Patterns of antiseizure medication utilization in the Human Epilepsy Project.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to ascertain the natural history and patterns of antiseizure medication (ASM) use in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy patients who were initially started on monotherapy. METHODS: The data were derived from the Human Epilepsy Project. Differences between the durations of the most commonly first prescribed ASM monotherapies were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Subjects were classified into three groups: monotherapy, sequential monotherapy, and polytherapy. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients were included in the analysis, with a median age of 32 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 20-44) and median follow-up time of 3.2 years (IQR = 2.4-4.2); 161 (36.3%) patients remained on monotherapy with their initially prescribed ASM at the time of their last follow-up. The mean (SEM) and median (IQR) duration that patients stayed on monotherapy with their initial ASM was 2.1 (2.0-2.2) and 1.9 (.3-3.5) years, respectively. The most commonly prescribed initial ASM was levetiracetam (254, 57.3%), followed by lamotrigine (77, 17.4%), oxcarbazepine (38, 8.6%), and carbamazepine (24, 5.4%). Among those who did not remain on the initial monotherapy, 167 (59.2%) transitioned to another ASM as monotherapy (sequential monotherapy) and 115 (40.8%) ended up on polytherapy. Patients remained significantly longer on lamotrigine (mean = 2.8 years, median = 3.1 years) compared to levetiracetam (mean = 2.0 years, median = 1.5 years) as a first prescribed medication (hazard ratio = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.0-2.2). As the study progressed, the proportion of patients on lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and oxcarbazepine as well as other sodium channel agents increased from a little more than one third (154, 34.8%) of patients to more than two thirds (303, 68.4%) of patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Slightly more than one third of focal epilepsy patients remain on monotherapy with their first prescribed ASM. Approximately three in five patients transition to monotherapy with another ASM, whereas approximately two in five end up on polytherapy. Patients remain on lamotrigine for a longer duration compared to levetiracetam when it is prescribed as the initial monotherapy.

Patterns of psychotropic drug use in veterans with epilepsy: Do drug interactions matter?

RATIONALE: Patients with epilepsy are likely to suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, including depression and anxiety. They often require treatment with multiple psychotropic drugs (PDs). While it is clear that CYP-inducing ASMs (EIASMs) can increase the oral clearance of multiple medications (thus lowering systemic exposure), it is less clear that all PK interactions are clinically meaningful (e.g. lower efficacy). As a first step in addressing this issue, this study sought to quantify the potential impact of ASM choice, whether EIASM or non-inducer (NIASM), on surrogate markers of suggestive of clinical use, including resultant antidepressant (AD) or antipsychotic (AP) dose, frequency of combination use of AD & AP, and number of multiple drug switches of PDs. Our hypothesis is that because of PK interactions, EIAED treatment would be associated with higher psychotropic drug doses, more frequent Rx adjustments and poly psychotropic comedication, all in order to optimize therapeutic response. METHODS: Using VA pharmacy and national encounter databases, veterans with epilepsy were identified based on having a seizure diagnosis and being prescribed concomitantly an ASM and a psychotropic drug for at least 365 days between 10/1/2010 and 9/30/2014. Patients for whom psychotropic drugs were prescribed any time between beginning and end prescriptions dates of ASMs were considered. Among those, patients receiving both an EIASM + NEIASM concomitantly were categorized with the EIASM group. Patients were evaluated for AD only, AP only and both (AD & AP). To compute average drug doses per day, averages for each patient were computed and averaged again. Multiple drug switches were defined to be for patients who had been prescribed more than three psychotropic drugs during the observation period. Pearson's Chi-Square test was used to compare relative proportions of AD, AP and AD + AP in both groups. RESULTS: In all, 16,188 patients were identified (57.0% on EIASM, 43.0% on NIASM) with a mean age of 58.7 years (91.2% male). A larger proportion of patients on EIASM received mono treatment with any psychotropic drug, as compared to NIASM (42.0% vs 36.1%). Among all, 59.6% received AD only, 6.5% received AP only, and 33.8% received both concurrently. Of EIASM, 62.5% were on AD, 5.9% on AP, and 31.7% on both AP & AD. For NIASM, 55.9% received AD, 7.4% AP, and 36.7% on AD & AP.Chi-square showed that the distribution of PD was statistically different between EIASM and NIASM groups. Z tests showed that each difference (AD, AP and both) in proportions was statistically significant (p values (4 tests, one Chi-square, 3 Z tests <0.001) between EIASM vs NIASM. Interestingly, mean doses of AD or AP did not appear to differ between ASM groups. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent psychotropic drug use is quite common in the VA population with epilepsy, and a large number of patients still receive enzyme-inducing ASMs that may complicate other medical therapies. Interestingly, in seeming contradiction to our hypothesis, mean daily doses of either AD or AP did not appear to differ between inducers vs non-inducers. Similarly, use of polytherapy, and/or multiple trials of various psychotropic drugs did not appear increased in the CYP-induced group. In fact, combination therapy of AD + AP was higher in NIASM than EIASM. These data suggest that perhaps these types of PK interactions may not in fact result in meaningful clinical differences. Since the present analyses did not include clinical psychiatric measures, future analyses examining direct clinical outcomes are clearly warranted.

Lamotrigine use and potential for adverse cardiac effects: A retrospective evaluation in a Veteran population.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the impact of lamotrigine (LTG) on cardiac rhythm and conduction abnormalities for Veterans, an especially vulnerable population. BACKGROUND: In October 2020 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a new warning to the label of lamotrigine (Lamictal™) regarding its potential to cause cardiac rhythm and conduction abnormalities [1]. This warning came following in vitro data which suggested Class IB antiarrhythmic effects occurring at clinically achievable concentrations of lamotrigine [2]. However, it is unclear whether the in vitro findings will result in adverse clinical outcomes. Our objective was to assess for evidence for adverse clinical outcomes in a vulnerable population and examine for subtler signs of an association between lamotrigine and cardiac rhythm disturbances. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted using records between 10-01-2017 and 07-06-2021, identifying patients at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital who were prescribed lamotrigine. Data collected included: dates of lamotrigine initiation or discontinuation, lamotrigine dosing over the time of the prescription and maximum lamotrigine dose, any cardiac-related ICD-10-CM codes or a history of a cardiology appointment, EKGs with any abnormalities or changes, any concomitantly prescribed medications with known potential to cause cardiac abnormalities, any cardiac deaths. This retrospective chart review was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-three (189 male) patients with a lamotrigine prescription and 41.2 % (n = 96) of these patients had an EKG performed while prescribed lamotrigine. The average age of patients was 64.3 ± 13.0 (range 29 to 90) years and mean maximum lamotrigine daily dose was 250.8 ± 148.2 mg (range 25 to 800 mg). Nearly half (47.9 %, 46/96) of the patients were prescribed a concomitant sodium channel blocking medication in addition to lamotrigine. Eighty-four of the patients (87.5 %, 84/96) had a cardiac diagnosis, while 12 (12.5 %, 12/96) did not. A total of 12 deaths occurred within the review period, with two cardiac deaths from congestive heart failure. Four cases did not have information on cause of death. No LTG-associated cardiac adverse effects were noted as part of clinical care, though rash was noted in 5 cases. A total of 7 (7.3 %, 7/96) patients were found to have EKG abnormalities potentially related to lamotrigine, including 7.1 % (6/84) of those with a cardiac diagnosis and 8.3 % (1/12) of those without a cardiac diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While recent FDA warnings have suggested caution regarding cardiac complications associated with lamotrigine based on in vitro studies, the clinical implications are uncertain. Despite selecting a particularly vulnerable population, this retrospective chart review did not identify any deaths due to cardiac rhythm or conduction causes, nor demonstrate unambiguous cardiac complications related to lamotrigine. Even using permissive criteria (including any prolonged PR or QTc) to examine for subtle effects, only a low incidence (<10 %) of potential complications was found. Broader implications of this study are limited by the number of patients included and the retrospective nature of the study. Therefore, further studies are warranted to evaluate a link between cardiac complications and the use of lamotrigine, including the role of concomitant medications such as other sodium channel blocking agents and psychotropic medications.

Real-world, long-term evaluation of the tolerability and therapy retention of Epidiolex® (cannabidiol) in patients with refractory epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Epidiolex® (CBD) is FDA-approved for seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), Dravet syndrome (DS), and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). Phase III studies suggest that certain adverse effects (AEs), possibly linked to pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) interactions may be therapy-limiting. We sought to identify these factors that contribute to treatment success and retention of therapy. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of patients with refractory epilepsy taking Epidiolex® was performed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to describe Epidiolex® retention, as a measure of overall effectiveness. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve patients were screened; 4 were excluded due to loss to follow-up or never starting Epidiolex®. Of 108 patients, mean age was 20.3 years (13.1, range 2 to 63), and 52.8% were female. Mean initial and maintenance doses were 5.3 mg/kg/day (1.3) and 15.3 mg/kg/day (5.8), respectively. At the final evaluation, 75% of patients remained on Epidiolex®. The 25th percentile for discontinuation was 19 months. 46.3% of patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect (TEAE) with 14.5% d/c Epidiolex® due to treatment emerging adverse effects (TEAE). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (37%), increased seizure activity (22%), worsened behavior (22%), and sedation (22%). One out of 27 discontinuations was due to liver function test (LFT) elevations (3.7%). At initiation, 47.2% were concurrently taking clobazam, and 39.2% of those patients had an initial clobazam dose decrease. 53% of patients were able to either discontinue or lower the dose of at least one other antiseizure medication. SIGNIFICANCE: Epidiolex® is generally well-tolerated and the majority continued long-term treatment. Patterns of adverse effects were similar to clinical trials, however gastrointestinal complaints, and significant LFT elevations were less common. Our data suggest most patients discontinue within the first several months of treatment and suggest that further studies designed to evaluate early identification and potential mitigation of adverse effects and including drug interactions are warranted.

Rescue therapies for seizure clusters: Pharmacology and target of treatments.

The primary goal of treatment for seizure clusters is cessation of the cluster to avoid progression to more severe conditions, such as prolonged seizures and status epilepticus. Rescue therapies are key components of treatment plans for patients with seizure clusters. Three rescue therapies are approved in the United States for the treatment of seizure clusters: diazepam rectal gel, midazolam nasal spray, and diazepam nasal spray. This review characterizes the pharmacological function of rescue therapies for seizure clusters, as well as describing γ-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA ) receptor functions. GABAA receptors are heteropentamers, consisting primarily of α1-6, ß1-3, γ2, and δ subunits in the central nervous system. These subunits can traffic to and from the membrane to regulate membrane potential. Benzodiazepines, such as diazepam and midazolam, are positive allosteric modulators of GABAA receptors, the activation of which leads to an increase in intracellular chloride, hyperpolarization of the cell membrane, and a reduction in excitation. GABAA receptor subunit mutations, dysregulation of trafficking, and degradation are associated with epilepsy. Although benzodiazepines are effective GABAA receptor modulators, individual formulations have unique profiles in practice. Diazepam rectal gel is an effective rescue therapy for seizure clusters; however, adults and adolescents may have social reservations regarding its administration. Intranasal delivery of midazolam or diazepam is a promising alternative to rectal administration because these formulations offer easy, socially acceptable administration and exhibit a rapid onset. Off-label benzodiazepines, such as orally disintegrating lorazepam and intranasal use of an intravenous formulation of midazolam via nasal atomizer, are less well characterized regarding bioavailability and tolerability compared with approved agents.

Considerations for determining the efficacy of new antiseizure medications in children age 1 month to younger than 2 years.

OBJECTIVES: Drug treatment for children with epilepsy should, ideally, be governed by evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical studies. However, these studies are difficult to conduct, and so direct evidence supporting the informed use of specific drugs is often lacking. The Research Roundtable for Epilepsy (RRE) met in 2020 to align on an approach to therapy development for focal seizures in children age 1 month <2 years of age. METHODS: The RRE reviewed the regulatory landscape, epidemiology, seizure semiology, antiseizure medicine pharmacology, and safety issues applicable to this population. RESULTS: After reviewing evidence, the conclusion was that pediatric efficacy trials would be impracticable to conduct but a waiver of the regulatory requirement to conduct any study would lead to an absence of information to guide dosing in a critical population. Review of available data and discussion of RRE attendees led to the conclusion that the requirements for extrapolation of efficacy from older children down to infants from age 1 month to <2 years old appeared to be met. After the RRE, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved brivaracetam for use in children with focal epilepsy above the age of 1 month in August 2021 and lacosamide in October 2021, both based on the principle of extrapolation from data in older children. SIGNIFICANCE: These recommendations should result in more rapid accessibility of antiseizure medications for infants.

Interindividual Variability in the Bioavailability of Gabapentin Enacarbil Extended Release in Healthy Adults: An Analysis of Data From 6 Phase I Studies.

BACKGROUND: The absorption and bioavailability of oral gabapentin are associated with a high degree of interindividual variability. Gabapentin enacarbil, a prodrug of gabapentin, is well absorbed and provides sustained, dose-proportional exposure to gabapentin. The aim of this analysis was to describe the interindividual variability in the bioavailability of gabapentin after gabapentin enacarbil administration in healthy subjects. METHODS: Gabapentin pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters after an oral dose of gabapentin enacarbil 1200 mg (2 600-mg tablets) were compared across 6 phase I studies in healthy adults (n = 12 per study). The distribution of bioavailability values was assessed in all studies. RESULTS: The mean PK parameters of gabapentin were consistent across the trials: maximum concentration range: 6.4-7.9 µg/mL, time to maximum concentration range: 5.2-8.2 hours, area under the plasma-concentration curve extrapolated from time 0 to infinity or at steady state range: 70.8-109.4 µg·h/mL, and bioavailability range: 64.8%-82.9%. Overall, the mean bioavailability was 74.1% (SD, 14.1; coefficient of variation, 19.1%). Individual bioavailability across all studies ranged from 42% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin PK after gabapentin enacarbil administration was consistent across studies, with low interindividual variability in bioavailability. Gabapentin enacarbil may provide more consistent and predictable exposure to gabapentin than oral gabapentin formulations.

Analysis of cannabidiol (CBD) and THC in nonprescription consumer products: Implications for patients and practitioners.

PURPOSE: Cannabidiol products remains largely unregulated in the US. Unlike the Rx formulation of CBD [EpidiolexR], little information is available regarding labeling accuracy (does the product contain what the label says it does), lot to lot variability, nor long-term product stability. Understanding these properties are fundamental if these products are to be used in patients with epilepsy, where product variability of traditional AEDs has been suspected to result in inadequate seizure control. Therefore, we analyzed commercial CBD products, including oils, aqueous products (i.e., beverages), and various Other products for cannabinoid content vs label claims and stability under United States Pharmacopeia (USP) standards. METHOD: Samples were diluted and analyzed by HPLC for CBD, THC, and CBN concentrations in order to assess product label accuracy. Products with <90% of label claim CBD were denoted over-labeled, products with >110% of label claim CBD were denoted under-labeled, and products between 90% and 110% of label claim CBD were denoted appropriately labeled, per USP standards. RESULTS: Among commercial CBD Oils (n = 11), mean CBD concentration vs label claim was 91.56% [95% CI, 66.02-117.10%], although 18.18% of oils (n = 2) made nonspecific label claims of "hemp extract" in lieu of CBD. Among all oils, 36.36% (n = 4) were appropriately labeled, another 36.4% (n = 4) of all oils were under-labeled, maximum 128.3% label claim, and finally, 9.09% (n = 1) of oils were over-labeled. The remaining 18.18% (n = 2) of oils lacked specific CBD label claims, minimum of 0.3 mg CBD per 1-ml "dose". THC was detected in 54.55% (n = 6) of oils with a maximum concentration of 0.2% w/v and a minimum concentration of 0.036% w/v. Cannabinol was detectable in only 9.1% (n = 1) of products at a concentration of 0.00465% w/v. Among aqueous products (n = 21) tested, only 66.67% (n = 14) gave specific CBD label claims, with mean CBD concentration vs label claim of 59.93% [95% CI, 38.24-81.63%]. Only 7.14% (n = 1) of aqueous products with a label claim were appropriately labeled, 14.29% (n = 2) were found to be under-labeled, and 78.57% (n = 11) over-labeled. THC was detected in 23.81% (n = 5) of aqueous products tested with a maximum THC concentration of 0.0005% w/v, and a minimum concentration of 0.0002% w/v. Cannabinol was detected in 9.52% (n = 2) of aqueous products, both at a concentration of 0.0015% w/v. "Other" products (n = 7) tested ranged from chocolate bars to transdermal patches. Some 42.86% (n = 3) gave specific CBD label claims, with mean CBD concentration vs label claim of 67.01% [95% CI, 0.87-133.14%]. Among these three "Other" products with specific label claims, 33% (n = 1) was appropriately labeled, and 66.67% (n = 2) were over-labeled, with CBD concentrations vs label claim ranging from a minimum of 39.30% to a maximum of 101.99%. The remaining 57.14% (n = 5) of "Other" products tested made nonspecific CBD label claims, denoting CBD content in terms of "full spectrum hemp extract" or "activated cannabinoids". One such product was labeled with a "40-50-mg CBD" range instead of a single, specific value. Tetrahydrocannabinol was detected in 71.43% (n = 5) of Other products tested with a maximum concentration of 0.0046% w/w, and a minimum concentration of 0.0008% w/w. Cannabinol was detected in 14.3% (n = 1) of Other products at a concentration of 0.0001% w/w. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that commercial CBD products, especially aqueous beverages, can show inconsistent labeling, vary largely from their label claims should they make them, and show lot-to-lot variability making dosing unpredictable.

Use of extended-release and immediate-release anti-seizure medications with a long half-life to improve adherence in epilepsy: A guide for clinicians.

Poor adherence to anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is associated with breakthrough seizures and potentially increased toxicity in patients with epilepsy. Extended-release (ER) drugs and immediate-release (IR) drugs with a long half-life (t1/2) that permit once-daily dosing (such as, perampanel, zonisamide, lamotrigine [IR, ER] and topiramate [ER]) have a number of advantages over short t1/2 ASMs that require multiple daily dosing. These advantages include simplification of dosing regimens, reduction in pill burden, and a decrease in the peak-to-trough fluctuations in serum drug concentration that may be associated with a decreased risk of adverse effects and seizures. Such properties have wider implications in improving patient adherence to treatment. This article is intended as a practical guide for clinicians that provides an overview of the features of ER ASMs and long t1/2 IR ASMs that are advantageous in the context of patient adherence and pharmacokinetic "forgiveness" (after missing a dose). In addition, we note that efforts to improve adherence should not depend solely on drug dosing regimens and drug pharmacokinetics, but should be part of a wider strategy that includes therapeutic drug monitoring, improved healthcare provider-patient dialogue, patient education, and the use of "reminder" technology.

Influence of titration of antiseizure medications on treatment selection: Results of an online survey with clinicians in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Most antiseizure medications (ASM) need to be titrated before the optimal dose is achieved. Titration can last several weeks to months. We assessed the impact titration schedules have on ASM treatment-related decisions in the United States (US). METHODS: An online survey was conducted with different healthcare providers (HCPs) in the US involved in the treatment and management of patients with epilepsy. The survey contained three sections: the first section with screening questions; the second on key factors that influence a HCP's decision-making when selecting treatments for different types of seizures and different treatment lines; and the third on the HCP's knowledge and perceptions regarding ASM titration for the treatment of patients with epilepsy. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty HCPs (63% neurologists) completed the survey. Most HCPs considered titration schedule to be important, with only 1-3% of HCPs, depending on type of seizure, considering the titration schedule to be "not important at all" when prescribing therapy. Healthcare providers' acceptance of titration increased with shorter durations (≥50% accepted titration periods of ≤2 weeks), and lower number of tablets/capsules per dose (≥50% accepted ≤3 tablets/capsules per dose), doses (≥50% accepted ≤2 doses/day), and steps (≥50% accepted ≤3 steps/dose change). Most HCPs (68-91% depending on type of seizure) considered a titration duration of 6 or more weeks only somewhat acceptable or somewhat or highly unacceptable. Almost all HCPs selected "somewhat familiar", "familiar", or "very familiar" as the attribute that best defines their knowledge level of titration, with only 4% selecting "a little familiar". While 87% of HCPs agreed or strongly agreed that they could easily understand titration schedules, only 27% of them agreed or strongly agreed that patients could easily understand titration schedules and 58% of HCPs considered that adhering to the titration schedule was difficult for patients. Most HCPs agreed or strongly agreed that a complex or long titration schedule renders it difficult to achieve their treatment objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers take into account the duration and complexity of the titration period in their ASM prescribing decision-making and prefer shorter and simpler titration schedules, particularly for patients who are experiencing convulsive seizures and starting monotherapy. There was a clear difference between the HCP's belief in their own ability to understand a titration schedule, and their belief that the patient would be able to follow the titration schedule appropriately.

Coffee and cigarette smoking interactions with lamotrigine.

The objective of this analysis was to determine possible interactions between lamotrigine (LTG) and coffee or cigarette use. As part of the statistical analysis of factors influencing LTG pharmacokinetics (PK) in the Equigen chronic dose study, we collected prospective data from enrolled patients on their use of coffee and cigarettes. Subjects were part of a crossover replication study of generic LTG products with rigorous blood sampling and were instructed to not change their typical consumption of these products for the duration of the study. A total of 35 subjects were enrolled, with 33 subjects having sufficient data for analysis. Higher consumption of coffee was associated with a significantly lower area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) of lamotrigine (LTG). Higher cigarette use did not result in a significant change in AUC or Cmax. Coffee, but not cigarette use, either induces LTG metabolism or inhibits LTG absorption.

Clinical implications of trials investigating drug-drug interactions between cannabidiol and enzyme inducers or inhibitors or common antiseizure drugs.

Highly purified cannabidiol (CBD) has demonstrated efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in randomized, double-blind, add-on, controlled phase 3 trials. It is important to consider the possibility of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Here, we review six trials of CBD (Epidiolex/Epidyolex; 100 mg/mL oral solution) in healthy volunteers or patients with epilepsy, which investigated potential interactions between CBD and enzymes involved in drug metabolism of common antiseizure drugs (ASDs). CBD did not affect CYP3A4 activity. Induction of CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 led to small reductions in exposure to CBD and its major metabolites. Inhibition of CYP3A4 activity did not affect CBD exposure and caused small increases in exposure to CBD metabolites. Inhibition of CYP2C19 activity led to a small increase in exposure to CBD and small decreases in exposure to CBD metabolites. One potentially clinically important DDI was identified: combination of CBD and clobazam (CLB) did not affect CBD or CLB exposure, but increased exposure to major metabolites of both compounds. Reduction of CLB dose may be considered if adverse reactions known to occur with CLB are experienced when it is coadministered with CBD. There was a small increase of exposure to stiripentol (STP) when coadministered with CBD. STP had no effect on CBD exposure but led to minor decreases in exposure to CBD metabolites. Combination of CBD and valproate (VPA) did not cause clinically important changes in the pharmacokinetics of either drug, or 2-propyl-4-pentenoic acid. Concomitant VPA caused small increases in exposure to CBD metabolites. Dose adjustments are not likely to be necessary when CBD is combined with STP or VPA. The safety results from these trials were consistent with the known safety profile of CBD. These trials indicate an overall low potential for DDIs between CBD and other ASDs, except for CLB.

Bioavailability and safety of diazepam intranasal solution compared to oral and rectal diazepam in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: The study assesses the bioavailability of diazepam after intranasal administration (diazepam nasal spray) in healthy volunteers. Comparative agents were diazepam rectal gel, which served as the regulatory reference product; and oral diazepam, a product with decades of clinical use. Tolerability of diazepam nasal spray was also assessed. METHODS: This was a phase 1, open-label, randomized, single-dose, three-treatment, three-period, six-sequence crossover study in 48 healthy adult subjects that consisted of a screening period, a baseline period, and an open-label treatment period. Interperiod intervals were at least 28 days. RESULTS: Forty-eight healthy volunteer subjects were enrolled, two of whom discontinued before receiving study medication. For all routes of administration, the onset of diazepam absorption was rapid, with measurable concentrations of drug present by the first sample time point. The tmax (time to reach maximum plasma concentration) was similar for diazepam nasal spray and diazepam rectal gel, both of which were slower than oral diazepam in fasted individuals. Variability (as defined by % coefficient of variation of geometric mean) in peak plasma concentration and area under the curve0-∞ was lowest with oral diazepam, followed by diazepam nasal spray, with diazepam rectal gel showing the greatest variability. Overall, 131 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were considered mild (42 subjects, 91.3%), four TEAEs were considered moderate (four subjects, 8.3%), and no TEAEs were considered severe. The most commonly reported TEAE was somnolence at 56.5% (26/46) during diazepam nasal spray treatment, 89.1% (41/46) with the rectal diazepam gel treatment, and 82.6% (38/46) with oral diazepam treatment. No nasal irritation was observed for the majority of the subjects at any time point after administration, with no score higher than 2 ("minor bleeding that stops within 1 minute"). SIGNIFICANCE: Diazepam nasal spray shows predicable pharmacokinetics and represents a potential novel therapeutic approach to control bouts of increased seizure activity (cluster seizures, acute repetitive seizures).

Changes in perampanel levels during de-induction: Simulations following carbamazepine discontinuation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time course of changes in perampanel levels when co-administered with carbamazepine, and following carbamazepine discontinuation, using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model. METHODS: The PBPK model was developed, verified using clinical PK data, and used to simulate the effect of abrupt discontinuation and down-titration (75 mg twice daily [bid]/wk) of co-administered carbamazepine 300 mg bid on the PK of perampanel once daily (qd). Perampanel dose tapering (8-4 mg) and up-titration (2-6 mg) were simulated during abrupt carbamazepine 300 mg bid discontinuation to identify a titration schedule that minimizes changes in perampanel plasma concentrations. RESULTS: The PBPK model accurately reproduced perampanel plasma concentration-time profiles from clinical studies in single- and multiple-dose regimen simulations, including multiple-dose carbamazepine co-administration. The time course of return to pre-induced perampanel levels occurred more slowly following carbamazepine down-titration (~48 days after first down-titration) vs abrupt discontinuation (~25 days). Perampanel dose tapering (8-4 mg) at abrupt carbamazepine discontinuation produced minimal changes in steady-state concentrations, which returned to the levels observed during carbamazepine co-administration in ~15 days from the time of carbamazepine discontinuation. When perampanel was up-titrated in the presence of carbamazepine, return to steady state occurred more slowly when carbamazepine was down-titrated weekly (~45 days) vs abrupt discontinuation (~24 days). CONCLUSION: This PBPK model simulated and predicted optimal perampanel dose tapering and up-titration schedules for maintaining perampanel levels during conversion to monotherapy. These results may guide physicians when managing conversion from perampanel polytherapy with concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications to monotherapy.

Seizure clusters, rescue treatments, seizure action plans: Unmet needs and emerging formulations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of the study was to provide an overview of the prevalence, risk factors, burden, and current and emerging pharmacologic treatments for seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Close to half of patients with active epilepsy experience seizure clusters, and the clinical, social, and financial burdens of seizure clusters are high. However, there is no widely accepted definition of seizure clusters; their prevalence is underappreciated, contingencies for addressing them (seizure action plans) are often lacking, and their effects are not well-studied. These issues have resulted in an insufficient number of investigations and approved medications for this condition. Novel formulations are in late-stage development to meet this unmet need.

Drug-drug interactions and pharmacodynamics of concomitant clobazam and cannabidiol or stiripentol in refractory seizures.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to characterize the drug-drug interactions between clobazam and 2 antiseizure drugs, cannabidiol and stiripentol, for treatment of refractory seizures through the use of pharmacokinetic modeling. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed to characterize the combined effect of clobazam and its active metabolite, N-desmethylclobazam (i.e., N-clobazam), on seizure protection in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome using data from the phase 3 CONTAIN trial. Drug-drug interactions between clobazam and cannabidiol were examined by comparing model-generated data to data from a study of 13 patients taking concomitant clobazam and cannabidiol. Modeling data were also descriptively compared with studies of patients administered both clobazam and stiripentol. Sedation-related adverse events from CONTAIN were analyzed to determine the exposure-somnolence relationship of clobazam. RESULTS: Exposure-efficacy analysis from the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model using CONTAIN data indicated that clobazam (half-maximal effective concentration [EC50], 303 ng/mL) was 3 times more potent than N-clobazam (EC50, 899 ng/mL). After administration of clobazam, when both clobazam and N-clobazam concentrations were each 1 to 2 times the EC50 value (clobazam dose, 20 mg), 70.0%-74.9% seizure protection was predicted; when concentrations were >2 times the EC50 value (clobazam dose, 40 mg), 74.0%-96.9% seizure protection was predicted. Generalized additive model analyses demonstrated decreased seizure probability with higher plasma concentration of clobazam. Coadministration of stiripentol and clobazam resulted in increased respective median plasma concentrations of clobazam and N-clobazam (1.1-1.2 times and 5.2-8.2 times) compared with administration of placebo and clobazam. Probability of somnolence significantly increased with age and higher N-clobazam plasma concentration. SIGNIFICANCE: Awareness of drug-drug interactions between clobazam and cannabidiol is needed when adding cannabidiol or stiripentol to a regimen of clobazam or vice versa. Based upon our population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model, we predict that an increase in N-clobazam levels, which patient data show may enhance efficacy and/or make adverse events such as somnolence more likely.

Optimizing clobazam treatment in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

Given the complexities managing Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS)-comorbid conditions, multiple associated seizure types that tend to be refractory to treatment-dosage optimization of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment is a challenge. In the absence of clinical trial data on optimization of AED dosage in patients with LGS, dose titration is guided by personal experience, anecdotal evidence, and specific patient factors (age, comorbid conditions and medications, seizure types, etc.). The goal of this study was to determine whether a 20% increase in adjunctive clobazam was a reasonable benchmark for improved seizure response in patients with LGS who had responded to adjunctive clobazam treatment during a 12-week lead-in trial. This was a post hoc analysis of data from a long-term, open-label extension (OLE) study, which comprised patients who completed 1 of 2 pivotal clobazam lead-in studies. During the lead-in studies, patients received either placebo or clobazam (0.25, 0.50, or 1.0mg/kg/d) (maximum 40mg/d); during OLE, patients received clobazam up to 2.0mg/kg/d (maximum 80mg/d). The post hoc analysis population comprised patients who had ≥25%, ≥50%, or ≥75% seizure reduction from baseline during lead-in clobazam treatment and ≥12months of follow-up data during OLE. Successful dosage increase (i.e., dosage optimization) was defined as ≥20% clobazam dosage increase from OLE baseline, and improved seizure control from OLE baseline (improvement in seizure responder status, or >50% reduction in total seizure frequency). Patients were stratified by responder status after lead-in treatment (OLE baseline) and by lead-in clobazam dosage received. The findings of the analysis indicated that clobazam dosage increases of ≥20% during long-term treatment improved seizure control >80% of patients with LGS who responded to clobazam during lead-in treatment. Rates of successful dosage increase during OLE were high regardless of lead-in dosage received, with the highest rate of successful dosage increase among patients who received low-dosage clobazam during lead-in. Similarly, rates of successful dose increase were high regardless of lead-in seizure responder category, with the highest rates occurring in patients with the highest (≥75%) lead-in response.

When adverse effects are seen as desirable: Abuse potential of the newer generation antiepileptic drugs.

There has been growing recognition of the possible abuse potential of newer generation antiepileptic drugs, and several of these agents have been categorized as controlled substances in the United States. To properly schedule a new medication, the abuse potential, or the potential for a drug to be used for its nonmedical positive subjective effects, must be determined. Performing a human abuse potential study is one step in the overall abuse potential assessment. These studies analyze the abuse potential of a new drug in a very specific population of known recreational drug users. Studying the test drug in this population enables a more meaningful assessment of abuse, and likely represents the population most probable to abuse. In these double-blind, single-dose, active and placebo controlled studies subjects may report their subjective liking, estimated street value, and rate euphoric or depressive sensations of the test drug compared with placebo and scheduled active comparators with a known abuse potential. In order to provide an enhanced understanding of the abuse potential assessment and how it relates to controlled substance scheduling, this review will examine the human abuse potential studies of perampanel, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and brivaracetam.

Impact of Data Imputation Methodology on Pain Assessment over 24 Hours in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Gabapentin Enacarbil in Patients with Neuropathic Pain Associated with Postherpetic Neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of gabapentin enacarbil on primary and secondary pain endpoints using three data imputation methodologies in a randomized phase II study of adult patients with postherpetic neuralgia. METHODS: The primary endpoint was change from baseline to end of maintenance treatment in mean 24-hour average pain intensity score. Secondary endpoints (daytime/nighttime average pain intensity score, daytime/nighttime current pain intensity score, and daytime/nighttime worst pain intensity score) were based on daily electronic diary assessments. Comparisons of each gabapentin enacarbil dose with placebo were performed using three different statistical methodologies: last observation carried forward, baseline observation carried forward, and mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Of the 376 randomized patients, 371 were in the intent-to-treat population (gabapentin enacarbil 1,200 mg, 107; 2,400 mg, 82; 3,600 mg, 87; placebo, 95). For mean 24-hour average pain intensity score, there were statistically significant improvements from baseline to end of maintenance treatment for all gabapentin enacarbil groups vs placebo using the three analysis methods. Significant improvements were also observed for all secondary endpoints with gabapentin enacarbil 1,200 mg using the three analysis methods. Most secondary endpoints also showed improvements following treatment with gabapentin enacarbil 2,400 mg or 3,600 mg compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin enacarbil (1,200 mg, 2,400 mg, and 3,600 mg) was effective and well tolerated in patients with postherpetic neuralgia compared with placebo, as confirmed by three different and robust statistical methodologies.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of USL261, a midazolam formulation optimized for intranasal delivery, in a randomized study with healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of USL261, a midazolam formulation optimized for intranasal delivery, versus midazolam intravenous (IV) solution administered intranasally (MDZ-inj IN) or intravenously (MDZ-inj IV) in healthy adults. METHODS: In this phase 1, five-way crossover, open-label study, 25 healthy adults (aged 18-42 years) were randomly assigned to receive 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 mg USL261; 2.5 mg MDZ-inj IV; and 5.0 mg MDZ-inj IN. Blood samples were collected for 12 h post dose to determine pharmacokinetic profiles. Pharmacodynamic assessments of sedation and psychomotor impairment also were conducted. Adverse events, oxygen saturation, and vital signs were recorded. RESULTS: Increasing USL261 dose corresponded with increases in midazolam area under the concentration time curve (AUC) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax ), with all doses demonstrating rapid median time to Cmax (Tmax ; 10-12 min). USL261 also demonstrated increased absorption, with a 134% relative bioavailability, compared with the same MDZ-inj IN dose. USL261 was associated with dose-dependent increases in sedation and psychomotor impairment (p < 0.05); however, these effects lasted <4 h and generally did not differ from MDZ-inj IN or MDZ-inj IV at comparable doses. No serious adverse events (SAEs) or deaths were reported, and no treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to study discontinuation. SIGNIFICANCE: Compared with intranasal delivery of a midazolam formulation intended for IV delivery, USL261, optimized for intranasal administration demonstrated improved bioavailability with similar pharmacodynamic effects. Therefore, USL261 may be a preferable alternative to the currently approved rectal diazepam treatment for intermittent bouts of increased seizure activity.