Meta-analyses of ataluren randomized controlled trials in nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Aim: Assess the totality of efficacy evidence for ataluren in patients with nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy (nmDMD). Materials & methods: Data from the two completed randomized controlled trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00592553; NCT01826487) of ataluren in nmDMD were combined to examine the intent-to-treat (ITT) populations and two patient subgroups (baseline 6-min walk distance [6MWD] ≥300-<400 or <400 m). Meta-analyses examined 6MWD change from baseline to week 48. Results: Statistically significant differences in 6MWD change with ataluren versus placebo were observed across all three meta-analyses. Least-squares mean difference (95% CI): ITT (n = 342), +17.2 (0.2-34.1) m, p = 0.0473; ≥300-<400 m (n = 143), +43.9 (18.2-69.6) m, p = 0.0008; <400 m (n = 216), +27.7 (6.4-49.0) m, p = 0.0109. Conclusion: These meta-analyses support previous evidence for ataluren in slowing disease progression versus placebo in patients with nmDMD over 48 weeks. Treatment benefit was most evident in patients with a baseline 6MWD ≥300-<400 m (the ambulatory transition phase), thereby informing future trial design.

Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of Multiple Doses of Pharmaceutical-Grade Synthetic Cannabidiol in Pediatric Patients with Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have evaluated the use of various constituents of cannabis for their anti-seizure effects. Specifically, cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component of cannabis, has been investigated for treatment-resistant epilepsy, but more information is needed particularly on its use in a pediatric population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of a synthetic pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol oral solution in pediatric patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: In this open-label study, pediatric patients (aged 1 to ≤ 17 years) with treatment-resistant epilepsy received cannabidiol oral solution administered as add-on to their current antiepileptic drug regimen. Patients received a single dose (5, 10, or 20 mg/kg) on day 1 and twice-daily dosing on days 4 through 10 (10-mg/kg [cohort 1], 20-mg/kg [cohort 2], or 40-mg/kg [cohort 3] total daily dose). Serial blood samples were collected on day 1 before dosing and up to 72 h post-dose, and on day 10 before dosing and up to 24 h post-dose. Blood samples to assess trough concentrations of cannabidiol were collected on day 6 (for patients aged 12 to ≤ 17 years), day 8 (for patients aged 2 to ≤ 17 years), and day 9 (for patients aged 6 to ≤ 17 years). RESULTS: Overall, 61 patients across three cohorts received one of three doses of cannabidiol oral solution (mean age, 7.6 years). The age composition was similar in the three cohorts. There was a trend for increased cannabidiol exposure with increased cannabidiol oral solution dosing, but overall exposure varied. Approximately 2-6 days of twice-daily dosing provided steady-state concentrations of cannabidiol. A bi-directional drug interaction occurred with cannabidiol and clobazam. Concomitant administration of clobazam with 40 mg/kg/day of cannabidiol oral solution resulted in a 2.5-fold increase in mean cannabidiol exposure. Mean plasma clobazam concentrations were 1.7- and 2.2-fold greater in patients receiving clobazam concomitantly with 40 mg/kg/day of cannabidiol oral solution compared with 10 mg/kg/day and 20 mg/kg/day. Mean plasma norclobazam values were 1.3- and 1.9-fold higher for patients taking clobazam plus 40 mg/kg/day of cannabidiol oral solution compared with the 10-mg/kg/day and 20-mg/kg/day groups. All doses were generally well tolerated, and common adverse events that occurred at > 10% were somnolence (21.3%), anemia (18.0%), and diarrhea (16.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-individual variability in systemic cannabidiol exposure after pediatric patient treatment with cannabidiol oral solution was observed but decreased with multiple doses. Short-term administration was generally safe and well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02324673).

Adjunctive Perampanel Oral Suspension in Pediatric Patients From ≥2 to <12 Years of Age With Epilepsy: Pharmacokinetics, Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy.

Study 232, an open-label pilot study with an extension phase, evaluated the pharmacokinetics and preliminary safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel oral suspension (≤0.18 mg/kg/d) in epilepsy patients aged ≥2 to <12 years. Patients were grouped into cohorts 1 (aged ≥7 to <12 years) and 2 (aged ≥2 to <7 years). The Core Study included pretreatment (≤2 weeks) and treatment phases (7-week titration; 4-week maintenance; 4-week follow-up [for those not entering the extension]). The extension phase consisted of 41-week maintenance and 4-week follow-up periods. Pharmacokinetic data were pooled with adolescent pharmacokinetic data from phase II/III studies. Population pharmacokinetic analysis showed that perampanel pharmacokinetics was independent of age, weight, or liver function, suggesting age- or weight-based dosing is not required and that the same dose can be given to adults and children to achieve exposures shown to be efficacious. Perampanel was well tolerated and efficacious for ≤52 weeks.

Long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition in adolescents with partial seizures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition, efficacy, growth, safety, and tolerability in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial seizures. METHODS: Study 235, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase II study with an open-label extension phase (NCT01161524), was primarily designed to assess the effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition. Patients (aged ≥12 to <18years) had a diagnosis of epilepsy with inadequately controlled partial seizures, with or without secondary generalization, despite receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs. During the double-blind phase, adjunctive perampanel or placebo was administered over a 6-week titration period and a 13-week maintenance period up to 12mg/day. During the extension phase, all patients received perampanel. Data from the extension phase are presented here. Study endpoints included change from baseline in Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) measures of cognition, seizure frequency, growth, development, the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and laboratory values. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients entered the extension phase (prior double-blind treatment: placebo, n=41; perampanel, n=73). Perampanel had no effect on the CDR system global cognition score, continuity of attention, quality of episodic memory, quality of working memory, or speed of memory but was associated with a significant decline in power of attention at end of treatment compared with baseline (p=0.03). There were no effects on language skills or manual dexterity from baseline to end of treatment. At Weeks 40-52, median reduction in seizure frequency was 74.1%, and 50% responder rate was 66.0%. There were no clinically relevant effects of perampanel on growth or development at end of treatment compared with baseline. Overall, 84.2% of patients experienced at least one TEAE and 70.2% experienced at least one treatment-related TEAE. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (29.8%) and somnolence (19.3%). The TEAEs resulted in the discontinuation of treatment in 6.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with the 19-week double-blind phase, long-term adjunctive treatment with perampanel did not have any significant overall effects on the CDR system global cognition score in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Similar trends were observed across the individual CDR system domains. Adjunctive perampanel showed sustained long-term seizure control and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that observed in prior clinical studies.

Earlier use of adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation therapy for refractory epilepsy.

Recent studies suggest that epilepsy that is unresponsive to medical therapy is likely to be refractory from the onset. Identifying such patients early and treating them with nonpharmacologic therapies may improve their outcome. We hypothesized that patients who had adjunctive therapy with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) earlier in the course of their epilepsy would have a better response compared with patients who had VNS therapy instituted later in the course. Patients in the VNS patient outcome registry who were more than 5 years post onset of their seizure disorder at implantation and had seizure frequency data available at both baseline and 3 months comprised the control group (n = 2785). These data were obtained retrospectively. Patients who were implanted between August 15, 2000 and July 31, 2001 who had epilepsy for 5 years or less at implantation or who had tried four or fewer standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) before implantation, and who were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month intervals for seizure frequency and quality of life, comprised the early adjunctive registry (EAR group; n = 120). This group was identified prospectively by participating physicians at multiple centers. The data describe patient demographics, medical history, seizure frequency, and physician-graded quality of life measures. The two populations were demographically similar except for statistically significant differences in age, duration of epilepsy, institutionalized patients, and seizure type (partial and generalized). Although the median reduction in seizure frequency for all patients at 3 months was similar between groups (48.2% control versus 50.0% EAR), 15.0% of the patients in the EAR group reported no seizures at 3 months compared with 4.4% of those in the control group (p < 0.001). In addition, significantly more patients in the EAR group (20% versus 8%; p < 0.001) reported no seizures with alteration or loss of consciousness, and 32% of EAR patients reported no complex partial seizures compared with 17% in the control group (p = 0.002). Improvements in all areas of quality of life were reported by both populations, but more patients in the EAR group were reported as "much better/better" for postictal state (p = 0.030) and seizure clustering (p = 0.002). Typically, 5% of patients report having no seizures after 3 months of VNS therapy. The proportion increased threefold, from 5% to 15%, for patients who received VNS therapy earlier in the treatment process. Patients reported even higher rates of no seizures when simple partial seizures were excluded from the analysis or when only complex partial seizures were considered. Although these results are preliminary, they offer promise of success in achieving seizure control among patients with refractory seizures who have been diagnosed with epilepsy for less than 5 years or who have tried four or fewer AEDs. We suggest future prospective studies evaluating VNS therapy versus best medical therapy after the first two to three AEDs have failed, which typically occurs within 2 years of seizure onset.