Clinical Impact of Pitolisant on Excessive Daytime Sleepiness and Cataplexy in Adults With Narcolepsy: An Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pitolisant, a selective histamine 3 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, is indicated for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness or cataplexy in adults with narcolepsy. The efficacy and safety of pitolisant have been demonstrated in randomized placebo-controlled trials. When evaluating the results of randomized placebo-controlled trials, the clinical impact of a treatment can be assessed using effect size metrics that include Cohen's d (the standardized mean difference of an effect) and number needed to treat (NNT; number of patients that need to be treated to achieve a specific outcome for one person). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of pitolisant for the reduction in excessive daytime sleepiness or cataplexy in adults with narcolepsy. METHODS: This post hoc analysis incorporated data from two 7-week or 8-week randomized placebo-controlled trials (HARMONY 1, HARMONY CTP). Study medication was individually titrated, with a maximum possible pitolisant dose of 35.6 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and weekly rate of cataplexy (HARMONY CTP only). Cohen's d was derived from the least-squares mean difference between treatment groups (pitolisant vs placebo), and NNTs were calculated from response rates. Treatment response was defined for excessive daytime sleepiness in two ways: (a) reduction in ESS score ≥ 3 or final ESS score ≤ 10 and (b) final ESS score ≤ 10. Treatment response was defined for cataplexy as a ≥ 25%, ≥ 50%, or ≥ 75% reduction in weekly rate of cataplexy. RESULTS: The analysis population included 61 patients in HARMONY 1 (pitolisant, n = 31; placebo, n = 30) and 105 patients in HARMONY CTP (pitolisant, n = 54; placebo, n = 51). For pitolisant vs placebo, Cohen's d effect size values were 0.61 (HARMONY 1) and 0.86 (HARMONY CTP) based on changes in ESS scores, and 0.86 (HARMONY CTP) based on changes in weekly rate of cataplexy. NNTs for pitolisant were 3-5 for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness and 3-4 for the treatment of cataplexy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis demonstrate the robust efficacy of pitolisant for the reduction in both excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. These large effect sizes and low NNTs provide further evidence supporting the strength of the clinical response to pitolisant in the treatment of adults with narcolepsy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01067222 (February 2010), NCT01800045 (February 2013).

Time to Onset of Response to Pitolisant for the Treatment of Excessive Daytime Sleepiness and Cataplexy in Patients With Narcolepsy: An Analysis of Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pitolisant is approved in the USA and Europe for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness or cataplexy in adults with narcolepsy. OBJECTIVE: Analyses evaluated the time to onset of clinical response during treatment with pitolisant. METHODS: Data were obtained from two randomized, double-blind, 7-week or 8-week, placebo-controlled studies (HARMONY 1, HARMONY CTP). Study medication was individually titrated to a maximum dose of pitolisant 35.6 mg/day and then remained stable. Efficacy assessments included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and weekly rate of cataplexy (calculated from patient diaries). Onset of clinical response was defined as the first timepoint at which there was statistical separation between pitolisant and placebo. RESULTS: The analysis included 61 patients in HARMONY 1 (pitolisant, n = 31; placebo, n = 30) and 105 patients in HARMONY CTP (pitolisant, n = 54; placebo, n = 51). Onset of clinical response began at week 2 (HARMONY 1) or week 3 (HARMONY CTP) for the mean change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and week 2 (HARMONY CTP) or week 5 (HARMONY 1) for the mean change in weekly rate of cataplexy, with further improvements observed in pitolisant-treated patients through the end of treatment. The percentage of treatment responders was significantly greater with pitolisant vs placebo beginning at week 3 for excessive daytime sleepiness (defined as an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score reduction ≥ 3) and week 2 for cataplexy (defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in weekly rate of cataplexy [HARMONY CTP]). CONCLUSIONS: Onset of clinical response for excessive daytime sleepiness and/or cataplexy was generally observed within the first 2-3 weeks of pitolisant treatment in patients with narcolepsy. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01067222 (February 2010), NCT01800045 (February 2013).

Evaluation of the abuse potential of pitolisant, a selective H3-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, for the treatment of adult patients with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the human abuse potential of pitolisant, a selective histamine 3 (H3)-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in adult patients with narcolepsy. METHODS: Nondependent, recreational stimulant users able to distinguish phentermine HCl 60 mg from placebo in a drug discrimination test were randomized in a four-period, double-blind, crossover design to receive single doses of pitolisant 35.6 mg (therapeutic dose), pitolisant 213.6 mg (supratherapeutic dose), phentermine HCl 60 mg, and placebo. The primary endpoint was maximum effect (Emax) on the 100-point Drug Liking ("at this moment") visual analog scale. RESULTS: In 38 study completers (73.7% male; 65.8% white; mean age, 33.3 years), mean Drug Liking Emax was significantly greater for phentermine versus pitolisant 35.6 mg (mean difference, 21.4; p < 0.0001) and pitolisant 213.6 mg (mean difference, 19.7; p < 0.0001). Drug Liking Emax was similar for pitolisant (both doses) and placebo. Similarly, for key secondary measures of Overall Drug Liking and willingness to Take Drug Again, mean Emax scores were significantly greater for phentermine versus pitolisant (both doses) and similar for pitolisant (both doses) versus placebo. The incidence of adverse events was 82.1% after phentermine HCl 60 mg, 72.5% after pitolisant 213.6 mg, 47.5% after pitolisant 35.6 mg, and 48.8% after placebo administration. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, pitolisant demonstrated significantly lower potential for abuse compared with phentermine and an overall profile similar to placebo; this suggests a low risk of abuse for pitolisant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03152123. Determination of the abuse potential of pitolisant in healthy, nondependent recreational stimulant users. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03152123.

Human abuse potential studies of abuse-deterrent opioids: lessons from oral and intranasal studies with morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release, injection-molded tablets.

BACKGROUND: The development and use of abuse-deterrent (AD) opioids is part of a multifaceted strategy to reduce misuse, abuse, and diversion, while maintaining access for patients with severe pain who may benefit from their analgesic efficacy. Morphine AD, extended-release (ER), injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT; ARYMO ER; Egalet US Inc., Wayne, PA) is approved by the FDA as an AD opioid. As part of the characterization of AD opioids, assessments of their human abuse potential (HAP) are required. Evidence from HAP studies can guide clinicians on the use of AD opioids in clinical practice. Herein, we describe HAP study design, and how specific AD features can impact the conduct of a study and interpretation of its results. OBJECTIVES: To review the design features and results of the oral and intranasal HAP studies with morphine-ADER-IMT in order to improve the understanding of key elements of HAP studies of AD opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Results from HAP studies with morphine-ADER-IMT and other AD opioids suggest that key study design features include the release profile (immediate-release vs extended-release) of the positive control, study drug doses, and the way the products are manipulated. These elements can directly impact the outcomes of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (e.g. Maximum Drug Liking, Overall Drug Liking, and Take Drug Again) results. When evaluating HAP studies, it is important to understand study design features to assist in the interpretation of the results and understand the clinical relevance of the data to help guide clinical decision-making about the use of AD opioids.

Clinical relevance of the pharmacokinetic characteristics of an abuse-deterrent, extended-release, injection-molded morphine tablet.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and in vitro alcohol dissolution characteristics of extended-release (ER), injection-molded (IM) morphine tablets with abuse-deterrent (AD) features (morphine-ADER-IMT). DESIGN: In vivo, in vitro, and in silico studies were conducted. A randomized, two-cohort study evaluated the bioequivalence of morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg) to morphine ER (60 mg; MS Contin®; Purdue Pharma LP, Stamford, CT) and characterized the effect of food on the PK profile of morphine-ADER-IMT. A three-treatment, three-period crossover study assessed the bioequivalence of morphine-ADER-IMT (30 and 2 ȕ 15 mg) to morphine ER (30 mg). Bioequivalence studies were performed in healthy male and female subjects (18-55 y of age) in the presence of naltrexone blockade. PK modeling was performed to assess steady-state bioequivalence for morphine-ADER-IMT 60 mg compared with morphine ER 60 mg. In vitro alcohol dissolution studies were performed with morphine-ADER-IMT (15 and 60 mg). RESULTS: Fifty-nine and 56 subjects completed the 60-mg bioequivalence/food effect study and 30-mg bioequivalence study, respectively. Bioequivalence of morphine-ADER-IMT 60, 30, and 2 ȕ 15 mg and morphine ER was demonstrated to comparable doses of morphine ER. No clinically significant food effect was observed with morphine-ADER-IMT. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar among all treatment groups. Steady-state modeling indicated bioequivalence between morphine-ADER-IMT 60 mg and morphine ER 60 mg when administered every 8 or 12 hours. No evidence of alcohol dose-dumping was observed with morphine-ADER-IMT. CONCLUSIONS: Morphine-ADER-IMT, an ER morphine formulation with robust AD features, has a clinical PK profile that is well suited for patients with chronic pain.

The ALERRT® instrument: a quantitative measure of the effort required to compromise prescription opioid abuse-deterrent tablets.

BACKGROUND: US FDA guidance recommends measuring the degree of effort needed to manipulate abuse-deterrent (AD) opioids. The ALERRT® instrument (PinneyAssociates; Bethesda, MD) uses visual analog scales to assess the labor, effort, and resources necessary to physically compromise AD product candidates in standardized settings. OBJECTIVE: Use the ALERRT® instrument for testing morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release, injection-molded tablets (ADER-IMT) 60 and 100 mg and the comparators immediate-release (IR) morphine sulfate 30 mg and extended-release (ER) morphine sulfate 60 mg. METHODS: Four technicians tested the products using 10 household tools. The ALERRT instrument quantified effort (all tools) and time (3 preselected tools) required for manipulation. RESULTS: Morphine-ADER-IMT 60 and 100 mg were difficult to manipulate, as demonstrated by high scores (mean range, 71.0-99.0 and 77.0-99.5, respectively). IR and ER morphine sulfate were easy to manipulate (low scores; mean range, 2.0-14.8 and 2.3-17.5, respectively). Statistically significant mean differences between morphine-ADER-IMT and comparators' ALERRT scores were observed. Manipulations of morphine-ADER-IMT 60 and 100 mg for 300 seconds failed to produce substantial powdering. Manipulations of IR morphine sulfate (mean range, 65.5-175.8 seconds) and ER morphine sulfate (49.3-163.0 seconds) produced substantial to complete powdering in 92% of tablets. CONCLUSIONS: Morphine-ADER-IMT was extremely difficult to manipulate versus non-AD formulations of morphine. The ALERRT system differentiated the degree of effort for manipulation of morphine-ADER-IMT and non-AD morphine formulations, indicating sensitivity of this instrument as part of Category 1 testing. By measuring the degree of effort required for manipulation, the ALERRT instrument provides an empirical assessment into the relative difficulty of manipulating opioid analgesics for abuse.

Abuse-deterrent features of an extended-release morphine drug product developed using a novel injection-molding technology for oral drug delivery.

OBJECTIVE: A novel technology platform (Guardian™ Technology, Egalet Corporation, Wayne, PA) was used to manufacture morphine abuse-deterrent (AD), extended-release (ER), injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT; ARYMO® ER [morphine sulfate] ER tablets; Egalet Corporation), a recently approved morphine product with AD labeling. The aim of this article is to highlight how the features of Guardian™ Technology are linked to the ER profile and AD characteristics of morphine-ADER-IMT. RESULTS: The ER profile of morphine-ADER-IMT is attributed to the precise release of morphine from the polymer matrix. The approved dosage strengths of morphine-ADER-IMT are bioequivalent to corresponding dosage strengths of morphine ER (MS Contin®; Purdue Pharma LP, Stamford, CT). Morphine-ADER-IMT was very resistant to physical manipulations intended to reduce particle size, with <10 percent of particles being reduced to <500µm, regarded by the US Food and Drug Administration as a relevant cutoff for potential insufflation in their generic solid oral AD opioid guidance. Furthermore, morphine was not readily extracted from the polymer matrix of morphine-ADER-IMT in small- or large-volume solvent extraction studies that evaluated the potential for intravenous and oral abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The ER profile and AD characteristics of morphine-ADER-IMT are a result of Guardian™ Technology. The combination of the polyethylene oxide matrix and the use of injection molding differentiate morphine-ADER-IMT from other approved AD opioids that deter abuse using physical and chemical barriers. The high degree of flexibility of the Guardian™ Technology enables the development of products that can be tailored to almost any desired release profile; as such, it is a technology platform that may be useful for the development of a wide range of pharmaceutical products.

Human Abuse Potential of an Abuse-Deterrent (AD), Extended-Release (ER) Morphine Product Candidate (Morphine-ADER Injection-Molded Tablets) vs Extended-Release Morphine Administered Intranasally in Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative human abuse potential after insufflation of manipulated morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT) with that of marketed morphine ER tablets. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled five-way crossover study was performed with adult volunteers who were experienced, nondependent, recreational opioid users. After intranasal (IN) administration of manipulated high-volume (HV) morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg), participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive IN manipulated low-volume (LV) morphine ER (60 mg), IN manipulated LV morphine-ADER-IMT, intact oral morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg), and placebo in crossover fashion. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessments included peak effect of drug liking (E max ; primary endpoint) using drug liking visual analog scale (VAS) score, E max using overall drug liking, and take drug again (TDA) VASs scores, and mean abuse quotient (AQ), a pharmacokinetic parameter associated with drug liking. RESULTS: Forty-six participants completed the study. After insufflation of HV morphine-ADER-IMT and LV morphine-ADER-IMT, drug liking E max was significantly lower ( P < 0.0001) compared with IN morphine ER. Overall drug liking and TDA E max values were significantly lower ( P < 0.0001) after insufflation of HV morphine-ADER-IMT and LV morphine-ADER-IMT compared with IN morphine ER. Mean AQ was lower after insufflation of HV (9.2) and LV (2.3) morphine-ADER-IMT or ingestion of oral morphine-ADER-IMT (5.5) compared with insufflation of LV morphine ER (37.2). CONCLUSIONS: All drug liking, take drug again, and abuse quotient endpoints support a significantly lower abuse potential with insufflation of manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT compared with manipulated and insufflated non-AD ER morphine.

Human Abuse Potential of an Abuse-Deterrent (AD), Extended-Release (ER) Morphine Product Candidate (Morphine-ADER Injection-Molded Tablets) versus Extended-Release Morphine Administered Orally in Nondependent Recreational Opioid Users.

Objective: To compare the relative human abuse potential of intact and manipulated morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT) with that of marketed morphine sulfate ER tablets. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, 4-way crossover, single-center study included adult volunteers who were experienced, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg, intact), morphine-ADER-IMT (60 mg, manipulated), and morphine ER (60 mg, manipulated) and received 1 dose of each oral agent in crossover fashion, separated by ≥5 days. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic endpoints were assessed, including the primary endpoint of peak effect of Drug Liking (E max ) via Drug Liking Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and the secondary endpoints of time to E max (TE max ) and mean abuse quotient (AQ; a pharmacokinetic parameter associated with drug liking). Results: Thirty-eight participants completed the study. Median Drug Liking VAS E max was significantly lower after treatment with manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT (67) compared with manipulated morphine ER (74; P = 0.007). TE max was significantly shorter after treatment with manipulated morphine ER compared with intact ( P < 0.0001) or manipulated ( P = 0.004) morphine-ADER-IMT. Mean AQ was lower after treatment with intact (5.7) or manipulated (16.4) morphine-ADER-IMT compared with manipulated morphine ER (45.9). Conclusions: Manipulated morphine-ADER-IMT demonstrated significantly lower Drug Liking E max compared with manipulated morphine ER when administered orally. Morphine-ADER-IMT would be an important new AD, ER morphine product with lower potential for unintentional misuse by chewing or intentional manipulation for oral abuse than currently available non-AD morphine ER products.

Evaluation of the safety of modafinil for treatment of excessive sleepiness.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Modafinil is a wake-promoting agent shown to improve wakefulness in patients with excessive sleepiness (hypersomnolence) associated with shift work sleep disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, or narcolepsy. Safety and tolerability data from 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were combined to evaluate modafinil across these different patient populations. METHODS: One thousand five hundred twenty-nine outpatients received modafinil 200, 300, or 400 mg or placebo once daily for up to 12 weeks. Assessments included recording of adverse events and effects of modafinil on blood pressure/heart rate, electrocardiogram intervals, polysomnography, and clinical laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-three patients with shift work sleep disorder, 292 with obstructive sleep apnea, and 369 with narcolepsy received modafinil; 567 received placebo. Modafinil was well tolerated versus placebo, with headache (34% vs 23%, respectively), nausea (11% vs 3%), and infection (10% vs 12%) the most common adverse events. Adverse events were similar across all patient groups. Twenty-seven serious adverse events were reported (modafinil, n = 18; placebo, n = 9). In modafinil-treated patients, clinically significant increases in diastolic or systolic blood pressure were infrequent (n = 9 and n = 1, respectively, < 1% of patients). In the studies, 1 patient in the modafinil group and 1 in the placebo group had a clinically significant increase in heart rate. New clinically meaningful electrocardiogram abnormalities were rare with modafinil (n = 2) and placebo (n = 4). Clinically significant abnormalities in mean laboratory parameters were observed in fewer than 1% of modafinil-treated patients at final visit. Modafinil did not affect sleep architecture in any patient population according to polysomnography. CONCLUSIONS: Modafinil is well tolerated in the treatment of excessive sleepiness associated with disorders of sleep and wakefulness and does not affect cardiovascular or sleep parameters.

Treating early versus treating mild: timing of migraine prescription medications among patients with diagnosed migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Although research suggests that early treatment of migraine headache when the pain is mild results in better outcomes for patients, many patients delay taking their acute-migraine medication until their headaches are moderate or severe. Understanding when and why patients use their migraine medications is an important first step to improve migraine management. METHODS: A prospective observational study, conducted at a major national retail pharmacy chain with stores across the United States between April 2001 and November 2002, enrolled men and women between 18 and 55 years of age with a physician diagnosis of migraine with or without aura. Baseline data on 690 patients included patient demographics, migraine history, medication use, tendency to avoid or delay treatment of a migraine attack, and reasons for delaying treatment. Reasons for delaying treatment were assessed via a checklist of nine potential reasons. In the follow-up survey completed after treatment of the next migraine attack, patients reported the timing of medication use in relation to pain onset and the severity of the migraine headache at the time they took the medication. RESULTS: Despite the severity of their typical migraine attacks, approximately 49% of the respondents answered, "yes" to the question, "Do you often avoid or delay taking your migraine medications when you start to experience a migraine attack?" The two most common rationales for avoiding or delaying treatment were "wanting to wait and see if it is really a migraine attack" (69%) followed by "only want to take medications if it is a severe attack" (46%). In the follow-up survey, regardless of medication used, about 85% of patients did not treat their next migraine attack until the headache pain was moderate or severe, although 74% treated within 1 hour of pain onset. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that patients with migraine often delay their treatment until they have identified their attack as a migraine. In addition, while many patients treated their follow-up headache early, they did not treat when the pain was mild. This suggests that there is an opportunity for physicians to educate their migraine patients on how to differentiate migraine from other headache types and about when and how to use their acute-migraine medication.

What do patients with migraine want from acute migraine treatment?

Migraine is a common chronic condition with an ever-expanding therapeutic armamentarium. As therapeutic options multiply, it is increasingly important to understand patients' attitudes and preferences regarding various treatment characteristics. Several strategies have evolved to establish treatment priorities in migraine and rationalize and prioritize end points and outcomes to meet the needs of patients. A survey of a population-based sample of migraineurs indicated that an overwhelming majority of patients consider complete relief of head pain, no recurrence, and rapid onset of action as important or very important attributes of acute migraine therapy. An analysis of the relationship between clinical end points and satisfaction found that more than 90% of patients who were pain-free at 2 hours were at least somewhat satisfied with treatment, but satisfaction was dependent on relatively rapid relief. Using a "willingness-to-pay" approach, results indicated that while patients will pay more for migraine treatment that produces rapid, consistent relief without adverse effects or recurrence, speed of complete relief is the most valued attribute. By assessing physician preferences and practices, degree of pain relief and rapid onset were identified as the most important attributes of acute therapy. Based on results from preference studies of triptans, 50% of patients cited more rapid pain relief as the most important determinant of treatment preference. Based on these various approaches, the consensus view is that both clinicians and patients desire a broad range of positive migraine treatment attributes, but rapid onset of complete pain relief is a particularly important priority.