Stiripentol efficacy and safety in Dravet syndrome: a 12-year observational study.

AIM: To assess long-term safety and efficacy of stiripentol as an antiepileptic medication for people with Dravet syndrome. METHOD: A prospective, observational open-label study (2003-2015) of the efficacy and long-term safety of stiripentol in patients with Dravet syndrome and ongoing seizures. Frequency of generalized tonic-clonic seizures, focal seizures, status epilepticus, and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-one patients started stiripentol, with median age at enrolment 5 years 7 months (range 11mo-22y) and median duration of treatment 37 months (range 2-141mo). Twenty out of 41 patients had greater than or equal to 50% long-term reduction in frequency of generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Frequency of focal seizures was decreased by greater than or equal to 50% in 11 out of 23 patients over the long-term. Frequency of status epilepticus was decreased by 50% or more in 11 out of 26 patients. The most common adverse events were anorexia, weight loss, sedation, and behavioural changes. One patient had worsening of absence and myoclonic seizures. Another developed recurrent pancreatitis on concurrent valproate. INTERPRETATION: Stiripentol improves long-term seizure frequency in approximately 50% of patients with Dravet syndrome, when used as part of unrestricted polytherapy. Long-term use appears safe. In more than 40% of patients, episodes of status epilepticus markedly decrease after stiripentol initiation. What this paper adds Frequency of status epilepticus is reduced in 40% of patients with Dravet syndrome after stiripentol initiation. Stiripentol is effective for generalized tonic-clonic and focal seizures. Stiripentol can be safely used with a range of antiepileptic drugs.

Clinical trials with cannabis medicines-guidance for ethics committees, governance officers and researchers to streamline ethics applications and ensuring patient safety: considerations from the Australian experience.

With cannabis medicines now obtaining legal status in many international jurisdictions (generally on the authorisation of a medical professional), a rapid increase in consumer demand for access to cannabis as a therapeutic option in the treatment and management of a range of indications is being noted. Despite this accessibility, knowledge on optimal use is lacking. Further drug development and clinical trials at regulatory standards are necessary both if a better understanding of the efficacy of cannabis medicines, optimal product formulation and indication-specific dosing is needed and to ensure the broader quality and safety of cannabis medicines in the clinical setting.To enable this, clinical, academic and public calls for the undertaking of rigorous clinical trials to establish an evidence base for the therapeutic use of cannabis medicines have been made internationally. While this commitment to undertake human studies with cannabis medicines is welcomed, it has highlighted unique challenges, notably in the review stages of ethics and governance. This often results in lengthy delays to approval by Human Research Ethics Committees (herein 'HREC', Australia's nomenclature for Institutional Review Boards) and trial commencement. A principal concern in these cases is that in contrast to clinical trials using other more conventional pharmaceutical products, trials of cannabis medicines in humans often involve the use of an investigational product prior to some (or any) of the preclinical and pharmaceutical safety issues being established. This paucity of data around product safety, potential drug interactions, continuity of supply, shelf life and product storage results in apprehension by HRECs and governance bodies to endorse trials using cannabis medicines.This manuscript draws from the experiences of Australian researchers and staff involved in clinical trials of cannabis medicines to describe some of the common difficulties that may be faced in the HREC approval process. It also presents practical advice aimed to assist researchers, HRECs and governance officers navigate this complex terrain. While the authors' experiences are situated within the Australian setting, many of the barriers described are applicable within the international context and thus, the solutions that have been proposed are typically adaptive for use within other jurisdictions.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Melatonin for Sleep Disturbance in Dravet Syndrome: The DREAMS Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Dravet syndrome is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, in which 75% of patients have sleep disturbance. Melatonin is often used for sleep problems in childhood; however, there is no quality evidence supporting its use in Dravet syndrome. We hypothesized that melatonin would increase total sleep and quality of life for patients with Dravet syndrome. METHODS: A double-blind crossover randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted, comparing 6 mg regular-release melatonin to placebo for patients with Dravet syndrome and sleep disturbance. The primary outcome measure was total sleep measured by actigraphy, with secondary outcomes including wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO), Sleep Disturbance Scale in Children and Quality of Life in Children with Epilepsy 55 questionnaires, caregiver reports of clinical change, seizure diary and serum antiepileptic drug levels. We also compared actigraphy data of patients with Dravet syndrome to an age-matched healthy control group. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients completed the study. There was no difference in total sleep or WASO between melatonin and placebo. However, of the 11 patients for whom caregivers reported a clear clinical difference between treatments (blinded), 8 reported improvement on melatonin (P < .05). Interestingly, when compared to patients in the control group, patients with Dravet syndrome had significantly increased total sleep (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Melatonin did not increase total sleep; however, blinded caregiver reports indicate treatment with melatonin provided considerable clinical benefit for some patients with Dravet syndrome and sleep disturbance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Australian Government Department of Health, Therapeutic Goods Administration under the Clinical Trials Notification Scheme (protocol number 2241).

Precision therapy for epilepsy due to KCNT1 mutations: A randomized trial of oral quinidine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quinidine as a precision therapy for severe epilepsy due to gain of function mutations in the potassium channel gene KCNT1. METHODS: A single-center, inpatient, order-randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of oral quinidine included 6 patients with severe autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy (ADNFLE) due to KCNT1 mutation. Order was block randomized and blinded. Four-day treatment blocks were used with a 2-day washout between. Dose started at 900 mg over 3 divided doses then, in subsequent participants, was reduced to 600 mg, then 300 mg. Primary outcome was seizure frequency measured on continuous video-EEG in those completing the trial. RESULTS: Prolonged QT interval occurred in the first 2 patients at doses of 900 and 600 mg quinidine per day, respectively, despite serum quinidine levels well below the therapeutic range (0.61 and 0.51 µg/mL, reference range 1.3-5.0 µg/mL). Four patients completed treatment with 300 mg/d without adverse events. Patients completing the trial had very frequent seizures (mean 14 per day, SD 7, median 13, interquartile range 10-18). Seizures per day were nonsignificantly increased by quinidine (median 2, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to +5, p = 0.15) and no patient had a 50% seizure reduction. CONCLUSION: Quinidine did not show efficacy in adults and teenagers with ADNFLE. Dose-limiting cardiac side effects were observed even in the presence of low measured serum quinidine levels. Although small, this trial suggests use of quinidine in ADNFLE is likely to be ineffective coupled with considerable cardiac risks. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration Clinical Trial Registry (trial number 2015/0151). CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for persons with severe epilepsy due to gain of function mutations in the potassium channel gene KCNT1, quinidine does not significantly reduce seizure frequency.

Prediction of seizure likelihood with a long-term, implanted seizure advisory system in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a first-in-man study.

BACKGROUND: Seizure prediction would be clinically useful in patients with epilepsy and could improve safety, increase independence, and allow acute treatment. We did a multicentre clinical feasibility study to assess the safety and efficacy of a long-term implanted seizure advisory system designed to predict seizure likelihood and quantify seizures in adults with drug-resistant focal seizures. METHODS: We enrolled patients at three centres in Melbourne, Australia, between March 24, 2010, and June 21, 2011. Eligible patients had between two and 12 disabling partial-onset seizures per month, a lateralised epileptogenic zone, and no history of psychogenic seizures. After devices were surgically implanted, patients entered a data collection phase, during which an algorithm for identification of periods of high, moderate, and low seizure likelihood was established. If the algorithm met performance criteria (ie, sensitivity of high-likelihood warnings greater than 65% and performance better than expected through chance prediction of randomly occurring events), patients then entered an advisory phase and received information about seizure likelihood. The primary endpoint was the number of device-related adverse events at 4 months after implantation. Our secondary endpoints were algorithm performance at the end of the data collection phase, clinical effectiveness (measures of anxiety, depression, seizure severity, and quality of life) 4 months after initiation of the advisory phase, and longer-term adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01043406. FINDINGS: We implanted 15 patients with the advisory system. 11 device-related adverse events were noted within four months of implantation, two of which were serious (device migration, seroma); an additional two serious adverse events occurred during the first year after implantation (device-related infection, device site reaction), but were resolved without further complication. The device met enabling criteria in 11 patients upon completion of the data collection phase, with high likelihood performance estimate sensitivities ranging from 65% to 100%. Three patients' algorithms did not meet performance criteria and one patient required device removal because of an adverse event before sufficient training data were acquired. We detected no significant changes in clinical effectiveness measures between baseline and 4 months after implantation. INTERPRETATION: This study showed that intracranial electroencephalographic monitoring is feasible in ambulatory patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. If these findings are replicated in larger, longer studies, accurate definition of preictal electrical activity might improve understanding of seizure generation and eventually lead to new management strategies. FUNDING: NeuroVista.