Analysis of seizure-cluster circadian periodicity from a long-term, open-label safety study of diazepam nasal spray.

OBJECTIVE: Seizure clusters require prompt medical treatment to minimize possible progression to status epilepticus, increased health care use, and disruptions to daily life. Isolated seizures may exhibit cyclical patterns, including circadian and longer rhythms. However, little is known about the cyclical patterns in seizure clusters. This post hoc analysis of data from a long-term, phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray modeled the periodicity of treated seizure clusters. METHODS: Mixed-effects cosinor analysis evaluated circadian rhythmicity, and single component cosinors using 12 and 24 h were used to calculate cosinor parameters (e.g., midline statistic of rhythm, wave ampitude, and acrophase [peak]). Analysis was completed for the full cohort and a consistent cohort of participants with two or more seizure clusters in each of four, 3-month periods. The influence of epilepsy type on cosinor parameters was also analyzed. RESULTS: Seizure-cluster events plotted across 24 h showed a bimodal distribution with acrophases (peaks) at ~06:30 and ~18:30. A 12-h plot showed a single peak at ~06:30. Cosinor analyses of the full and consistent cohort aligned, with acrophases for both models predicting peak seizure activity at ~23:30 on a 24-h scale and ~07:30 on a 12-h scale. The consistent cohort was associated with increases in baseline and peak seizure-cluster activity. Analysis by epilepsy type identified distinct trends. Seizure clusters in the focal epilepsy group peaked in the evening (acrophase 19:19), whereas events in the generalized epilepsy group peaked in the morning (acrophase 04:46). Together they compose the bimodal clustering observed over 24 h. SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis of seizure clusters treated with diazepam nasal spray demonstrated that seizure clusters occur cyclically in 12- and 24-h time frames similar to that reported with isolated seizures. Further elucidation of these patterns may provide important information for patient care, ranging from improved patient-centered outcomes to seizure-cluster prediction.

Short-Term Impact of Seizures and Mitigation Opportunities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The burden of epilepsy is complex and consists of elements directly related to acute seizures as well as those associated with living with a chronic neurologic disorder. The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize short-term burdens of seizures and to explore the potential value of acute treatments to mitigate these burdens apart from reducing the risk of status epilepticus. RECENT FINDINGS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify articles published from January 1, 2017, to June 22, 2023, that described short-term burdens and acute treatments of seizures. Primary outcomes included those related to short-term burdens of seizures and the benefits of acute treatments to reduce short-term burdens. Of the 1332 articles identified through PubMed and 17 through other sources, 27 had relevant outcomes and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Seizure emergencies negatively affected short-term quality of life and the ability to conduct normal daily living activities and were associated with physical (injury) and financial (emergency transport, hospitalization) burdens. The use of acute treatment was associated with a rapid return (≤ 1 h) to normal function/self for both patients and caregivers and potentially lower healthcare utilization and costs. Seizure action plans may improve knowledge and comfort with seizure care, empowering patients and caregivers. The short-term burden of seizures can create a substantial negative impact on patients and caregivers. Acute treatments may reduce the short-term burdens of seizures in addition to their well-described role to reduce seizure activity and the risk for status epilepticus.

A comparison of statistical versus clinical classifiers of seizure clustering in women with catamenial and noncatamenial epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether (1) women with statistical clustering of daily seizure counts (DSCs) or seizure intervals (SIs) also showed clinical clustering, defined separately by ≥2 (≥2-SC) and ≥3 (≥3-SC) seizures on any single day; and (2) how these classifiers might apply to catamenial epilepsy. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control analysis of data from 50 women with epilepsy (WWE). We assessed the relationships of the four classifiers to each other and to catamenial versus noncatamenial epilepsy using chi-squared, correlation, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: ≥3-SC, not ≥2-SC, was more frequent in WWE who had statistical DSC clustering versus those who did not (21/25 [84.0%] vs. 11/25 [44.0%], p = .007). Logistic regression (p = .006) and ROC (p = .015) identified ≥3-SC, not ≥2-SC, as a predictor of statistical DSC clustering, but ≥4-SC was more accurate. ≥3-SC correlated with the average daily seizure frequencies (ADSFs) of the subjects (p = .01). ROC optimal sensitivity-specificity cut-point for ADSF prediction of ≥3-SC (.372) was 64.6% higher than for ≥2-SC (.226). SI clustering was more common in WWE who had catamenial versus noncatamenial epilepsy (p = .013). Logistic regression identified statistical SI clustering as the only significant classifier (p = .043). ROC analysis offered only marginal support (p = .056), because specificity was low (42.1%). SIGNIFICANCE: The findings lend statistical support for (1) the utility of clinical ≥3-SC as a predictor of convulsive status epilepticus, (2) consideration of ADSFs in defining clustering, and (3) ≥4-SC as a more accurate clinical predictor of statistical DSC clustering. Statistical SI clustering occurred more frequently in women with catamenial than noncatamenial epilepsy (90.3% vs. 57.9%, p = .013). Although sensitivity was high (90.3%, 28/31), specificity was only 42.1% (8/19). Algorithms that test patterns and periodicities of clusters are more applicable.

Concomitant cannabidiol does not impact safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3 safety study.

People with epilepsy may experience episodes of frequent seizure activity (seizure clusters, acute repetitive seizures), and benzodiazepines are the cornerstone of rescue treatment. Cannabidiol (CBD) can be used as an adjunctive treatment for epilepsy, and it may interact with other antiseizure drugs, such as benzodiazepines. Here, we examined the safety and effectiveness of intermittent use of diazepam nasal spray in patients with seizure clusters who also received CBD treatment. This analysis included data from patients aged 6 to 65 years enrolled in a phase 3, long-term safety study of diazepam nasal spray. Age- and weight-based dosing of diazepam nasal spray were administered during a 12-month treatment period. Concomitant CBD use was recorded, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collected. Of 163 treated patients, 119 (73.0%) did not receive CBD, 23 (14.1%) received the US Food and Drug Administration-approved highly purified CBD and 21 (12.9%) received another form of CBD. On average, patients receiving highly purified CBD were younger and more likely to have epileptic encephalopathies, including Dravet syndrome or Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, than patients who received another CBD preparation or no CBD. Rates of TEAEs and serious TEAEs were greater in patients who received any form of CBD (90.9% and 45.5%, respectively) compared with no CBD (79.0% and 26.1%, respectively). However, the lowest rates of TEAEs attributed to diazepam nasal spray were reported in patients who received highly purified CBD (13.0%), and this result was maintained in those who received concomitant clobazam. Use of second doses of diazepam nasal spray, a proxy for effectiveness, was lowest in the highly purified-CBD group (8.2%) compared with the no-CBD (11.6%) and other-CBD groups (20.3%). These results suggest that CBD does not alter the safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray and supports concomitant use in appropriate patients.

Written seizure action plans for adult patients with epilepsy: Distilling insights from emergency action plans for other chronic conditions.

Seizure emergencies and potential emergencies, ranging from seizure clusters to prolonged seizure and status epilepticus, may affect adults with epilepsy despite stable antiseizure therapy. Seizure action plans (SAPs) are designed for patients and their caregivers/care partners to provide guidance on the individualized treatment plan, including response to potential seizure emergencies and appropriate use of rescue therapy. The use of pediatric SAPs is common (typically required by schools), however, most adults with epilepsy do not have a plan. Patient-centered action plans are integral to care for other chronic conditions and may offer insights applicable to the care of adults with epilepsy. This review analyzes the potential benefits of action plans for medical conditions by exploring their utility in conditions such as asthma, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and opioid overdose. Evidence across these conditions substantiates the value of action plans for patients, and the benefits of adult SAPs in epilepsy are emerging. Because wide implementation of SAPs has faced barriers, other conditions may provide insights that are relevant to implementing SAPs in epilepsy. Based on these analyses, we propose concrete steps to improve the use of SAPs among adults. A recent consensus statement promoting the use of formal SAPs in epilepsy and advances in rescue therapy delivery methods provides support to engage patients around the value of SAPs. The precedent for use of SAPs for pediatric epilepsy patients serves as the foundation to support increased usage in adults. Seizure action plans in the context of improved clinical outcomes are expected to reduce healthcare utilization, improve patient quality of life, and optimize epilepsy management.

Use of second doses of Valtoco® (diazepam nasal spray) across 24 hours after the initial dose for out-of-hospital seizure clusters: Results from a phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study.

OBJECTIVE: An exploratory analysis from a long-term, phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray for acute treatment of seizure clusters assessed the use of a second dose up to 24 hours after the initial dose and effectiveness in potentially reducing the number of seizures. METHODS: Seizures and doses were recorded in diaries. RESULTS: Of 175 patients enrolled, 163 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray and were included in the safety population; those patients received a total of 4390 doses for a total of 3853 seizure clusters. Less than half of these patients used a second dose a least once during the study (79 patients [48.5%]), with a total of 485 second doses for seizure clusters (12.6% of all seizure clusters). Among these 79 patients, 33 (41.8%) used only one second dose during the study (range: 1-82). The proportion of seizure clusters treated with a second dose over time was consistently low across 24 h: 0-4 h, 152 (3.9%); 4-6 h, 72 (1.9%); 6-8 h, 39 (1.0%); 8-12 h, 55 (1.4%); 12-16 h, 42 (1.1%); 16-20 h, 42 (1.1%); 20-24 h, 83 (2.2%). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs occurring within 1 day of a second dose were low (15.2% and 5.1%, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with epilepsy may experience seizure clusters lasting up to 24 hours, and little is known about the effectiveness of rescue therapies for that duration. The current labeling of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved outpatient treatments for seizure clusters (rectal diazepam, intranasal midazolam, and diazepam nasal spray) allows for a second dose, if needed, for control. These findings support the safety profile of second doses, and the low use supports the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across 24 hours.

Significant improvements in SEIzure interVAL (time between seizure clusters) across time in patients treated with diazepam nasal spray as intermittent rescue therapy for seizure clusters.

OBJECTIVE: Intermittent rescue therapy may be used for seizure clusters, which are clinical emergencies that may persist ≥24 h and increase risk of status epilepticus, emergency room visits, and reduced quality of life for patients with epilepsy. Beyond effectiveness for aborting seizure clusters, no data exist on how intermittent rescue therapy may impact the long-term natural course of seizure clusters. This novel analysis explores SEIzure interVAL (SEIVAL; time between seizure clusters) in patients from a long-term safety study of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco) to assess SEIVAL changes with intermittent rescue therapy across time. METHODS: Patients were aged 6-65 years. Age- and weight-based doses of diazepam nasal spray were administered during a 12-month treatment period with an optional follow-up period. SEIVAL was evaluated in patients receiving two or more doses of diazepam nasal spray using 90-day periods. RESULTS: Of 163 treated patients, 151 had one or more SEIVALs. One hundred twenty had SEIVALs in Period 1 and one or more other periods. An increase in SEIVAL was noted from Period 1 compared with all subsequent periods (p ≤ .001). A consistent cohort (n = 76) had one or more SEIVALs in each of Periods 1-4 (360 days); mean SEIVALs increased significantly (p < .01) from 12.2 days (Period 1) to 25.7 days (Period 4). Similar SEIVAL patterns occurred when repeat doses within a seizure cluster were eliminated and irrespective of age group, treatment duration, and change to concomitant medications. In adults, Quality of Life in Epilepsy scores were maintained with increased SEIVALs. SIGNIFICANCE: Across 12 months, increases in SEIVAL were demonstrated in patients using diazepam nasal spray for seizure cluster treatment in a phase 3 safety study. Increased time between seizure clusters may reflect a previously unrecognized beneficial effect of intermittent rescue therapy. These results generate a range of biological and behavioral hypotheses and warrant exploration of the impact of intermittent rescue therapy.

Future opportunities for research in rescue treatments.

Clinical studies of rescue medications for seizure clusters are limited and are designed to satisfy regulatory requirements, which may not fully consider the needs of the diverse patient population that experiences seizure clusters or utilize rescue medication. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the factors that contribute to, or may influence the quality of, seizure cluster research with a goal of improving clinical practice. We address five areas of unmet needs and provide advice for how they could enhance future trials of seizure cluster treatments. The topics addressed in this article are: (1) unaddressed end points to pursue in future studies, (2) roles for devices to enhance rescue medication clinical development programs, (3) tools to study seizure cluster prediction and prevention, (4) the value of other designs for seizure cluster studies, and (5) unique challenges of future trial paradigms for seizure clusters. By focusing on novel end points and technologies with value to patients, caregivers, and clinicians, data obtained from future studies can benefit the diverse patient population that experiences seizure clusters, providing more effective, appropriate care as well as alleviating demands on health care resources.

Lack of clinically relevant differences in safety and pharmacokinetics after second-dose administration of intranasal diazepam within 4 h for acute treatment of seizure clusters: A population analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Current diazepam nasal spray labeling requires waiting 4 h before administering a second dose. The objective of the current analyses was to examine safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of second doses of diazepam nasal spray given 0-4 h after the first dose. METHODS: Two datasets were analyzed. The first, a long-term, repeat-dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray, compared rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and treatment-related TEAEs for patients receiving ≥1 second dose ≤4 h versus all second doses >4 h after the first. The second was a population pharmacokinetic analysis using data from three phase 1 studies to model drug exposure when a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered across multiple time points (1 min-4 h) following the first dose. RESULTS: In the repeat-dose safety study, a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered ≤24 h after the first to treat 485 seizure clusters in 79 patients. Rates of TEAEs were similar between patients receiving ≥1 second dose in ≤4 h (89.5%, n = 38) compared with >4-24 h only (80.5%, n = 41). The most common treatment-related TEAEs were associated with nasal discomfort, which was mild or moderate and transient. There were no reports of respiratory or cardiac depression. The pharmacokinetic simulations of second doses predicted comparable elevations of plasma diazepam concentrations with administrations across a range of intervals after the first dose (1 min-4 h). SIGNIFICANCE: These data indicate that the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of a second dose of diazepam nasal spray administered within 4 h of the first dose are consistent with those associated with current labeling. This is potentially important for patients with seizure clusters who have a recurrent seizure within 4 h of first treatment and might benefit from immediate retreatment to reduce the risk of progression to status epilepticus.

Quality-of-life results in adults with epilepsy using diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters from a long-term, open-label safety study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of seizure clusters and the use of intermittent rescue therapy for clusters on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with epilepsy has not been widely studied. The present analysis assessed QoL as a secondary endpoint among adult patients with seizure clusters enrolled in a long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study (NCT02721069) of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco®). The QoL aspect of patients in this study has not been previously published. METHODS: The 12-month safety study of diazepam nasal spray enrolled patients aged 6-65 years with seizure clusters. Adults aged ≥18 years completed the Quality of Life in Epilepsy (QOLIE)-31-P at baseline (day 0) and days 30, 150, 270, and 365. This instrument includes questions about patient health and daily activities with numeric values (1-100) assigned to responses; higher scores indicate better QoL. The QOLIE-31-P includes 7 subscales: Seizure Worry, Overall QoL, Emotional Well-Being, Energy/Fatigue, Cognitive Functioning, Medication Effects, and Social Functioning; an Overall Score is calculated as a weighted composite of the 7 subscales. Comparisons were made between subgroups of patients who had frequent (≥2) and infrequent (<2) monthly dosing of diazepam nasal spray and those whose doses were administered by the patient or a care partner. This safety study was not powered to assess efficacy endpoints; descriptive statistics were calculated across time points. In addition, safety measures, including treatment-emergent adverse events, are reported. RESULTS: Seventy-two adults who responded to the QOLIE-31-P were included in the analyses. Mean QOLIE-31-P scores were stable or increased across time points. The mean total scores increased from day 0 to day 365 by 5.2 among patients providing data for ≥1 time point (follow-up group) and 2.2 among patients providing data at all time points (QOLIE all-assessments subgroup). Subscale means for Seizure Worry and Social Functioning showed the greatest numeric increase from baseline. Mean QOLIE-31-P scores were similar in all subgroups. The safety profile in the follow-up group was similar to that seen in all study adults. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with refractory epilepsy who were treated with diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters maintained or improved QOLIE subscale scores across the 12-month study period. Seizure Worry and Social Functioning subscale scores increased over time, suggesting improvement in these domains for this population with intractable epilepsy. Changes among subscale results suggest differences in sensitivity to the use of an intermittent treatment. The potential to improve patient function with treatment for seizure clusters warrants further study.

Overcoming the challenges of developing an intranasal diazepam rescue therapy for the treatment of seizure clusters.

Seizure clusters must be treated quickly and effectively to prevent progression to prolonged seizures and status epilepticus. Rescue therapy for seizure clusters has focused on the use of benzodiazepines. Although intravenous benzodiazepine administration is the primary route in hospitals and emergency departments, seizure clusters typically occur in out-of-hospital settings, where a more portable product that can be easily administered by nonmedical caregivers is needed. Thus, other methods of administration have been examined, including rectal, intranasal, intramuscular, and buccal routes. Following US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1997, rectal diazepam became the mainstay of out-of-hospital treatment for seizure clusters in the United States. However, social acceptability and consistent bioavailability present limitations. Intranasal formulations have potential advantages for rescue therapies, including ease of administration and faster onset of action. A midazolam nasal spray was approved by the FDA in 2019 for patients aged 12 years or older. In early 2020, the FDA approved a diazepam nasal spray for patients aged 6 years or older, which has a different formulation than the midazolam nasal product and enhances aspects of bioavailability. Benzodiazepines, including diazepam, present significant challenges in developing a suitable intranasal formulation. Diazepam nasal spray contains dodecyl maltoside (DDM) as an absorption enhancer and vitamin E to increase solubility in an easy-to-use portable device. In a Phase 1 study, absolute bioavailability of the diazepam nasal spray was 97% compared with intravenous diazepam. Subsequently, the nasal spray demonstrated less variability in bioavailability than rectal gel (percentage of geometric coefficient of variation of area under the curve = 42%-66% for diazepam nasal spray compared with 87%-172% for rectal gel). The diazepam nasal spray safety profile is consistent with that expected for rectal diazepam, with low rates of nasal discomfort (≤6%). To further improve the efficacy of rescue therapy, investigation of novel intranasal benzodiazepine formulations is underway.

Final results from a Phase 3, long-term, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: A Phase 3 open-label safety study (NCT02721069) evaluated long-term safety of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco) in patients with epilepsy and frequent seizure clusters. METHODS: Patients were 6-65 years old with diagnosed epilepsy and seizure clusters despite stable antiseizure medications. The treatment period was 12 months, with study visits at Day 30 and every 60 days thereafter, after which patients could elect to continue. Doses were based on age and weight. Seizure and treatment information was recorded in diaries. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), nasal irritation, and olfactory changes were recorded. RESULTS: Of 163 patients in the safety population, 117 (71.8%) completed the study. Duration of exposure was ≥12 months for 81.6% of patients. There was one death (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy) and one withdrawal owing to a TEAE (major depression), both considered unlikely to be related to treatment. Diazepam nasal spray was administered 4390 times for 3853 seizure clusters, with 485 clusters treated with a second dose within 24 h; 53.4% of patients had monthly average usage of one to two doses, 41.7% two to five doses, and 4.9% more than five doses. No serious TEAEs were considered to be treatment related. TEAEs possibly or probably related to treatment (n = 30) were most commonly nasal discomfort (6.1%); headache (2.5%); and dysgeusia, epistaxis, and somnolence (1.8% each). Only 13 patients (7.9%) showed nasal irritation, and there were no relevant olfactory changes. The safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was generally similar across subgroups based on age, monthly usage, concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, or seasonal allergy/rhinitis. SIGNIFICANCE: In this large open-label safety study, the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was consistent with the established profile of rectal diazepam, and the high retention rate supports effectiveness in this population. A second dose was used in only 12.6% of seizure clusters.

Evaluation of diazepam nasal spray in patients with epilepsy concomitantly using maintenance benzodiazepines: An interim subgroup analysis from a phase 3, long-term, open-label safety study.

OBJECTIVE: Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco), indicated for acute treatment of frequent seizure activity (seizure clusters) in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age, is designed to be a rapid, noninvasive, socially acceptable route of administration. This interim analysis evaluated the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant use of benzodiazepines, with use of a second dose for a seizure cluster as a proxy for effectiveness. METHODS: A long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study enrolled patients with epilepsy who had seizures despite a stable antiseizure medication regimen. RESULTS: Among 175 patients enrolled by October 31, 2019, a total of 158 were treated with diazepam nasal spray (aged 6-65 years; 53.8% female). Of those, 119 (75.3%) received concomitant benzodiazepines (60, chronic; 59, intermittent); 39 (24.7%) did not. Use of a second dose was similar in patients using chronic concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 11.1% [144/1299]) and those with no concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 10.3% [41/398]). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred for 80.0% with chronic use of concomitant benzodiazepines and 61.5% without. Cardiorespiratory depression was not reported, and no serious TEAEs were treatment related. Study retention was high: 83.3% in the chronic benzodiazepine group and 76.9% in the no-benzodiazepine group. Findings were similar in a sub-analysis of patients who were (n = 44) or were not (n = 75) taking clobazam. SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis of patients from a long-term study shows a similar safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant benzodiazepines, and consistent with the established profile for diazepam. Use of a single dose of diazepam nasal spray and high study retention rates suggest the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients irrespective of chronic daily benzodiazepine use. Results were similar in the clobazam sub-analysis. These results support the safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients with concomitant benzodiazepine use.

Lack of observed impact of history or concomitant treatment of seasonal allergies or rhinitis on repeated doses of diazepam nasal spray administered per seizure episode in a day, safety, and tolerability: Interim results from a phase 3, open-label, 12-month repeat-dose safety study.

Intranasal formulations are commonly used for drug delivery, and the literature has shown that seasonal allergies do not affect nasal administration of some agents. Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco®) is a proprietary intranasal formulation with n-dodecyl-beta-d-maltoside (Intravail® A3) that is indicated for acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older. The analysis presented here is from an interim cutoff of a phase 3 open-label study evaluating the safety and tolerability of diazepam nasal spray. This analysis assessed whether seasonal allergies alter control of seizures with an intranasal formulation, using administration of a second dose as a surrogate efficacy endpoint. Of 158 evaluated patients with epilepsy having seizures despite a stable anti-seizure regimen, 62 patients had medical histories that included seasonal allergies or rhinitis. The results of this analysis show that seasonal allergies did not appear to influence use of a second dose; the groups of patients with and without a history of seasonal allergies both presented with low rates of seizure episodes for which a second dose was used, which suggests that there is not a major difference in pattern of use. Diazepam nasal spray demonstrated a similar safety and tolerability profile in patients with and without a history of seasonal allergies.

Examining the patient and caregiver experience with diazepam nasal spray for seizure clusters: Results from an exit survey of a phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study.

BACKGROUND: Ideal rescue treatments for acute treatment of seizure clusters should be easy to administer, so it is important to assess user perceptions of these treatments. Diazepam nasal spray is designed to have a rapid, noninvasive, and socially acceptable route of administration. Patient and caregiver (including care partner) responses to surveys from a phase 3 safety study of diazepam nasal spray are reported. METHODS: The study enrolled patients aged 6-65 years with seizure clusters. Surveys distributed to patients and caregivers at study end, completion, or discontinuation collected data on comfort using diazepam nasal spray outside the home, timing of administration and return to their usual selves, and comfort of use compared with rectal diazepam. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Of 175 patients enrolled at the October 31, 2019, interim cutoff, 158 received diazepam nasal spray. Sixty-seven (42.4%) patients and 84 (53.2%) caregivers responded to the surveys (including 35 matched pairs). Most patients (78.8%, 52/66) responded that they were very comfortable doing activities outside the home with diazepam nasal spray available; 59.4% of patients returned to their usual selves within an hour of administration. Twenty-seven (40.3%) of these patients reported self-administration, 48% doing so at the first sign of a seizure. Administration of diazepam nasal spray was rated extremely or very easy by 93.8% of caregivers. Safety profile was consistent with diazepam rectal gel; no patient discontinued owing to treatment-emergent adverse events. Nasal discomfort was typically mild and transient. Among patients who had used diazepam rectal gel, most were not at all comfortable using it outside the home (86.7%) or at home (64.5%) compared with diazepam nasal spray, whereas caregivers reported that diazepam rectal gel was not at all easy to use compared with diazepam nasal spray. CONCLUSIONS: This survey from the phase 3 safety study of diazepam nasal spray shows that patients and caregivers were satisfied with, and more comfortable using, diazepam nasal spray than rectal diazepam in public. NCT02721069.

Recommendations for development of acute seizure action plans (ASAPs) from an expert panel.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disease-related treatment action plans for acute exacerbations providing information that may be helpful for self-management for patients and caregivers are commonly used for chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes. However, among patients with epilepsy, a review of the literature suggested that the majority did not have an action plan in place for acute seizure treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, there is a lack of unified guidance on seizure action plans (SAPs) in the literature. In the authors' opinion, available formats have limitations for practical use and may not be easily customizable to individual patients, and they are not often designed to provide simple-to-follow steps for rapid immediate steps to determine and initiate appropriate treatment of seizure emergencies. Our group reviewed current examples of SAPs and provided guidance on the development of acute seizure action plans (ASAPs) designed to facilitate rapid, appropriate acute care in the community and to be as useful as possible for a wide range of care partners, including those with limited experience. SUMMARY: This paper provides agreed upon expert opinion recommendations and considerations for goals, development process, types of content, and format for an ASAP.

Lack of observed tolerance to diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco®) after long-term rescue therapy in patients with epilepsy: Interim results from a phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study.

OBJECTIVE: Tolerance is a known consideration for maintenance use of benzodiazepines and other antiseizure drugs; however, clinical experience suggests that tolerance may not be anticipated with long-term intermittent use of benzodiazepines as rescue therapy. Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco®) is a proprietary intranasal formulation approved for the acute treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity (ie, seizure clusters, acute repetitive seizures) in patients with epilepsy aged ≥6 years. Reported here are exploratory analyses investigating whether there was evidence of development of tolerance in an interim analysis of a long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study of diazepam nasal spray. METHODS: Patients and care partners were trained to administer 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg of diazepam nasal spray (age- and weight-based dosing), with a second dose administered 4-12 hours later if needed. A series of analyses were performed to assess evidence of tolerance using 2 equal, adjacent time periods and data for each patient to compare the proportion of events for which second doses of diazepam nasal spray (as a proxy for effectiveness) were administered in period 1 compared with period 2. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were enrolled at interim cutoff, and 158 were treated with diazepam nasal spray for 3370 seizure-cluster events. For 73.4% of patients, duration of exposure to diazepam nasal spray was ≥12 months. A total of 191 analyses were conducted; the proportion of analyses in which second doses in period 2 were lower than in period 1 was 72.8%. Only 5 analyses showed nominally statistically significant changes (P < 0.05); this is fewer than expected by chance, and these differences were not directionally consistent. There was no safety signal with continued use. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses found no statistical evidence of tolerance with the use of diazepam nasal spray over time based on use of a second dose in an initial period of the study compared with a subsequent period for each patient. These results are in agreement with prior studies of benzodiazepine rescue therapy.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of VALTOCO (NRL-1; diazepam nasal spray) in patients with epilepsy during seizure (ictal/peri-ictal) and nonseizure (interictal) conditions: A phase 1, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess pharmacokinetics and safety of diazepam nasal spray (NRL-1; VALTOCO®) in pediatric and adult patients with epilepsy in seizure and nonseizure states. METHODS: A single dose of diazepam nasal spray (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg based on weight) was administered during each of two conditions (ictal/peri-ictal and interictal condition) to patients 6-65 years old with partial or generalized epilepsy with motor seizures or seizures with clear alteration of awareness; a second dose was permitted if needed for persistent seizures. Dosing could be interictal or ictal/peri-ictal first, with a washout of ≥14 days. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were taken at prespecified time points. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), sedation, nasal irritation, nasal mucosal pain, and olfactory changes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 57 patients in the study (mean age = 28.1 years [range = 6-59], 54.4% female, 80.7% white), 49 were included in the primary pharmacokinetic analyses. Diazepam pharmacokinetic profiles were similar under both conditions, with approximately 2-hour median time to mean (SD) maximum plasma concentrations of 164 (88) and 189 (110) ng/mL for ictal/peri-ictal and interictal conditions, respectively; drug exposure during the first 6 hours postdosing was 532 (313) and 615 (368) h•ng/mL, respectively. Seventeen patients (29.8%) reported TEAEs, of whom eight (14%) had treatment-related TEAEs, with those reported in ≥2 patients being dysgeusia (n = 3, 5.3%) and nasal discomfort (n = 2, 3.5%). One patient had serious TEAEs (recurrent seizures, metabolic encephalopathy), which were deemed unrelated to study treatment. No changes in respiratory rate were observed, nor were there clinically relevant changes in sedation, olfaction, nasal irritation, or acute nasal mucosal pain. SIGNIFICANCE: The epileptic conditions (ictal/peri-ictal, interictal) had minimal impact on diazepam nasal spray pharmacokinetics in patients with epilepsy. Therefore, diazepam nasal spray can be administered ictally and interictally. Diazepam nasal spray safety was consistent with the profile of diazepam.

The differential effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) on seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy - A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are known to play an important role in maintenance and modulation of neuronal functions. There is evidence that omega-3 fatty acids may have anticonvulsant effects. The effect of DHA and EPA on seizure rate in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) was investigated. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial included ninety-nine (n = 99) subjects with DRE, aged 5-16 years (n = 85) and 17-45 years (n = 14). After randomization, subjects were given two, four, or six capsules per day of DHA (417.8 mg DHA and 50.8 mg EPA/capsule, n = 33), EPA (385.6 mg EPA and 81.2 mg DHA/capsule, n = 33), or placebo (high oleic acid sunflower oil, n = 33) for one year. The primary endpoint was the effect of treatment on rate of seizure. Random-effects negative binomial regression models were fitted to model the patients' total count of seizures per month. The treatment effects on seizure incidence rate ratio (IRR) were tested after controlling for the covariate effects of gender, age, rate of seizure per week at enrollment, type of seizure, and number of antiepileptic drug (AED) combinations used at enrollment. RESULTS: Fifty-nine subjects (n = 59) completed the study (59.6%). The average number of seizures per month were 9.7 ±â€¯1.2 in the EPA group, 11.7 ±â€¯1.5 in the DHA group, and 16.6 ±â€¯1.5 in the placebo group. Age, gender, and seizure-type adjusted seizure IRRs of the EPA and DHA groups compared with the placebo group were 0.61 (CI = 0.42-0.88, p = 0.008, 42% reduction) and 0.67 (CI = 0.46-1.0, p = 0.04, 39% reduction), respectively. There was no difference in IRR between the EPA and DHA groups (p = 0.56). Both treatment groups had a significantly higher number of seizure-free days compared with the placebo group (p < 0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates that EPA and DHA are effective in reducing seizure frequency in patients with DRE.