Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the exploratory time to exceed pre-randomization seizure count (T-PSC) in the determination of efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in participants with primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures in generalized-onset epilepsy. METHODS:In this multicenter, double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01393743), participants ≥12 years of age with treatment-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy were randomized to receive placebo or adjunctive perampanel (≤8 mg/day) across a 17-week double-blind treatment phase (4-week titration; 13-week maintenance). We evaluated the pre-planned exploratory end point of the T-PSC using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. We also re-evaluated the correspondence of the primary end points of median percent seizure frequency change (MPC) and 50% responder rate (50RR) calculated at T-PSC and at the end of the trial. RESULTS:The exploratory end point of median T-PSC on placebo was 43 days and >120 days on perampanel (log-rank p < .001). The primary end points calculated at T-PSC did not differ significantly from the end points at the end of the trial (MPC -31% vs -42% at T-PSC; 50RR 32% vs 51% at T-PSC). After T-PSC was reached, participants had a median (interquartile range) of 5 (3-13) additional seizures on placebo and 5 (2-10) on perampanel. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:The exploratory end point of T-PSC demonstrated the effectiveness of perampanel despite a shorter duration of monitoring. The seizures that occurred after T-PSC did not influence the conclusions of the trial; therefore, T-PSC may be a viable alternative to traditional trial end points that reduces the risk to participants.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The lack of ideal measurement of treatment efficacy is a well acknowledged problem in the epilepsy community, both in clinical care and clinical trials. Whilst still the current gold-standard, self-reported seizure frequency significantly underestimates the true number of seizures and does not account for any other at least equally important outcome parameters, such as neurodevelopment and cognition. With the rise of disease modifying treatments, the need for more reliable endpoints in practice and clinical trials becomes more pressing. In this paper we assembled an expert panel to discuss the nature of these needs, current limitations, and obstacles based on a survey amongst these experts who were queried about the most important issues regarding the use of electroencephalography (EEG) parameters as endpoints in clinical drug and device development. METHODS:A structured survey was sent to a group of experts in the design and conduct of epilepsy trials in adults and children. This was followed by a virtual in-person meeting discussing the results of the trial and identifying a list of most important issues. RESULTS:Six clinical trialists and 5 individuals from pharmaceutical companies returned the survey containing 14 questions, and 8 clinical trialists and 10 pharma-representatives attended the meeting. Three main issues were identified (1) lack of accuracy of seizure diaries due to nocturnal seizures, subtle motor seizures, impairment of consciousness and lack of awareness of the seizure by the patient (2) inter-rater variability of EEG assessment (3) lack of standardization regarding definition(s) of seizures (clinical and electrographic), EEG recording methods and EEG data management. Recommended solutions included (1) validation of EEG parameters as biomarkers and use of wearables (2) development of a manual that describes EEG rating criteria, protocol for validation by > 1 central reader and use of a resolution of disagreements reporting template (3) standardization of EEG recording, data management and reporting. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Current developments in research and technology seem promising to advance the use of EEG parameters as potential endpoints and offer partial solutions to the current needs. However, continuous, focused and collaborative efforts of all stakeholders (academia, industry and regulatory agencies) are needed to formulate guidelines, validate emerging technologies and approve them for use in trials. It is the intent of this opinion "position paper" to stimulate those efforts.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Residual next-day effects of sleep-promoting drugs are common and an important safety issue. Lemborexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist approved in the United States and Japan for treatment of insomnia in adults. We evaluated the potential of lemborexant for residual morning and next-day effects, including somnolence, based on lemborexant clinical study findings. METHODS:This paper reports findings from 9 lemborexant clinical studies that incorporated next-day assessments of residual drug effects, based on published findings and data on file. Results are reported for healthy subjects or subjects with insomnia disorder treated with lemborexant 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day, placebo, or active comparator before bedtime. Outcomes assessed included next-morning postural stability (body sway measured by ataxiameter), cognitive performance (Cognitive Performance Assessment Battery), impact on driving (standard deviation of lateral position during highway driving test), subjective sleepiness (sleep diary entries), and adverse events of somnolence. RESULTS:Change from baseline in postural stability the morning after lemborexant administration did not differ from placebo. Among 4 Cognitive Performance Assessment Battery measures, only power of attention declined significantly more with lemborexant treatment compared with placebo in 1 of 2 studies, whereas zolpidem differed from placebo on multiple measures. On the highway-driving test, lemborexant did not significantly impair driving performance versus placebo, however, zopiclone did differ. In large phase 3 trials, next-morning sleep diary ratings showed significantly greater alertness with lemborexant compared with placebo after up to 6 months of treatment. As expected, somnolence was the most common adverse event reported with lemborexant treatment. Somnolence was typically mild to moderate in severity and rarely caused discontinuation of study drug. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Across 9 clinical studies, lemborexant did not substantially impair next-day functioning among healthy subjects and subjects with insomnia.

Lemborexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of adult and elderly individuals with insomnia. Some current pharmacologic treatments for insomnia cause respiratory depression, a serious safety concern, particularly for individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study examined respiratory safety parameters in individuals with mild OSA following treatment with lemborexant. Participants (n = 39) were randomized to one of two treatment sequences, including placebo and lemborexant 10 mg. Each treatment period lasted 8 days and was separated by a washout of at least 14 days. Following single or multiple doses, there were no significant differences in mean apnea-hypopnea index for lemborexant 10 mg versus placebo (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval {CI}]: day 1, -0.03 [-2.22, 2.17]; day 8, -0.06 [-1.95, 1.83]) or peripheral capillary oxygen saturation during sleep (LSM difference [95% CI]: day 1, 0.07 [-0.31, 0.46]; day 8, 0.25 [-0.11, 0.61]). There were no significant differences versus placebo for the percentage of total sleep time during which peripheral capillary oxygen saturation was <80% (LSM difference [95% CI]: day 1, 0.002 [-0.019, 0.023]; day 8, 0.006 [-0.015, 0.026]), <85% (LSM difference [95% CI]: day 1, 0.067 [-0.124, 0.258]; day 8, 0.056 [-0.117, 0.228]) or <90% (LSM difference [95% CI]: day 1, 0.312 [-0.558, 1.181]; day 8, 0.088 [-0.431, 0.607]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low and similar for lemborexant and placebo. Lemborexant demonstrated respiratory safety in this study population and was well tolerated.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:To describe the most important issues a clinician must consider whenever selecting and administering antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). There is no available algorithm that identifies how to individualize selection of AEDs. Proper selection and administration can make an enormous difference in both effectiveness and tolerability. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Many principles of AED selection remain unchanged. Selection of AEDs must be based on understanding of epilepsy syndrome and seizure type, comorbidities, risk of adverse events, as well as on patient characteristics such as age and sex. Recently personalized medicine through genetics has become a reality for a subset of patients, to select optimal drugs, and avoid side effects. Selection of AEDs for women can be performed to avoid teratogenic agents, as safer AEDs have been identified. There is evidence supporting use of controlled release AED formulations, whenever available. Whenever selecting an optimal dose, physicians should attend to the principle of 'start low, go slow.' 'Intelligent use' includes not only appropriate drug selection, but also optimal and individualized dose adjustment. Drug optimization involves appropriate titration, dose schedule, individualization of therapeutic range and rescue planning SUMMARY: Intelligent drug use, individualized to patient characteristics, can guide management for optimal seizure control.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:Positive airway pressure remains the gold-standard treatment for OSA, but many are intolerant. The neurotransmitter serotonin is involved in respiratory control. Evidence exists for SRIs in reducing OSA severity in the general population and ictal hypoxemia and seizure-induced respiratory arrest in people with epilepsy (PWE). However, the association between SRIs and OSA severity has not been studied in populations consisting of both groups. This study aims to determine if SRIs are associated with OSA severity in both PWE and people without epilepsy (PWO) and whether differences exist between the two groups. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective study of adults with OSA was conducted. Subjects were categorized as PWE or PWO and for the use (+SRI) or absence (-SRI) of an SRI. The primary outcome was OSA severity relative to SRI status. OSA severity as a function of SRI status was also compared between PWE and PWO and within the PWE and PWO cohorts. Oxygen saturation nadir was a secondary outcome measure. Statistical adjustment of pertinent characteristics was performed. Results/UNASSIGNED:There were 125 subjects (57 PWE, 68 PWO, 80 -SRI, and 45 +SRI). +SRI was associated with reduced odds of severe compared to moderate OSA, in unadjusted and adjusted analysis. Compared to PWO, PWE demonstrated a more robust association between OSA severity and +SRI. When analyzed as separate cohorts, only PWE demonstrated reduced OSA severity, with adjustment for age (OR:0.140, CI:0.021-1.116, and p=0.042). Oxygen saturation nadir was not significant in any model. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:SRIs represent a potential treatment option for OSA and may demonstrate a more robust association with reduced OSA severity in PWE compared to PWO.

A retrospective study was performed of adults admitted to the intensive care unit in order to determine the utility of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score in predicting in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit patients with non-cardiac status epilepticus. The cohort consisted of 104 subjects, 50 (48.1%) male, 39 (37.5%) aged >/=65 years, with a mean APACHE II score of 17.88. Four models of the APACHE II system were assessed: numerical score, adjusted score mortality, category, and category mortality. All models demonstrated poor calibration and discrimination, even after adjustment for significantly different covariates. There were independent associations between mortality and acute or toxic-metabolic seizure etiologies, myoclonic seizures, and postoperative status. After multivariate adjustment, only the association with toxic-metabolic seizure etiologies remained. The APACHE II score is a poor predictor of mortality in intensive care unit patients with status epilepticus. Further investigation is warranted to develop better measures of acute physiological disease severity in status epilepticus and its impact on mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the definite and potential frequency of seizures and epilepsy as a cause of death (COD) and how often this goes unrecognized. METHODS: Prospective determination of seizures or epilepsy and final COD for individuals aged 18-90 years with out-of-hospital sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) from the population-based San Francisco POST SCD Study. We compared prospective seizure or epilepsy diagnosis and final COD as adjudicated by a multidisciplinary committee (pathologists, electrophysiologists, and a vascular neurologist) vs retrospective adjudication by 2 epileptologists with expertise in seizure-related mortality. RESULTS: Of 541 SCDs identified during the 37-month study period (mean age 62.8 years, 69% men), 525 (97%) were autopsied; 39/525 (7.4%) had seizures or epilepsy (mean age: 58 years, range: 27-92; 67% men), comprising 17% of 231 nonarrhythmic sudden deaths. The multidisciplinary team identified 15 cases of epilepsy, 6 sudden unexpected deaths in epilepsy (SUDEPs), and no deaths related to acute symptomatic seizures. The epileptologists identified 25 cases of epilepsy and 8 definite SUDEPs, 10 possible SUDEPs, and 5 potential cases of acute symptomatic seizures as a COD. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 25 patients identified with epilepsy by the epileptologists, they found definite or possible SUDEP in 72% (18/25) vs 24% (6/25) by the multidisciplinary group (6/15 cases they identified with epilepsy). The epileptologists identified acute symptomatic seizures as a potential COD in 5/14 patients with alcohol-related seizures. Epilepsy is underdiagnosed among decedents. Among patients with seizures and epilepsy who die suddenly, seizures and SUDEP often go unrecognized as a potential or definite COD.