Events Profile (AEP), quality of life was assessed using the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory 10 (QOLIE-10), and alertness was assessed as reaction time using a subtest of the Test Battery for Attention Performance version 2.3. Assessments were performed immediately prior to and 5 days after switching from OXC to ESL (days 0 and 5, respectively). RESULTS: The analysis included 21 patients (12 women, 9 men; mean age 36 years). After switching from OXC to ESL, there were significant improvements in mean scores for AEP (P<.001), QOLIE-10 (P=.001), and alertness (P<.05). Adverse Events Profile total scores improved for 21/21 (100.0%) patients, QOLIE-10 total scores improved for 17/21 (81.0%) patients, and alertness scores improved for 16/21 (76.2%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term, single-center study, an overnight switch from twice-daily OXC to once-daily ESL in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsies resulted in improvements in side effects, quality of life, and alertness.

Adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate: A pooled analysis of three phase III trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of once-daily (QD) adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL). METHODS: This post-hoc pooled analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials (2093-301, -302, -304) involved adults with refractory partial-onset seizures (POS) receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). All studies included 8-week baseline, 2-week titration, and 12-week maintenance periods. Patients were randomized equally to placebo, ESL 400mg (studies 301, 302), 800mg, or 1200mg QD. The primary endpoint was standardized seizure frequency (SSF; per 4weeks); secondary endpoints included responder rates (maintenance period), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation, serious AEs (SAEs), and deaths. RESULTS: The safety and efficacy analysis populations totaled 1447 and 1410 patients, respectively. SSF was significantly reduced versus placebo with ESL 800mg (p=0.0001) and 1200mg (p<0.0001) but not 400mg (p=0.81). There were no significant interactions between treatment effect and age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region, epilepsy duration, or concomitant AED use. Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation increased with ESL dose. Incidences of the most frequent TEAEs were lower for patients who initiated dosing at 400 versus 800mg QD, regardless of titration regimen and maintenance dose. SAE incidence was <10%; there were 3 deaths (placebo, n=2; ESL 800mg, n=1). CONCLUSIONS: ESL (800 and 1200mg QD) was effective and well tolerated as adjunctive therapy for adults with refractory POS.

Evaluating the efficacy of epinastine ophthalmic solution using a conjunctivitis allergen challenge model in patients with birch pollen allergic conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution for pollen allergic conjunctivitis has already been shown in a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) test using cedar pollen as a challenge. The present study investigated the efficacy of this solution against birch pollen conjunctivitis in a CAC test. METHODS: Ten adult subjects (eight males and two females) with asymptomatic birch pollen conjunctivitis were enrolled in this study. The average age of the subjects was 41.1 years. This study was conducted during a period without birch pollen dispersion. In each subject, the epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution was instilled in one eye, and an artificial tear fluid was instilled in the fellow eye in a double-blind manner. Five minutes or 4 h after the drug instillation, both eyes were challenged with an optimal concentration of birch pollen, and ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia were then graded. Tears were collected before the drug instillation and 20 min after the pollen challenge, and the histamine level was measured. RESULTS: The ocular itching scores and palpebral conjunctival hyperemia scores of the epinastine-treated eyes were significantly lower than those of the contralateral control eyes when the eyes were pretreated with the drug 4 h before the CAC. There was a significant correlation between the tear histamine level and mean ocular itching score of three time points (3, 5 and 10 min) following the CAC in the control eyes but not the epinastine-treated eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Epinastine is effective in suppressing ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia in birch pollen conjunctivitis.

Abuse liability assessment of eslicarbazepine acetate in healthy male and female recreational sedative users: A Phase I randomized controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily oral antiepileptic drug for the treatment of partial-onset seizures. Adverse events such as dizziness and somnolence reported in clinical studies suggest that ESL has detectable central nervous system (CNS) effects in addition to its antiepileptic effects. This Phase I study evaluated the abuse liability of ESL compared with that of alprazolam (ALP) and placebo (PBO) in recreational CNS depressant users. METHODS: In this single-dose, randomized, double-blind, PBO- and active-controlled crossover study, healthy recreational CNS depressant users who could discern between ALP 2mg and PBO received single oral doses of each of the following treatments with a washout interval of ≥7days between each treatment: ESL (800mg, 1600mg, 2000mg, and 2400mg); ALP (1.5mg and 3.0mg); and PBO. Subjective measures, including visual analog scales (VASs) e.g., Drug-Liking (primary endpoint), and Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) Morphine-Benzedrine Group (MBG), Pentobarbital Chlorpromazine Alcohol Group (PCAG), and Lysergic Acid Diethylamide Group scales were evaluated at multiple time points up to 24h postdose. Cognitive effects were evaluated using the Choice Reaction Time (CRT), Divided Attention (DAT) and Hopkins Verbal Learning Task-Revised tests. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: Peak scores for Drug-Liking VAS (maximum effect [Emax]) were significantly higher for both ALP doses than for PBO (p<0.0001), thereby confirming study validity. Drug-Liking VAS Emax was significantly lower for all ESL doses than both ALP doses (p<0.0001). Drug-Liking VAS Emax for ESL 800mg was similar to that for PBO (least squares [LS] mean difference: 3.6; p=0.19). At the three higher ESL doses (1600mg and the supratherapeutic doses of 2000mg and 2400mg), Drug-Liking VAS Emax was significantly higher than for PBO, although the differences were minimal (LS mean difference: 9.3-13.3 out of 100). For most secondary subjective endpoints (i.e., Good Effects VAS and High VAS, ARCI-MBG, Take Drug Again VAS, Overall Drug-Liking VAS, and ARCI-PCAG; p<0.05), the effect of ESL (all doses) was significantly less than that of ALP (both doses). On most secondary measures, the dose-response relationship was relatively flat or showed saturation at higher ESL doses. Although significant differences were observed for ESL compared with those for PBO for some specific CRT and DAT endpoints (i.e., reaction time, manual tracking, hit latency), ALP demonstrated significant and dose-dependent impairment on the majority of cognitive endpoints when compared with PBO and ESL. Mean plasma concentrations of the active metabolite of ESL, eslicarbazepine, increased with increasing ESL dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters estimated for eslicarbazepine were generally comparable with results from previous studies in healthy volunteers. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that single doses of ESL may have less abuse liability than ALP in recreational sedative users. Although ESL had detectable subjective effects and showed some drug-'liking' at higher doses, the magnitude of these effects was small.

[Anticonvulsant add-on therapy with Eslicarbazepine acetate : Results of the EPOS-study in adults in Germany]. / Antikonvulsive Zusatztherapie mit Eslicarbazepinacetat : Ergebnisse der EPOS-Studie bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Due to inadequate seizure control achieved with antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy and the considerable side effects at high required doses, patients with partial-onset seizures (POS) often require AED combination therapy. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is licensed as an add-on therapy for POS and has a favorable tolerability profile. OBJECTIVES: To investigate retention, utilization, reported efficacy, safety and tolerability as well as effects on health-related quality of life using ESL as an add-on treatment to an established monotherapy in a real-world adult population with POS in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A subgroup analysis was performed on the data derived from the German study sites that had participated in an international, non-interventional, open-label study conducted in eight European countries (eslicarbazepine acetate in partial-onset seizures, EPOS). Adult patients with POS whose physician had decided to prescribe add-on treatment with ESL to an established monotherapy were followed over a total period of approximately six months (three visits: baseline and after periods of approximately three and six months). Data collection included patient retention, reported efficacy, safety and tolerability as well as quality of life (QOLIE-10). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The subgroup analysis included 104 patients which had been enrolled at 38 German study sites. After 6 months, retention of ESL add-on therapy was 86.5 %, with 44.7 % of patients reporting seizure freedom over the 3 months prior to this visit. The overall tolerability of ESL add-on therapy was favorable: 32 adverse events (AE) were reported in 20 patients (19.2 %), while only two events in two patients were considered serious. No new safety signals were detected.

The Effects of All-Trans Retinoic Acid on the Induction of Oral Tolerance in a Murine Model of Bronchial Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Active suppression induced by regulatory T (Treg) cells is reported to be one of the mechanisms involved in oral tolerance. All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) has been reported to affect Treg cell differentiation. The present study examined the effects of ATRA on the induction of oral tolerance in a murine model of bronchial asthma. METHODS: BALB/c mice were sensitized to and challenged with ovalbumin (OVA) through feeding followed by OVA challenges. In some study groups ATRA was orally administered concomitantly with OVA feeding either in the presence or absence of the retinoic acid receptor antagonist LE135. Lung CD4+ T cells were isolated from mice exposed to ATRA and/or OVA, and transferred to control mice. Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), cell counts and cytokine levels in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid, and lung histology were assessed. RESULTS: Concomitant administration of ATRA with OVA ameliorated AHR, airway eosinophilia, elevation of cytokines in BAL fluid and goblet cell metaplasia. The proportion of Treg cells in the lungs was increased in mice treated with OVA and ATRA, as compared to those treated with OVA only. Transfer of lung CD4+ T cells from mice treated with OVA and ATRA induced suppression of AHR and airway inflammation. LE135 completely reversed the effects of ATRA on AHR, airway allergic inflammation and the number of Treg cells in the lungs. CONCLUSION: These data suggested that oral administration of ATRA with OVA had the potential to enhance oral tolerance in this murine model of bronchial asthma. These effects were mediated, at least in part, by Treg cell expansion.

Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive therapy in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures: Results of a phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study was conducted at 173 centers in 19 countries, including the United States and Canada. Eligible patients were aged ≥16 years and had uncontrolled partial-onset seizures despite treatment with 1-2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). After an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized to once-daily placebo (n = 226), ESL 800 mg (n = 216), or ESL 1,200 mg (n = 211). Following a 2-week titration period, patients received ESL 800 or 1,200 mg once-daily for 12 weeks. Seizure data were captured and documented using event-entry or daily entry diaries. RESULTS: Standardized seizure frequency (SSF) during the maintenance period (primary end point) was reduced with ESL 1,200 mg (p = 0.004), and there was a trend toward improvement with ESL 800 mg (p = 0.06), compared with placebo. When data for titration and maintenance periods were combined, ESL 800 mg (p = 0.001) and 1,200 mg (p < 0.001) both reduced SSF. There were no statistically significant interactions between treatment response and geographical region (p = 0.38) or diary version (p = 0.76). Responder rate (≥50% reduction in SSF) was significantly higher with ESL 1,200 mg (42.6%, p < 0.001) but not ESL 800 mg (30.5%, p = 0.07) than placebo (23.1%). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation increased with ESL dose. The most common TEAEs were dizziness, somnolence, nausea, headache, and diplopia. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive ESL 1,200 mg once-daily was more efficacious than placebo in adult patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. The once-daily 800 mg dose showed a marginal effect on SSF, but did not reach statistical significance. Both doses were well tolerated. Efficacy assessment was not affected by diary format used.

Efficacy and safety of conversion to monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate in adults with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures: a randomized historical-control phase III study based in North America.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as monotherapy in North American patients with partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind "withdrawal to monotherapy" study used historical control data as the comparator. Adults with POS medically uncontrolled by one to two antiepileptic drugs gradually converted to ESL monotherapy. Following an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ESL 1,600 mg (n = 128) or 1,200 mg QD (n = 65) for 18 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting predefined exit criteria (signifying worsening seizure control). Treatment was considered effective if the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for the Kaplan-Meier estimated exit rate was lower than the exit rate threshold calculated from the historical control (65.3%). RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier estimated exit rates were: ESL 1,600 mg, 28.7% (95% CI 21.2-38.1%) and 1,200 mg, 44.4% (32.5-58.3%). The difference between doses was not significant (p = 0.07). For both doses, the 95% UCLs for the exit rate were ˂ 65.3%; ESL monotherapy was considered superior to the historical control. There was no statistically significant increase in the risk of study exit related to carbamazepine use. Nine (7.6%) and five patients (8.3%) remained seizure-free during the 10-week monotherapy period, while taking ESL 1,600 and 1,200 mg, respectively. The reductions in median standardized seizure frequency (seizures per 28 days) between baseline and the 18-week treatment period were: ESL 1,600 mg, 42% and 1,200 mg, 31%. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥ 10% of patients were dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, nausea, and nasopharyngitis. The TEAE most frequently leading to discontinuation was hyponatremia (2.1%). SIGNIFICANCE: ESL was efficacious and well tolerated as monotherapy in North American patients, and led to a reduction in seizure frequency. Exit rates for ESL 1,600 and 1,200 mg QD were superior to the historical control; the difference in exit rates between doses was not statistically significant.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacologic treatments for acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether artificial tears and cold compress alone or in combination provide a treatment benefit and whether they were as effective as or could enhance topical antiallergic medication. DESIGN: Randomized, masked clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen subjects (mean age, 29.5±11.0 years) allergic to grass pollen. INTERVENTION: Controlled exposure to grass pollen using an environmental chamber to stimulate an ocular allergic reaction followed by application of artificial tears (ATs), 5 minutes of cold compress (CC), ATs combined with CC, or no treatment applied at each separate visit in random order. A subset of 11 subjects also had epinastine hydrochloride (EH) applied alone and combined with CC in random order or instillation of a volume-matched saline control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bulbar conjunctival hyperemia, ocular surface temperature, and ocular symptoms repeated before and every 10 minutes after treatment for 1 hour. RESULTS: Bulbar conjunctival hyperemia and ocular symptoms decreased and temperature recovered to baseline faster with nonpharmaceutical treatments compared with no treatment (P <0.05). Artificial tears combined with CC reduced hyperemia more than other treatments (P <0.05). The treatment effect of EH was enhanced by combining it with a CC (P <0.001). Cold compress combined with ATs or EH lowered the antigen-raised ocular surface temperature to less than the pre-exposure baseline. Artificial tear instillation alone or CC combined with ATs or EH significantly reduced the temperature (P <0.05). Cold compress combined with ATs or EH had a similar cooling effect (P >0.05). At all measurement intervals, symptoms were reduced for both EH and EH combined with CC than CC or ATs alone or in combination (P <0.014). CONCLUSIONS: After controlled exposure to grass pollen, CC and AT treatment showed a therapeutic effect on the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. A CC enhanced the use of EH alone and was the only treatment to reduce symptoms to baseline within 1 hour of antigenic challenge. Signs of allergic conjunctivitis generally were reduced most by a combination of a CC in combination with ATs or EH.

Long-term effects of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in adult Asian patients with refractory focal seizures: Post hoc analysis of a phase III trial.

A post hoc analysis of data from Asian patients included in the study BIA-2093-304 was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in adult Asian patients with refractory focal seizures. Part I was a randomized controlled trial, in which patients received ESL (800 or 1200 mg once daily [QD]) or placebo, assessed over a 12-week maintenance period. Patients completing Part I could enter two open-label extension periods (Part II, 1 year; Part III, ≥2 years), during which all received ESL (400-1600 mg QD). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy assessments included responder and seizure freedom rates. The safety population included 125, 92, and 23 Asian patients in Parts I, II, and III, respectively. Incidence of ESL-related TEAEs was 61.3%, 45.7%, and 17.4% during Parts I, II, and III, respectively. ESL-related TEAEs (most commonly, dizziness, somnolence, and headache) were consistent with ESL's known safety profile. During Part I, responder rates were higher with ESL 800 (41.7%) and 1200 mg QD (44.4%) versus placebo (32.6%), although not statistically significant. Seizure freedom rates with ESL 800 (5.5%) and 1200 mg QD (11.1%) were also higher versus placebo (0%) (p < 0.05 for ESL 1200 mg QD versus placebo). At the end of Part II, responder and seizure freedom rates were 60.3% and 14.7%, respectively. In summary, adult Asian patients with refractory focal seizures were responsive to treatment with ESL as adjunctive therapy and generally showed treatment tolerance well for up to 3 years. No new/unexpected safety findings were observed.