Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life during adjunctive brivaracetam treatment in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: An open-label follow-up trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this long-term follow-up (LTFU) trial was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV). The secondary objective was to evaluate the maintenance of efficacy of BRV (including quality of life) over time. METHODS: This open-label, multicenter, flexible-dose trial (N01379 [NCT01339559]) was conducted in adults (≥16 years) with focal or generalized-onset seizures, who had participated in a placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of adjunctive BRV (N01258: NCT01405508 or N01358: NCT01261325). RESULTS: Seven hundred and sixty-six patients received BRV in this LTFU trial (753 had focal seizures and 13 had generalized-onset seizures). Kaplan-Meier-estimated retention was 71.9% at 12 months, and 53.7% at 36 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 643 (83.9%) patients, most commonly headache (104 [13.6%] patients) and dizziness (100 [13.1%] patients). Two hundred and fifty-seven (33.6%) patients had drug-related TEAEs, most commonly somnolence (49 [6.4%] patients) and dizziness (41 [5.4%] patients). Permanent discontinuation of BRV due to TEAEs occurred in 91 (11.9%) patients. Patients with focal seizures had a median percentage reduction in focal seizure frequency of 52.0% and 51.7% were 50% responders (sustained over time); 26.0% were seizurefree for 6 months, and 17.9% were seizurefree for 12 months. 42.4% of patients at 12 months and 46.8% at 24 months had clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Questionnaire 31 total score. CONCLUSIONS: In this select group of patients who entered the LTFU trial, BRV was generally safe and well tolerated. Results indicate the long-term efficacy of BRV in patients with focal seizures.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of brivaracetam as adjunctive therapy in patients with focal seizures, generalized onset seizures, or Unverricht-Lundborg disease: An open-label, long-term follow-up trial.

This long-term open-label extension (OLE) trial was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) at individualized doses in patients with epilepsy and focal (partial-onset) or generalized onset seizures, or Unverricht-Lundborg disease (ULD). A secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of BRV in the subgroups of patients with focal or generalized onset seizures. Patients with epilepsy were eligible to enroll in this OLE (N01125; NCT00175916) and were analyzed if they had completed a previous double-blind BRV trial (N01114 [NCT00175929], N01252 [NCT00490035], N01254 [NCT00504881], N01187 [NCT00357669], and N01236 [NCT00368251]), and were expected to obtain a reasonable benefit from long-term BRV treatment. Patients entered the OLE at the BRV dose recommended at the end of the previous trial, with dose adjustments of BRV and concomitant antiseizure medications permitted. Safety variables included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy variables in patients with focal seizures were percent reduction in focal seizure frequency, 50 % responder rates, and 6- and 12-month seizure-freedom. Eight hundred and fifty-three patients (729 [85.5 %] with focal seizures, 30 [3.5 %] with generalized onset seizures, and 94 [11.0 %] with ULD) were enrolled and included in the Safety Set. Overall, 619 (72.6 %) patients discontinued the trial, mainly due to lack of efficacy (354 [41.5 %]), adverse events (100 [11.7 %]), and patient choice (98 [11.5 %]). During the OLE, 588 (68.9 %) patients received BRV for ≥12 months, 403 (47.2 %) for ≥36 months, and 223 (26.1 %) for ≥96 months. The most common modal dose of BRV was 150 mg/day (415 [48.7 %] patients). In the ULD subgroup, the most common modal BRV dose was 100 mg/day (44/94 [46.8 %] patients), and 37/94 (39.4 %) patients had ≥96 months of BRV exposure. Overall, 720/853 (84.4 %) patients reported TEAEs, 451 (52.9 %) had a drug-related TEAE, and 95 (11.1 %) discontinued BRV due to a TEAE. In the ULD subgroup, 87/94 (92.6 %) patients reported TEAEs, 60 (63.8 %) had a drug-related TEAE, and 16 (17.0 %) discontinued due to a TEAE. In patients with focal seizures, the median reduction in focal seizure frequency from Baseline was 43.1 % (n = 728), the 50 % responder rate was 43.6 % (n = 729), and 6- and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 22.2 % and 15.8 %, respectively (n = 595). Overall, BRV was well-tolerated as long-term adjunctive therapy in patients with focal seizures, generalized onset seizures, or Unverricht-Lundborg disease, with improvements in focal seizure frequency maintained over time.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of mipomersen in healthy Japanese volunteers and comparison with Western subjects.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and dose proportionality of mipomersen after single subcutaneous (SC) administration to Japanese healthy subjects; and to compare the PK profiles of Japanese and Western subjects. METHODS: 20 healthy first-generation Japanese male subjects were enrolled into one of three treatment cohorts (50, 100 and 200 mg SC) in a dose-escalation design. Within each cohort, subjects were randomized in a 4 : 1 ratio to receive mipomersen or placebo. RESULTS: Mipomersen was absorbed rapidly after SC administration; median tmax varied between 2 and 3 hours. After reaching peak levels, plasma concentrations of mipomersen decayed multiphasically with an initial distribution t1/2 in several hours and a terminal t1/2 of 261 - 393 hours. Mean Cmax increased in a dose-linear manner while all mean AUC from time 0 to different cut points increased slightly more than dose proportionally. Although mean terminal t1/2 varied in the dose range tested, it did not show dose-dependence. The PK profiles of mipomersen in Japanese subjects are similar to those observed in Western subjects. A single SC dose of 50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg mipomersen was well tolerated by male Japanese subjects. CONCLUSION: Single SC doses of 50 - 200 mg were safe and well tolerated when administered to Japanese subjects. Comparison of PK between Japanese and Western subjects does not support any need for dose adjustment in Japanese population in future clinical development.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of mipomersen in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia receiving maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Mipomersen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting apolipoprotein B synthesis, significantly reduces LDL-C and other atherogenic lipoproteins in familial hypercholesterolemia when added to ongoing maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Safety and efficacy of mipomersen in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia was evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients (n  = 58) were ≥18 years with LDL-C ≥7.8 mmol/L or LDL-C ≥5.1 mmol/L plus CHD disease, on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy that excluded apheresis. Weekly subcutaneous injections of mipomersen 200 mg (n  = 39) or placebo (n  = 19) were added to lipid-lowering therapy for 26 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME: percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline to 2 weeks after the last dose of treatment. Mipomersen (n = 27) reduced LDL-C by 36%, from a baseline of 7.2 mmol/L, for a mean absolute reduction of 2.6 mmol/L. Conversely, mean LDL-C increased 13% in placebo (n = 18) from a baseline of 6.5 mmol/L (mipomersen vs placebo p<0.001). Mipomersen produced statistically significant (p<0.001) reductions in apolipoprotein B and lipoprotein(a), with no change in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Mild-to-moderate injection site reactions were the most frequently reported adverse events with mipomersen. Mild-to-moderate flu-like symptoms were reported more often with mipomersen. Alanine transaminase increase, aspartate transaminase increase, and hepatic steatosis occurred in 21%, 13% and 13% of mipomersen treated patients, respectively. Adverse events by category for the placebo and mipomersen groups respectively were: total adverse events, 16(84.2%), 39(100%); serious adverse events, 0(0%), 6(15.4%); discontinuations due to adverse events, 1(5.3%), 8(20.5%) and cardiac adverse events, 1(5.3%), 5(12.8%). CONCLUSION: Mipomersen significantly reduced LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a). Mounting evidence suggests it may be a potential pharmacologic option for lowering LDL-C in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled using existing therapies. Future studies will explore alternative dosing schedules aimed at minimizing side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00794664.

Mipomersen, an apolipoprotein B synthesis inhibitor, lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in high-risk statin-intolerant patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of mipomersen, an apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB) synthesis inhibitor, in patients who are statin intolerant and at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-three subjects, not receiving statin therapy because of statin intolerance, received a weekly subcutaneous dose of 200 mg mipomersen or placebo (2:1 randomization) for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was per cent change in LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) from the baseline to Week 28. The other efficacy endpoints were per cent change in apoB and lipoprotein a [Lp(a)]. Safety was determined using the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory evaluations. After 26 weeks of mipomersen administration, LDL-c was reduced by 47 ± 18% (P < 0.001 vs. placebo). apoB and Lp(a) were also significantly reduced by 46 and 27%, respectively (P < 0.001 vs. placebo). Four mipomersen (19%) and two placebo subjects (17%) discontinued dosing prematurely due to AEs. Persistent liver transaminase increases ≥ 3× the upper limit of normal were observed in seven (33%) subjects assigned to mipomersen. In selected subjects, liver fat content was assessed, during and after treatment, using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Liver fat content in these patients ranged from 0.8 to 47.3%. Liver needle biopsy was performed in two of these subjects, confirming hepatic steatosis with minimal inflammation or fibrosis. CONCLUSION: The present data suggest that mipomersen is a potential therapeutic option in statin-intolerant patients at high risk for CVD. The long-term follow-up of liver safety is required. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00707746.

Uric acid and other renal function parameters in patients with stable angina pectoris participating in the ACTION trial: impact of nifedipine GITS (gastro-intestinal therapeutic system) and relation to outcome.

BACKGROUND: Little data is available concerning the prognostic implications of renal function abnormalities, their evolution over time and the effects of nifedipine on such abnormalities in patients with stable angina pectoris. METHODS: The previously published ACTION trial compared long-acting nifedipine GITS 60 mg once daily to placebo among 7,665 patients. Standard laboratory tests including creatinine and uric acid were assessed at baseline, after 6 months, 2 and 4 years, and at the end of follow-up. We assessed the impact of nifedipine on markers of renal dysfunction and determined whether evidence of renal failure alters the impact of nifedipine on the clinical outcome of patients with stable angina. RESULTS: Uric acid was not while creatinine level and estimated creatinine clearance were potent conditionally independent predictors of total mortality and of cardiovascular clinical events. Relative to placebo, nifedipine reduced 6-month uric acid levels by 3% (P < 0.001) of the baseline value. This difference was maintained during long-term follow-up, was present both in normotensives and in hypertensives, and was not explained by differences in diuretic therapy or allopurinol use. Nifedipine had no effect on the occurrence of clinical renal failure. Relative to placebo, the effects of nifedipine on cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.17], any stroke or transient ischaemic attack (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.88), new overt heart failure (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.95), and the need for any coronary procedure (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88) were consistent across strata of markers of renal dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, in patients with stable angina, nifedipine reduces uric acid levels and does not affect other markers of renal dysfunction. Renal dysfunction does not alter the effects of nifedipine on clinical outcome.

Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with symptomatic stable angina and hypertension: the ACTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of nifedipine GITS on clinical outcome in patients with concurrent stable angina and hypertension. METHODS: Data from the double-blind placebo-controlled ACTION trial was stratified for hypertension (blood pressure > or = 140/90 mmHg), at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 52% of 7665 ACTION patients were hypertensive. Some 80% were on a beta blocker; hypertensives were more often treated with other blood pressure-lowering drugs. Mean baseline blood pressure was 122/74 mmHg among normotensives and 151/85 mmHg among hypertensives. Follow-up blood pressures were reduced by nifedipine (P < 0.001) on the average by 3.9/2.4 and 6.6/3.5 mmHg among normotensives and hypertensives, respectively. Nifedipine GITS significantly (P < 0.05) reduced the combined incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, refractory angina, heart failure, stroke and peripheral revascularization by 13% in hypertensives only. Nifedipine significantly reduced the incidence of any stroke or transient ischemic attack by almost 30% in both subgroups and the need for coronary angiography by 21% in normotensives and 16% in hypertensives. Among hypertensives, the incidence of new overt heart failure was significantly reduced by 38% and of debilitating stroke by 33%. Among normotensives, the need for coronary bypass grafting was significantly reduced by 32%. Nifedipine did not affect all-cause death, cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction in either normo- or hypertensives, but increased the need for peripheral revascularization. CONCLUSION: The salutary effects of the addition of nifedipine GITS to the basic regimen of patients with concurrent stable symptomatic coronary artery disease and hypertension emphasize the need for blood pressure control.

Clinical significance of renal function in hypertensive patients at high risk: results from the INSIGHT trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests renal involvement in hypertension-related cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications. To assess this role of renal function in more detail, we studied the evolution of renal function and the relationship of renal function with mortality and morbidity in the Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) study. METHODS: The INSIGHT study was a double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial in patients with hypertension and at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor. Treatment consisted of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system, 30 mg/d, or hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride (25 mg/d of hydrochlorothiazide and 2.5 mg/d of amiloride hydrochloride). Primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. Renal function was assessed by measuring creatinine clearance, serum creatinine level, and serum uric acid level and by the presence of proteinuria. RESULTS: Creatinine clearance fell more in nifedipine recipients than in hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride recipients. Renal insufficiency developed in 2% of nifedipine recipients and 5% of hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride recipients. Primary outcomes occurred in 15% of patients with increased serum creatinine levels and 6% of patients with normal levels (odds ratio [OR] 2.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92-4.36; P<.001). Primary outcomes were more likely in patients with low creatinine clearance (<60 mL/min) than in those with higher clearances (9% vs 5%, respectively [OR, 1.51, 95%CI, 1.22-1.88; P<.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Renal function is an important predictor of risk in hypertensive patients at high risk. Antihypertensive treatment with a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker may better preserve renal function than would treatment with diuretics.

Effects of nifedipine GITS and diuretics in isolated systolic hypertension--a subanalysis of the INSIGHT study.

AIMS: This study tested the effects on cardiovascular outcomes of treatments based on nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) compared with the diuretic combination co-amilozide in a pre-specified subset of patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) enrolled in the International Nifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) study. MAJOR FINDINGS: Of 6321 randomized patients, 1498 (23.7%) had ISH with a baseline mean BP of 173/88 mmHg in both treatment groups. Mean BP fell by 29/10 mmHg in the nifedipine and 30/10 mmHg in the diuretic group to a mean BP of 144/78 mmHg and 143/79 mmHg, respectively, at endpoint. The percentage of primary outcomes in patients with ISH was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (nifedipine GITS 6.0%, co-amilozide 6.6%). The number of ISH patients with composite secondary outcomes was 90 (12.2%) in the nifedipine GITS group and 110 (14.5%) in the co-amilozide group (not significant). The incidence rates of primary and secondary outcomes were similar in patients without ISH. CONCLUSION: In patients with ISH, nifedipine GITS and co-amilozide had similar effects on clinical outcomes and BP lowering. They lend support to international guidelines for the treatment of hypertension recommending the use of long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers as one treatment option for patients with ISH.

Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcium antagonists are widely prescribed for angina pectoris but their effect on clinical outcome is controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect of the calcium antagonist nifedipine on long-term outcome in patients with stable angina pectoris. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3825 patients with treated stable symptomatic coronary disease to double-blind addition of nifedipine GITS (gastrointestinal therapeutic system) 60 mg once daily and 3840 to placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of death, acute myocardial infarction, refractory angina, new overt heart failure, debilitating stroke, and peripheral revascularisation. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years (SD 1.1). Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 310 patients allocated nifedipine died (1.64 per 100 patient-years) compared with 291 people allocated placebo (1.53 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.07 [95% CI 0.91-1.25], p=0.41). Primary endpoint rates were 4.60 per 100 patient-years for nifedipine and 4.75 per 100 patient-years for placebo (0.97 [0.88-1.07], p=0.54). With nifedipine, rate of death and any cardiovascular event or procedure was 9.32 per 100 patient-years versus 10.50 per 100 patient-years for placebo (0.89 [0.83-0.95], p=0.0012). The difference was mainly attributable to a reduction in the need for coronary angiography and interventions in patients assigned nifedipine, despite an increase in peripheral revascularisation. Nifedipine had no effect on the rate of myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION: Addition of nifedipine GITS to conventional treatment of angina pectoris has no effect on major cardiovascular event-free survival. Nifedipine GITS is safe and reduces the need for coronary angiography and interventions.

Effects of the combination of low-dose nifedipine GITS 20 mg and losartan 50 mg in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Most hypertensive patients require more than one medication to effectively control elevated blood pressure (BP) values. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was aimed at testing the efficacy and safety of the combination of low-dose nifedipine GITS 20 mg/ losartan 50 mg compared with either monotherapy in patients with grade 1 to 3 hypertension over an eight-week period. Of 352 patients enrolled in the study, 300 were randomized. All the three treatments lowered elevated BP without clinically relevant changes in heart rate. All the three treatments lowered mean 24-hour diastolic BP: nifedipine GITS/losartan -10.6 mm Hg, losartan -5.4 mm Hg, nifedipine GITS 20 mg -8.0 mm Hg. There was a statistically significant difference of diastolic BP change between patients receiving losartan compared with those receiving combination treatment (P < 0.05). Diastolic BP trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index were highest in the patient group receiving combination therapy (70%). Nifedipine GITS monotherapy had the highest systolic BP trough-to-peak ratio of all treatment arms (78%) and higher diastolic BP trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index than losartan monotherapy. All treatments were safe. These data provide evidence that in hypertensive patients combination of nifedipine GITS 20 mg and losartan 50 mg improves control of systolic and diastolic BP compared with either monotherapy.

Outcomes with nifedipine GITS or Co-amilozide in hypertensive diabetics and nondiabetics in Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension (INSIGHT).

To investigate the impact of treatment on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, we assessed outcomes in patients with hypertension and diabetes who received co-amilozide or nifedipine in the International Nifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension. Participants had to be 55 to 80 years of age, with hypertension (> or =150/95 or > or =160 mm Hg) and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients received 30 mg nifedipine once daily or co-amilozide (25 mg hydrochlorothiazide and 2.5 mg amiloride) daily. Doses were doubled if target blood pressures (<140/90 mm Hg) were not achieved. Primary (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke) and secondary outcomes (composite of primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality and death from vascular and nonvascular causes) were assessed by means of intent-to-treat analyses. There was no significant difference in the incidence of primary outcomes between nifedipine-treated and co-amilozide-treated patients with diabetes at baseline (n=1302) (8.3% versus 8.4%; relative risk, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.42; P=1.00). A significant benefit for nifedipine-treated patients was seen for the composite secondary outcome (14.2% versus 18.7%; relative risk, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.97; P=0.03). Among patients without diabetes at baseline (n=5019), there was a significant difference in the incidence of new diabetes (nifedipine 4.3% versus co-amilozide 5.6%, P=0.023). Nifedipine GITS once daily is as effective as diuretic therapy in reducing cardiovascular complications in hypertensive diabetics. Nifedipine-treated patients were also less likely to have diabetes or have secondary events (a composite of all-cause mortality, death from a vascular cause, and death from a nonvascular cause) than co-amilozide recipients. Our results suggest that nifedipine could be considered as first-line therapy for hypertensive diabetics.