Cenobamate (YKP3089) as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled focal seizures in a large, phase 3, multicenter, open-label safety study.

OBJECTIVE: During the development of cenobamate, an antiseizure medication (ASM) for focal seizures, three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) occurred. To mitigate the rate of DRESS, a start-low, go-slow approach was studied in an ongoing, open-label, multicenter study. Also examined were long-term safety of cenobamate and a method for managing the pharmacokinetic interaction between cenobamate, a 2C19 inhibitor, and concomitant phenytoin or phenobarbital. METHODS: Patients 18-70 years old with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were enrolled. Cenobamate 12.5 mg/d was initiated and increased at 2-week intervals to 25, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/d. Additional biweekly 50 mg/d increases to 400 mg/d were allowed. During titration, patients taking phenytoin or phenobarbital could not have their cenobamate titration rate or other concomitant ASMs adjusted; phenytoin/phenobarbital doses could be decreased by 25%-33%. RESULTS: At data cutoff (median treatment duration = 9 months), 1347 patients were enrolled, of whom 269 (20.0%) discontinued, most commonly due to adverse events (n = 137) and consent withdrawn for reason other than adverse event (n = 74); 1339 patients received ≥1 treatment dose (median modal dose = 200 mg). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were somnolence (28.1%), dizziness (23.6%), and fatigue (16.6%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 108 patients (8.1%), most commonly seizure (n = 14), epilepsy (n = 5), and pneumonia, fall, and dizziness (n = 4 each). No cases of DRESS were identified. In the phenytoin/phenobarbital groups, 43.4% (36/114) and 29.7% (11/51) of patients, respectively, had their doses decreased. At the end of titration, mean plasma phenytoin/phenobarbital levels were generally comparable to baseline. SIGNIFICANCE: No cases of DRESS were identified in 1339 patients exposed to cenobamate using a start-low (12.5 mg/d), go-slow titration approach. Cenobamate was generally well tolerated in the long term, with no new safety issues found. Phenytoin/phenobarbital dose reductions (25%-33%), when needed during cenobamate titration, maintained stable plasma levels.

Ophthalmologic Baseline Characteristics and 2-Year Ophthalmologic Safety Profile of Pramipexole IR Compared with Ropinirole IR in Patients with Early Parkinson's Disease.

Background. Parkinson's disease (PD) progressively affects dopaminergic neurotransmission and may affect retinal dopaminergic functions and structures. Objective. This 2-year randomized, open-label, parallel-group, flexible-dose study, NCT00144300, evaluated ophthalmologic safety profiles of immediate-release (IR) pramipexole and ropinirole in patients with early idiopathic PD with ≤6 months' prior dopamine agonist exposure and without preexisting major eye disorders. Methods. Patients received labeled IR regimens of pramipexole (n = 121) or ropinirole (n = 125) for 2 years. Comprehensive ophthalmologic assessments (COA) included corrected acuity, Roth 28-color test, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, computerized visual field test, fundus photography, and electroretinography. Results. At baseline, we observed retinal pigmentary epithelium (RPE) hypopigmentation not previously reported in PD patients. The estimated relative risk of 2-year COA worsening with pramipexole versus ropinirole was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.71-1.60). Mean changes from baseline in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating System parts II+III total scores (pramipexole: 1 year, -4.1 ± 8.9, and 2 years, -0.7 ± 10.1, and ropinirole: 1 year, -3.7 ± 8.2, and 2 years, -1.7 ± 10.5) and Hoehn-Yahr stage distribution showed therapeutic effects on PD symptoms. Safety profiles were consistent with labeling. Conclusions. The risk of retinal deterioration did not differ in early idiopathic PD patients receiving pramipexole versus ropinirole. RPE hypopigmentation at baseline was not previously reported in this population. This trial is registered with NCT00144300.

Optimizing the diagnosis and treatment of migraine.

PURPOSE: To describe and discuss short headache questionnaires, which can simplify and improve the diagnosis of migraine. DATA SOURCES: Review of the worldwide scientific literature on short diagnostic questionnaires for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: A new three-question Headache Screen addressing disability due to recurring headaches, headache duration, and changes in headache characteristics and/or pattern over the previous 6 months displayed high sensitivity when used to survey >3000 migraineurs, correctly identifying 77% of migraineurs diagnosed by International Headache Society (IHS) criteria, clinical impression, or the presence of recurring, disabling headaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The underdiagnosis and undertreatment of migraine are problems that may be attributed to many causes involving both patients and medical providers. These include stringent diagnostic criteria established by the IHS, which fail to easily classify many common migraine presentations, the lack of clear outcome measures of successful management of migraine, and failure to recognize the iatrogenic role of prescription and nonprescription medications as an etiologic factor in chronic daily headache. The recent development of reliable, clinically useful, short headache questionnaires that are focused on headache impact facilitates the understanding and diagnosis of migraine for both patients and healthcare professionals. As a diagnostic tool, the Headache Screen has the potential to expand appropriate medication use, leading to improved functional status and quality of life for migraineurs.

Pramipexole vs levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson disease: a 4-year randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The best way to initiate dopaminergic therapy for early Parkinson disease remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare initial treatment with pramipexole vs levodopa in early Parkinson disease, followed by levodopa supplementation, with respect to the development of dopaminergic motor complications, other adverse events, and functional and quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic movement disorders clinics at 22 sites in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with early Parkinson disease (N = 301) who required dopaminergic therapy to treat emerging disability, enrolled between October 1996 and August 1997 and observed until August 2001. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 0.5 mg of pramipexole 3 times per day with levodopa placebo (n = 151) or 25/100 mg of carbidopa/levodopa 3 times per day with pramipexole placebo (n = 150). Dosage was escalated during the first 10 weeks for patients with ongoing disability. Thereafter, investigators were permitted to add open-label levodopa or other antiparkinsonian medications to treat ongoing or emerging disability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to the first occurrence of dopaminergic complications: wearing off, dyskinesias, on-off fluctuations, and freezing; changes in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and quality-of-life scales; and adverse events. RESULTS: Initial pramipexole treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of developing dyskinesias (24.5% vs 54%; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.56; P<.001) and wearing off (47% vs 62.7%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.63; P =.02). Initial levodopa treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of freezing (25.3% vs 37.1%; hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.11-2.59; P =.01). By 48 months, the occurrence of disabling dyskinesias was uncommon and did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. The mean improvement in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score from baseline to 48 months was greater in the levodopa group than in the pramipexole group (2 +/- 15.4 points vs -3.2 +/- 17.3 points, P =.003). Somnolence (36% vs 21%, P =.005) and edema (42% vs 15%, P<.001) were more common in pramipexole-treated subjects than in levodopa-treated subjects. Mean changes in quality-of-life scores did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with pramipexole resulted in lower incidences of dyskinesias and wearing off compared with initial treatment with levodopa. Initial treatment with levodopa resulted in lower incidences of freezing, somnolence, and edema and provided for better symptomatic control, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, compared with initial treatment with pramipexole. Both options resulted in similar quality of life. Levodopa and pramipexole both appear to be reasonable options as initial dopaminergic therapy for Parkinson disease, but they are associated with different efficacy and adverse-effect profiles.

Assessment of sleepiness and unintended sleep in Parkinson's disease patients taking dopamine agonists.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), taking dopamine agonists (DAs) and reporting unintended sleep episodes (SEs), exhibit physiologically defined daytime sleepiness and can thus be differentiated from those taking DAs but not reporting SEs. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with abnormal Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores of >10 who were taking DAs were enrolled into one of two groups: those with SEs (SE+, n=16) and those without (SE-, n=8). Three consecutive days of testing included two nights of polysomnography followed by the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). RESULTS: Overall frequency of pathological sleepiness (MSLT <5 min) was 42% (10/24). Mean levels of sleepiness, frequencies of pathological sleepiness, and naps with stage 2 or REM-sleep were similar between SE+ and SE- groups. Sleep tendency was similar in patients prescribed pergolide, ropinirole, and pramipexole combined with levodopa. Polysomnography testing revealed no significant differences between the groups in total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep architecture, or presence of restless legs syndrome or periodic leg movements. There was no relation between degree of nocturnal sleep disturbance and level of daytime sleepiness. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest SEs in PD patients occur upon a background of excessive daytime sleepiness and are unrelated to nocturnal sleep or use of a specific DA.

Simple and efficient recognition of migraine with 3-question headache screen.

OBJECTIVE: To correlate the results of a new 3-question headache screen to 3 established methods of diagnosing migraine: the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria, physician's clinical impression, and presence of recurring disabling headaches. BACKGROUND: A simple tool to recognize patients who experience migraine may facilitate diagnosis of this debilitating and frequently undiagnosed condition. METHODS: Primary care physicians and neurologists in the United States enrolled 3014 adults with a diagnosis of migraine based on one of the following: International Headache Society criteria, an investigator's clinical impression, or presence of recurring disabling headaches. Each patient completed a 3-question headache screen: (1) Do you have recurrent headaches that interfere with work, family, or social functions? (2) Do your headaches last at least 4 hours? (3) Have you had new or different headaches in the past 6 months? A diagnosis of migraine was suggested by a yes answer to questions 1 and 2 and a no answer to question 3. RESULTS: The 3-question headache screen identified migraine in 77% of the study population; including 78% of the patients enrolled based on International Headache Society criteria, 74% based on clinical impression, and 68% because of recurring disabling headaches. CONCLUSIONS: Positive 3-question headache screen results agreed well with migraine diagnoses based on International Headache Society criteria, clinical impressions, and presence of recurring disabling headaches. These findings support use of the 3-question headache screen to recognize migraine.