Bedaquiline safety, efficacy, utilization and emergence of resistance following treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients in South Africa: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study assessed benefits and risks of bedaquiline treatment in multidrug-resistant-tuberculosis (MDR-TB) combination therapy by evaluating safety, effectiveness, drug utilization and emergence of resistance to bedaquiline. METHODS: Data were extracted from a register of South African drug-resistant-tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients (Electronic DR-TB Register [EDRWeb]) for newly diagnosed patients with MDR-TB (including pre-extensively drug-resistant [XDR]-TB and XDR-TB and excluding rifampicin-mono-resistant [RR]-TB, as these patients are by definition not multidrug-resistant), receiving either a bedaquiline-containing or non-bedaquiline-containing regimen, at 14 sites in South Africa. Total duration of treatment and follow-up was up to 30 months, including 6 months' bedaquiline treatment. WHO treatment outcomes within 6 months after end-of-treatment were assessed in both patient groups. Longer term mortality (up to 30 months from treatment start) was evaluated through matching to the South African National Vital Statistics Register. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to predict association between receiving a bedaquiline-containing regimen and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Data were extracted from EDRWeb for 5981 MDR-TB patients (N = 3747 bedaquiline-treated; N = 2234 non-bedaquiline-treated) who initiated treatment between 2015 and 2017, of whom 40.7% versus 80.6% had MDR-TB. More bedaquiline-treated than non-bedaquiline-treated patients had pre-XDR-TB (27.7% versus 9.5%) and XDR-TB (31.5% versus 9.9%) per pre-2021 WHO definitions. Most patients with treatment duration data (94.3%) received bedaquiline for 6 months. Treatment success (per pre-2021 WHO definitions) was achieved in 66.9% of bedaquiline-treated and 49.4% of non-bedaquiline-treated patients. Death was reported in fewer bedaquiline-treated (15.4%) than non-bedaquiline-treated (25.6%) patients. Bedaquiline-treated patients had increased likelihood of treatment success and decreased risk of mortality versus non-bedaquiline-treated patients. In patients with evaluable drug susceptibility testing data, 3.5% of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates at baseline acquired phenotypic resistance. Few patients reported bedaquiline-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (1.8%), TEAE-related bedaquiline discontinuations (1.4%) and QTcF values > 500 ms (2.5%) during treatment. CONCLUSION: Data from this large cohort of South African patients with MDR-TB showed treatment with bedaquiline-containing regimens was associated with survival and effectiveness benefit compared with non-bedaquiline-containing regimens. No new safety signals were detected. These data are consistent with the positive risk-benefit profile of bedaquiline and warrant continued implementation in combination therapy for MDR-TB treatment.

Efficacy of cenobamate for uncontrolled focal seizures: Post hoc analysis of a Phase 3, multicenter, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term post hoc efficacy and safety data from 10 US study sites from an open-label Phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate (NCT02535091). METHODS: Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of 1-3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) were administered increasing daily doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2-week intervals (target dose = 200 mg/day). Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50-mg/day increments biweekly were allowed during the maintenance phase. Dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Data were assessed until the last clinic visit on or after September 1, 2019. RESULTS: Of 255 patients, 240 with focal aware motor, focal impaired awareness, or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure data while on treatment were evaluated (median [maximum] exposure = 30.2 [43.0] months across the entire study). Median baseline seizure frequency/28 days was 2.8 (mean = 18.1). Of the 240 patients, 177 (73.8%) were continuing cenobamate treatment at data cutoff. The ≥50% responder rate for the total treatment duration was 71.7% (172/240). During titration, the ≥50% responder rates were 48.1% during Weeks 1-4 (12.5-25 mg/day cenobamate) and 61.7% during Weeks 5-8 (50-100 mg/day cenobamate). Among all patients who received a dose of cenobamate in the maintenance phase (n = 214), 13.1% (28/214) and 40.2% (86/214) achieved 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction during their entire maintenance treatment duration (median = 29.5 months). Among all patients, 87 (36.3%) had any consecutive ≥12-month duration of 100% seizure reduction. Common treatment-emergent adverse events among all 240 patients included fatigue (34.6%), dizziness (32.1%), and somnolence (29.6%). SIGNIFICANCE: This post hoc analysis of a subset of patients from the long-term open-label study showed high rates of sustained 100% and ≥90% seizure reduction, with many achieving response early during titration. These findings suggest durable seizure frequency reduction with cenobamate in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures.

STOP 301: A Phase 3, open-label study of safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of INP104, Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD® ) of dihydroergotamine mesylate, over 24/52 weeks in acute treatment of migraine attacks in adult patients.

OBJECTIVE: To report the safety, tolerability, exploratory efficacy, and patient acceptability of INP104 for the acute treatment of migraine from the Phase 3 STOP 301 trial. BACKGROUND: Dihydroergotamine (DHE) has long been used to treat migraine, but intravenous administration is invasive, frequently associated with adverse events (AEs), and not suitable for at-home administration. INP104 is an investigational drug device that delivers DHE mesylate to the upper nasal space using a Precision Olfactory Delivery technology and was developed to overcome the shortcomings of available DHE products. METHODS: STOP 301 was an open-label, 24-week safety study, with a 28-week extension period. After a 28-day screening period where patients used their "best usual care" to treat migraine attacks, patients were given INP104 (1.45 mg) to self-administer nasally with self-recognized attacks. The primary objective of this study was to assess safety and tolerability, with a specific focus on nasal mucosa and olfactory function. Exploratory objectives included efficacy assessments of migraine measures and a patient acceptability questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients entered the 24-week treatment period, with 354 patients dosing at least once. INP104-related treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 36.7% (130/354) of patients, and 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment due to AEs over 24 weeks. No new safety signals were observed following delivery to the upper nasal space. Pain freedom, the most bothersome symptom freedom, and pain relief at 2 h post-INP104 were self-reported by 38.0% (126/332), 52.1% (173/332), and 66.3% (167/252) of patients, respectively. A low recurrence rate at 24 and 48 h was observed (7.1% [9/126] and 14.3% [18/126], respectively). Most patients found INP104 easy to use and preferred it over their current therapy. CONCLUSIONS: INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient use. Results suggest INP104 may be a promising treatment for patients with migraine.

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

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

Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine.

Lasmiditan, a serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist, was effective for acute treatment of patients with migraine in a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled study. The current study was designed to replicate these findings in a generalizable population of patients with migraine, including those with a cardiovascular medical history. This prospective, double-blind, phase 3 multicentre study randomly assigned patients with migraine with and without aura (1:1:1:1 ratio) to oral lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. Patients were instructed to dose at home within 4 h of onset of migraine attack of at least moderate intensity and not improving. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients' headache pain-free and most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h post-dose for each dose of lasmiditan versus placebo (NCT02605174). Patients (n = 3005) were assigned and treated (n = 2583, safety population): 1938 lasmiditan (200 mg n = 528, 100 mg n = 532, and 50 mg n = 556 included in primary analysis) and 645 placebo (540 included in primary analysis). Most patients (79.2%) had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor at baseline, in addition to migraine. Lasmiditan was associated with significantly more pain freedom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 38.8%, odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 31.4%, odds ratio 1.7, 1.3-2.2, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 28.6%, odds ratio 1.5, 1.1-1.9, P = 0.003 versus placebo 21.3%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 48.7%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.4, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 44.2%, odds ratio 1.6, 1.2-2.0, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 40.8%, odds ratio 1.4, 1.1-1.8, P = 0.009 versus placebo 33.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 253 of 649 (39.0%), 229 of 635 (36.1%), and 166 of 654 (25.4%) of patients on lasmiditan 200, 100, and 50 mg, respectively, versus 75 of 645 (11.6%) on placebo. Most adverse events were CNS-related and included dizziness, somnolence and paraesthesia. Lasmiditan was effective at 2 h post-dose for acute treatment of migraine at all oral doses tested. Efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous phase 3 study.

Final safety, tolerability, and seizure outcomes in patients with focal epilepsy treated with adjunctive perampanel for up to 4 years in an open-label extension of phase III randomized trials: Study 307.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive perampanel in the open-label extension (OLEx) Study 307 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00735397). METHODS: Patients could enter the OLEx after completing one of the double-blind, phase III studies. Safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes (median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, and 50% responder and seizure freedom rates) were analyzed during the OLEx in cohorts with the same minimum perampanel exposure for all focal seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS). An additional sensitivity analysis accounted for early dropouts from the OLEx. RESULTS: Of 1480 patients randomized across the double-blind studies, 1218 enrolled in the OLEx. The majority of patients (65.4%-80.9%) received a last daily dose of perampanel 12 mg and completed long-term assessment on the same, or one fewer, concomitant antiepileptic drug compared with baseline. The long-term safety/tolerability profile was consistent with the double-blind studies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to discontinuation in >1% of patients were dizziness, irritability, and fatigue; TEAEs of clinical interest were stable for 4 years. In all cohorts, seizure outcome improvements were sustained over time. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days reached 62.0% and 70.6% for patients with ≥3 (n = 436) or ≥4 (n = 78) years of exposure, respectively; corresponding 50% responder rates were 59.6% and 67.9%. The largest median percent seizure reduction per 28 days occurred in SGS for patients with SGS at baseline: 88.0% and 100.0% for patients with ≥3 (n = 190) or ≥4 (n = 28) years of exposure, respectively; in these cohorts 40.0% and 53.6% of patients, respectively, attained freedom from SGS. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days were similar when early dropouts were accounted for. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term (≤4 years) adjunctive perampanel treatment did not raise new safety/tolerability signals and was associated with markedly improved seizure control, particularly in patients with SGS at baseline.

Aripiprazole Once-Monthly 400 mg: Comparison of Pharmacokinetics, Tolerability, and Safety of Deltoid Versus Gluteal Administration.

Background: Two open-label, randomized, parallel-arm studies compared pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg following deltoid vs gluteal injection in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: In the single-dose study, 1 injection of aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg in the deltoid (n=17) or gluteal (n=18) muscle (NCT01646827) was administered. In the multiple-dose study, the first aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg injection was administered in either the deltoid (n=71) or gluteal (n=67) muscle followed by 4 once-monthly deltoid injections (NCT01909466). Results: After single-dose administration, aripiprazole exposure (area under the concentration-time curve) was similar between deltoid and gluteal administrations, whereas median time to maximum plasma concentration was shorter (7.1 [deltoid] vs 24.1 days [gluteal]) and maximum concentration was 31% higher after deltoid administration. In the multiple-dose study, median time to maximum plasma concentration for deltoid administration was shorter (3.95 vs 7.1 days), whereas aripiprazole mean trough concentrations, maximum concentration, and area under the concentration-time curve were comparable between deltoid and gluteal muscles (historical data comparison). Multiple-dose pharmacokinetic results for the major metabolite, dehydro-aripiprazole, followed a similar pattern to that of the parent drug for both deltoid and gluteal injection sites. Safety and tolerability profiles were similar after gluteal or deltoid injections. Based on observed data, minimum aripiprazole concentrations achieved by aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg are comparable with those of oral aripiprazole 15 to 20 mg/d. Conclusions: The deltoid muscle is a safe alternative injection site for aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg in patients with schizophrenia.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam as intravenous infusion or bolus in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: An intravenous (IV) formulation of brivaracetam (BRV), a selective, high-affinity ligand for synaptic vesicle protein 2A, has been developed. We investigated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of adjunctive IV BRV administered as a bolus or infusion to adults with epilepsy. METHODS: A phase III, multicenter, randomized, four-arm, parallel-group study (NCT01405508) of patients aged 16-70 years with focal or generalized epilepsy uncontrolled by 1-2 antiepileptic drugs was undertaken. The study comprised a 7-day baseline period, a 7-day double-blind run-in period (oral BRV 200 mg/day or placebo [PBO] twice daily [BID]), and 4.5-day open-label evaluation period (IV BRV 200 mg/day BID; 2-min bolus or 15-min infusion, total nine doses). Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 PBO/BRV bolus; PBO/BRV infusion; BRV/BRV bolus; BRV/BRV infusion. Safety and tolerability were assessed using adverse events, electrocardiography, vital signs, and laboratory assessments. BRV plasma concentrations were measured before and 15 min after the first and last IV doses. RESULTS: Of the 105 patients randomized (53.3% women; 77.1% white; mean [standard deviation; SD] age 41.6 [12.2] years), 103 (98.1%) completed the study. Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence during IV BRV was similar whether IV BRV was initiated first (70.6%) or followed oral BRV (66.0%), and whether it was administered as a bolus (71.2%) or infusion (65.4%). Injection-related TEAEs were reported by 9.6% of patients following bolus and 11.5% following infusion. No serious TEAEs were reported. IV BRV plasma concentrations were higher after the first dose in the conversion groups than initiation groups, and slightly higher in the bolus arm than the infusion arm; concentrations were similar in all patients after the last IV dose. SIGNIFICANCE: IV BRV was generally well tolerated, with similar tolerability as a bolus or infusion and independent of de novo administration or as conversion from oral BRV tablets. IV BRV may be an option for patients who are unable to receive oral BRV.

Safety, tolerability, and seizure control during long-term treatment with adjunctive brivaracetam for partial-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVES: To report pooled safety/tolerability and seizure outcome data from adults with uncontrolled partial-onset (focal) seizures (POS) receiving adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) during phase IIb/III and long-term follow-up (LTFU) studies. METHODS: Seizure outcome data were pooled from phase IIb (NCT00175929 and NCT00175825), III/IIIb (NCT00490035, NCT00464269, NCT00504881, and NCT01261325) and associated LTFU studies (NCT00175916, NCT00150800, and NCT01339559). Safety/tolerability data were pooled from these studies plus NCT01405508, NCT01653262, and NCT01728077 (LTFU). Patients received placebo (during core studies) or BRV 5-200 mg/day. Safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes (BRV modal doses 50-200 mg/day) were assessed until January 17, 2014. RESULTS: Of 2,186 patients (97.3% with POS and 2.7% with other seizure types) who received BRV 50-200 mg/day, 2,051 (93.8%) completed core studies and continued in LTFU studies. Total BRV exposure: 5,339.4 patient-years (≥8.0 years in 41 patients); 6-, 12-, 24-, and 60-month retention: 91.0%, 79.8%, 68.1%, and 54.4%, respectively. Safety/tolerability data pooled from 2,186 patients: ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) reported by 1,848 (84.5%) patients; 1,184 (54.2%) reported ≥1 TEAE considered treatment-related. Most frequent TEAEs (≥10%): headache (20.9%), dizziness (17.5%), somnolence (15.2%), nasopharyngitis (13.2%), fatigue (11.3%), and convulsion (10.6%). Serious TEAEs (SAEs) and treatment-related SAEs: 401 (18.3%) and 95 (4.3%) patients, respectively. Of 28 (1.3%) deaths, four (14.3%) were considered possibly treatment related by the investigator. Pooled seizure outcome data (1,836 patients): median POS frequency/28 days at baseline was 8.9; on treatment, median percentage reduction from baseline in POS/28 days was 48.8%, and ≥50% responder rate was 48.7%. Complete seizure freedom: 4.9%, 4.2%, 3.0%, and 3.3% for ≥6, 12, 24, and 60 months, respectively. Improvements were seen in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from baseline, assessed by Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive BRV treatment in adults with POS was effective and generally well tolerated when administered long-term (≥8.0 years). Retention was high and HRQoL improvements were observed.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive brivaracetam in adult patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Brivaracetam (BRV), a selective and high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand, is in development as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset (focal) seizures (POS). This phase 3 study (N01358; NCT01261325) aimed to confirm the efficacy and safety/tolerability of BRV in adults (≥ 16-80 years) with POS. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled patients with uncontrolled POS despite ongoing treatment with 1-2 antiepileptic drugs. Patients exposed to levetiracetam ≤ 90 days before visit 1 were excluded. Patients entered an 8-week prospective baseline period, followed by a 12-week treatment period when they were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo (PBO), BRV 100 mg/day, or BRV 200 mg/day, started without up-titration. The co-primary efficacy outcomes were percent reduction over placebo in 28-day adjusted POS frequency, and ≥ 50% responder rate based on percent reduction in POS frequency from baseline to the treatment period. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized; 760 were included in the efficacy analysis: 259, 252, and 249 in PBO, BRV 100 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day groups, respectively. Percent reduction over PBO in 28-day adjusted seizure frequency (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 22.8% for BRV 100 mg/day (13.3-31.2%; p < 0.001) and 23.2% for BRV 200 mg/day (13.8-31.6%; p < 0.001). The ≥ 50% responder rate (odds ratio vs. PBO; 95% CI) was 21.6% for PBO, 38.9% for BRV 100 mg/day (2.39; 1.6-3.6; p < 0.001), and 37.8% for BRV 200 mg/day (2.19; 1.5-3.3; p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 155 (59.4%) of 261 PBO patients versus 340 (67.6%) of 503 BRV-treated patients (safety population). Discontinuation rates due to TEAEs were 3.8%, 8.3%, and 6.8% for PBO, BRV 100 mg/day, and BRV 200 mg/day, respectively. Most frequent TEAEs (PBO versus BRV) were somnolence (7.7% vs. 18.1%), dizziness (5.0% vs. 12.3%), and fatigue (3.8% vs. 9.5%). SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive BRV 100 and 200 mg/day was efficacious in reducing POS in adults without concomitant levetiracetam use and was well tolerated.

Brivaracetam as adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled partial epilepsy in adults: a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Brivaracetam (BRV) is a novel high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand currently being investigated for the treatment of epilepsy. The purpose of this phase III study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of adjunctive BRV in adults with uncontrolled partial-onset (focal) seizures. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose trial (N01253; NCT00464269). Adults aged 16-70 years with well-characterized partial epilepsy not fully controlled despite treatment with one or two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were enrolled. Patients who experienced eight or more partial-onset seizures, whether or not secondarily generalized, during the 8-week prospective baseline period were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive twice-daily placebo (PBO) or BRV (5, 20, or 50 mg/day) without titration. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent reduction over PBO in baseline-adjusted partial-onset seizure frequency/week during the 12-week treatment period. Comparison of BRV with PBO was sequential (50, 20 mg/day, then 5 mg/day). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate and median percent reduction from baseline in partial-onset seizure frequency/week. Post hoc analyses included the primary efficacy endpoint evaluated over 28 days and exploratory subanalyses of efficacy by seizure subtype. Safety and tolerability assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests, electrocardiography, vital signs, and physical and neurologic examinations. KEY FINDINGS: Of 400 patients randomized, 396 were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (PBO n = 98, BRV 5 mg/day n = 97, BRV 20 mg/day n = 100, BRV 50 mg/day n = 101) and 392 comprised the modified ITT (mITT) population. A total of 361 (91.2%) of 396 patients completed the study. Most patients (78.3%) were receiving two concomitant AEDs. Percent reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency/week over PBO was -0.9% (p = 0.885) for BRV 5 mg/day, 4.1% (p = 0.492) for BRV 20 mg/day, and 12.8% (p = 0.025) for BRV 50 mg/day (mITT population). Statistical significance was also achieved for the percent reduction over PBO in baseline-adjusted partial-onset seizure frequency/28 days for BRV 50 mg/day (22.0%; p = 0.004) but not for the other BRV dose groups. In the BRV 50 mg/day group, statistical significance was also seen for the ≥50% responder rate (BRV 32.7% vs. PBO 16.7%; p = 0.008) and median percent reduction from baseline in partial-onset seizure frequency/week (BRV 30.5% vs. PBO 17.8%; p = 0.003). In the exploratory subanalysis by seizure subtype, median percent reduction from baseline in seizure frequency/week and ≥50% responder rate were numerically greater than PBO in the BRV 20 and 50 mg/day groups for simple partial, complex partial, and secondarily generalized seizures. BRV was generally well tolerated, with the majority of TEAEs being mild-to-moderate in intensity. Of the TEAEs reported by ≥5% patients, those with a frequency >3% higher than PBO for any dose of BRV compared with PBO were somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, influenza, insomnia, nasopharyngitis, vomiting, diarrhea, urinary tract infection, and nausea. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive BRV at a daily dose of 50 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in seizure frequency compared with PBO. All doses of BRV showed good tolerability throughout the study.

Adjunctive zonisamide therapy in the long-term treatment of children with partial epilepsy: results of an open-label extension study of a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety/tolerability and efficacy of long-term adjunctive zonisamide and its impact on growth and development in children (6-18 years) with partial epilepsy. METHODS: Open-label extension of a phase III, placebo-controlled trial. Started with double-blind transition period (2-11 weeks), during which patients on zonisamide continued at the same dose and those on placebo switched to zonisamide 1 mg/kg/day, up-titrated to 8 mg/kg/day (maximum 500 mg/day). During the subsequent open-label period (45-57 weeks), zonisamide dosing could be adjusted according to tolerability/response. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory parameters, and vital signs. Efficacy assessments included responder rate (primary assessment) and seizure freedom rate during the open-label period. Growth and development assessments comprised Tanner stages, hand x-rays, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL 6/18), School Performance questionnaire, Physician and Parent/Guardian Global Impression of Change, and Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT). RESULTS: One hundred forty-four children entered the study; 99 (68.8%) of 144 children completed it, and 108 (75.0%) of 144 received zonisamide for ≥1 year. TEAEs occurred in 39 (27.1%) of 144 patients. There were low incidences of serious TEAEs (2.1%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (2.8%). Bicarbonate level decreases >3.5 mm occurred in 64 patients (44.4%), and 24 patients (16.7%) had a weight decrease of ≥10% from baseline. During the open-label period, 81 (56.3%) of 144 patients were responders and 16 (11.1%) of 144 achieved seizure freedom. Tanner staging and skeletal development were as expected for the study population. Changes were minimal for CBCL 6/18 and School Performance scores. Most patients were "much improved"/"very much improved" on Physician (73.8%) and Parent/Guardian (75.4%) Global Impressions of Change. Median changes in COWAT Category and Letter Fluency scores were 2.0 and 0.5, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive zonisamide was well tolerated and efficacious over a period of at least 1 year in children with partial epilepsy, with no unexpected safety concerns and no consistent detrimental effects on growth and development. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

Adjunctive brivaracetam in adults with uncontrolled focal epilepsy: results from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Brivaracetam (BRV) is a novel high-affinity synaptic vesicle protein 2A ligand in clinical development for the treatment of epilepsy. This phase III study (N01252; NCT00490035) evaluated the efficacy and safety/tolerability of BRV (20, 50, and 100 mg/day) compared with placebo (PBO) in patients aged 16-70 years with uncontrolled focal seizures with/without secondary generalization, despite treatment with one to two concomitant antiepileptic drugs at a stable and optimal dosage. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted across Europe and India. Eligible patients had two or more focal seizures/month for 3 months prior to screening and eight or more focal seizures during the 8-week prospective baseline. Concomitant use of levetiracetam was limited to 20% of randomized patients. Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to BRV 20, 50, 100 mg/day or PBO with no up-titration for 12 weeks, followed by down-titration or entry into a long-term follow-up study. The primary efficacy end point was percent reduction over PBO in baseline-adjusted focal seizure frequency/week over the 12-week treatment period. Comparison of BRV with PBO was sequential to control for multiplicity (50, 100, 20 mg/day), and thus required BRV to demonstrate superiority over PBO at 50 mg/day to meet the primary efficacy end point. Secondary efficacy variables were median percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/week, ≥50% responder rate, and seizure freedom (all seizure types). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). KEY FINDINGS: Of 399 randomized patients, 398 were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and safety populations. Overall, 367 (92.2%) of 398 patients completed the study (BRV: 93.9%, 88.9%, and 94.0% for 20, 50, and 100 mg/day, respectively; PBO: 92.0%) and 345 (86.7%) of 398 patients continued into long-term follow-up studies (BRV: 87.9%, 82.8%, and 88.0% for 20, 50, and 100 mg/day, respectively; PBO: 88.0%). The study did not meet its primary efficacy end point based on the predefined sequential testing strategy. Indeed, percent reduction over PBO in baseline-adjusted focal seizure frequency/week (primary efficacy analysis) was 6.8% (p = 0.239), 6.5% (p = 0.261), and 11.7% (p = 0.037) for BRV 20, 50, and 100 mg/day, respectively. Median percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/week was 30.0% (p = 0.019), 26.8% (p = 0.092), and 32.5% (p = 0.004) for BRV 20, 50, and 100 mg/day, respectively, compared with 17.0% for PBO. Responder rates (≥50%) were 27.3% (p = 0.339), 27.3% (p = 0.372), and 36.0% (p = 0.023) for BRV 20, 50, and 100 mg/day, respectively, compared with 20.0% for PBO. Complete seizure freedom was reported by 2/99, 0/99, and 4/100 patients on BRV 20, 50, and 100 mg/day, respectively, compared with 0/100 on PBO. The incidence of TEAEs was higher for BRV 20 (56/99, 56.6%), 50 (62/99, 62.6%), and 100 mg/day (63/100, 63.0%) than PBO (53/100, 53.0%); most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most frequently reported TEAEs in the BRV groups were headache, somnolence, dizziness, and fatigue. SIGNIFICANCE: In this study of adjunctive BRV (20-100 mg/day) in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures, the primary efficacy analysis based on the 50 mg/day dose was not statistically significant. However, BRV 100 mg/day reduced baseline-adjusted focal seizure frequency/week by 11.7% over PBO, achieving statistical significance (p = 0.037). Secondary efficacy analyses (percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/week, ≥50% responder rate) provided supportive evidence for the efficacy of BRV 100 mg/day. BRV 20-100 mg/day was well tolerated without up-titration, with a high completion rate.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of a Novel Oral Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitor, ME3183: First-in-Human Phase 1 Study.

A novel, oral phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, ME3183, is under development for the treatment of psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory diseases. To evaluate its safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose (SAD), and multiple ascending dose (MAD) phase 1 studies were conducted in 126 healthy adults. The food effect was evaluated in a randomized, open-label, crossover manner (n = 5). ME3183 was safe and tolerable up to 25 mg in the SAD part and up to 10 mg twice daily in the MAD part. Frequently observed treatment-emergent adverse events included diarrhea and headache, as commonly reported for approved PDE4 inhibitors, providing no novel safety concerns. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed dose-dependent increases in Cmax and AUC, with later tmax and longer t1/2 than apremilast, an approved PDE4 inhibitor. The food effect study showed slightly decreased systemic exposure. In the MAD part, plasma exposure levels of ME3183 were higher even at the minimal dose (2.5 mg twice daily) than the estimated therapeutically effective level. These results show the safe profile of ME3183 and support further studies to confirm the safety and efficacy of the drug in patients with psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases.

A phase 1 study to assess potential interaction between ASP8062 and alcohol in healthy adult subjects.

BACKGROUND: ASP8062 is a novel orally active GABAB receptor positive allosteric modulator in clinical development for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and opioid use disorder (OUD). AIMS: This study assessed the potential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interaction between ASP8062 and alcohol under single-dose conditions in healthy adults. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase 1 study was conducted in which 20 subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment sequences (ASP8062 + alcohol; ASP8062 + placebo alcohol; placebo + alcohol; placebo + placebo alcohol) each consisting of four treatment periods, separated by washout periods of at least 14 days. An analysis of variance was used to assess pharmacokinetic interaction and a mixed-effects analysis of covariance was used to assess pharmacodynamic interaction. RESULTS/OUTCOMES: After administration of alcohol, a mild to minimal increase in plasma exposure (AUCinf and Cmax) of ASP8062 was observed, but tmax and t½ for ASP8062 remained unchanged after administration of alcohol. In contrast, ASP8062 did not affect the AUClast and Cmax of ethanol. No clinically relevant differences in cognition measurements were observed with ASP8062 compared with placebo, but there were expected impairments in psychomotor and executive function with alcohol alone. ASP8062 in combination with alcohol resulted in worse scores in cognition measurements than alcohol alone, but this potentiation was not consistent. ASP8062 administered alone was safe and well-tolerated and safety findings in subjects administered alcohol alone were not augmented when ASP8062 was administered in combination with alcohol. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: The data support further clinical studies investigating ASP8062 in patients with AUD.

Safety and tolerability of regorafenib: a real-life experience.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has been approved among the treatment options for patients with advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). In this study, we aim to report the real-life experience of the safety and tolerability regorafenib in our institution. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 43 patients who received regorafenib in Kuwait Cancer Control Center (KCCC) from 2016 to the end of 2019. Data collected include diagnosis, patient demographics, performance status, number of previous lines of treatment, number of treatment cycles, side effects, best-tolerated dose, and treatment discontinuation due to intolerability. Univariate analysis with Pearson chi-square test were conducted to study co-relation between discontinuation rates and several factors. RESULTS: We had available data for 43 patients (23 males and 20 females). Of the patients, 83.7% had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Seventy-three percent were diagnosed with metastatic CRC, 21% were diagnosed with HCC and 6% were diagnosed with GIST tumors. Half of the patients received 3 lines or more of treatment prior to regorafenib. The median number of cycles received was 3.7 with 11.6% of patients still on active treatment at the time of analysis. The most reported grade 3 and above side effects included rash (41.9%), fatigue (39.6 %), hypertension (25.6%), mucositis (21.9%), hand-foot syndrome (2.3%), and hyperbilirubinemia (4.6%). The best-tolerated dose was 80 mg and that was achieved in 44.2% of patients. The recommended dose of 160 mg could only be achieved in 20.9% of patients. The treatment was discontinued because of intolerability in 25.6% of patients. The discontinuation rates in those with ages 60 years and above versus below 60 years were 91% and 68%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, the best-tolerated dose of regorafenib was 80 mg. Toxicity and intolerability of regorafenib lead to treatment discontinuation in nearly a quarter of patients. Patient age may influence tolerance and adherence to regorafenib.

The safety/tolerability of opicapone when used early in Parkinson's disease patients with levodopa-induced motor fluctuations: A post-hoc analysis of BIPARK-I and II.

Introduction: Post-hoc analyses of the BIPARK-I and II trials previously demonstrated that opicapone (OPC) 50 mg was efficacious over the whole trajectory of motor fluctuation evolution in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and end-of-dose motor fluctuations, with enhanced efficacy in patients who were earlier vs. later in their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway. Complementary post-hoc analyses were performed to evaluate the safety/tolerability of OPC following the same pre-defined segmentation of the wide spectrum of duration of both PD and levodopa therapy, as well as of motor fluctuation history, in this patient population. Materials and methods: Data from matching treatment arms in BIPARK-I and II were combined for the placebo (PLC) and OPC 50 mg groups and exploratory post-hoc analyses were performed to investigate the safety/tolerability of OPC 50 mg and PLC in 22 subgroups of patients who were in "earlier" vs. "later" stages of both their disease course (e.g., duration of PD <6 years vs. ≥6 years) and levodopa treatment pathway (e.g., levodopa treatment duration <4 vs. ≥4 years). Safety/tolerability assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: The Safety Set included 522 patients (PLC, n = 257; OPC 50 mg, n = 265). For OPC 50 mg, incidences of TEAEs, related TEAEs, related serious TEAEs, and related TEAEs leading to discontinuation were lower for patients in earlier vs. later stages of their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway in 86.4, 86.4, 63.6, and 68.2% of the 22 pairwise comparisons conducted, respectively (compared with 63.6, 77.3, 18.2, and 45.5%, respectively, in the 22 corresponding PLC comparisons). Conclusion: OPC 50 mg was generally well-tolerated when used to treat patients with PD with end-of-dose fluctuations, with an even more favorable tolerability profile in patients who were earlier, as opposed to later, in their disease course and levodopa treatment pathway, further supporting its use as an early adjunct to levodopa in PD.

Inhalable particles containing isoniazid and rifabutin as adjunct therapy for safe, efficacious and relapse-free cure of experimental animal tuberculosis in one month.

We investigated the preclinical efficacy and safety/tolerability of biodegradable polymeric particles containing isoniazid (INH) and rifabutin (RFB) dry powder for inhalation (DPI) as an adjunct to oral first-line therapy. Mice and guinea pigs infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv (Mtb) were treated with ∼80 and ∼300 µg of the DPI, respectively, for 3-4 weeks starting 3, 10, and 30 days post-infection. Adjunct combination therapy eliminated culturable Mtb from the lungs and spleens of all but one of 52 animals that received the DPI. Relapse-free cure was not achieved in one mouse that received DPI + oral, human-equivalent doses (HED) of four drugs used in the Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course (DOTS), starting 30 days post-infection. Oral doses (20 mg/Kg/day, each) of INH + RFB reduced Mtb burden from ∼106 to ∼103 colony-forming units. Combining half the oral dose with DPI prevented relapse of infection four weeks after stopping the treatment. The DPI was safe in rodents, guinea pigs, and monkeys at 1, 10, and 100 µg/day doses over 90 days. In conclusion, we show the efficacy and safety/tolerability of the DPI as an adjunct to oral chemotherapy in three different animal models of TB.

A randomized phase 1 single-dose polysomnography study of ASP8062, a GABAB receptor positive allosteric modulator.

RATIONALE: Previous research suggests that sleep polysomnography and EEG endpoints can be used to assess GABAergic activity; however, the impact of GABAB receptor positive allosteric modulators on sleep endpoints remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This phase 1 study compared a single dose of ASP8062 (35 mg or 70 mg), a GABAB receptor positive allosteric modulator, with placebo and paroxetine (40 mg). METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers were randomized to four treatments (35 mg ASP8062, 70 mg ASP8062, paroxetine 40 mg, or matching placebo), each separated by a 14-day washout. Primary endpoints obtained by polysomnography were time in stage N3 or SWS and time in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Secondary endpoints included impact on sleep stages and electroencephalography parameters, pharmacokinetics, nighttime growth hormone (GH), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: In 20 randomized volunteers, ASP8062 led to a significant and seemingly dose-dependent increase in SWS over the entire night; this increase was mainly observed during the first third of the night. ASP8062 did not impact time in REM sleep. Paroxetine had no effect on SWS but produced a significant reduction in time spent in REM sleep. A dose-dependent trend in increased GH release was also observed with ASP8062. Headache and nausea were the most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for ASP8062; most TEAEs were mild in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose ASP8062 (35 and 70 mg) appeared to result in CNS penetration and enhanced GABAergic activity as measured by increases in slow-wave sleep and growth hormone release.

Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Indian Patients with Uncontrolled Focal Epilepsy: Results from a Pooled Analysis of Two Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Nearly one-third of patients don't achieve seizure control with existing antiepileptic drugs. Brivaracetam (BRV) is a new member of the racetam class of drug, designed to selectively target SV2A, with binding affinity 15- to 30-fold greater than that of levetiracetam. OBJECTIVE: This pooled analysis reports efficacy and tolerability data of adjunct BRV (50, 100, and 200 mg/day) compared with placebo in Indian patients with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. METHODS: Data of 104 patients (aged 16-80 years) from 2 studies (N01252 and N01358) were pooled for this analysis. The studies comprised an 8-week prospective baseline period, and a 12-week treatment period. The study endpoints included median percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28-days, ≥50% responder rate, and seizure freedom (all seizure types). The safety analysis included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The efficacy population comprised 101 patients. In the Indian sub-group population, median percent reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28-days was greater in the BRV dose groups: 39.7% (p = 0.00868), 46.8% (p = 0.00180) and 48.2% (p = 0.05224), for BRV 50, 100, 200 mg/day, respectively, compared with 20.6% for placebo. Responder rates (≥50%) were 38.1%, 45.7%, and 45.5% for BRV 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, compared with 11.7% for placebo. Complete seizure freedom was reported by 4.8% (1/21) and 2.9% (1/35) of patients on BRV50 and 100 mg/day, respectively, and none out of the 11 and 34 patients on BRV200 mg/day and placebo, respectively. In the safety population (n = 104), most commonly reported TEAEs (reported by ≥5% of patients taking brivaracetam) were headache and cough; most TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis has provided evidence that adjunct brivaracetam, was effective and well-tolerated in Indian patients with uncontrolled focal epilepsy.