Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Current diazepam nasal spray labeling requires waiting 4 h before administering a second dose. The objective of the current analyses was to examine safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of second doses of diazepam nasal spray given 0-4 h after the first dose. METHODS:Two datasets were analyzed. The first, a long-term, repeat-dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray, compared rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and treatment-related TEAEs for patients receiving ≥1 second dose ≤4 h versus all second doses >4 h after the first. The second was a population pharmacokinetic analysis using data from three phase 1 studies to model drug exposure when a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered across multiple time points (1 min-4 h) following the first dose. RESULTS:In the repeat-dose safety study, a second dose of diazepam nasal spray was administered ≤24 h after the first to treat 485 seizure clusters in 79 patients. Rates of TEAEs were similar between patients receiving ≥1 second dose in ≤4 h (89.5%, n = 38) compared with >4-24 h only (80.5%, n = 41). The most common treatment-related TEAEs were associated with nasal discomfort, which was mild or moderate and transient. There were no reports of respiratory or cardiac depression. The pharmacokinetic simulations of second doses predicted comparable elevations of plasma diazepam concentrations with administrations across a range of intervals after the first dose (1 min-4 h). SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:These data indicate that the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of a second dose of diazepam nasal spray administered within 4 h of the first dose are consistent with those associated with current labeling. This is potentially important for patients with seizure clusters who have a recurrent seizure within 4 h of first treatment and might benefit from immediate retreatment to reduce the risk of progression to status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVE:A Phase 3 open-label safety study (NCT02721069) evaluated long-term safety of diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco) in patients with epilepsy and frequent seizure clusters. METHODS:Patients were 6-65 years old with diagnosed epilepsy and seizure clusters despite stable antiseizure medications. The treatment period was 12 months, with study visits at Day 30 and every 60 days thereafter, after which patients could elect to continue. Doses were based on age and weight. Seizure and treatment information was recorded in diaries. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), nasal irritation, and olfactory changes were recorded. RESULTS:Of 163 patients in the safety population, 117 (71.8%) completed the study. Duration of exposure was ≥12 months for 81.6% of patients. There was one death (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy) and one withdrawal owing to a TEAE (major depression), both considered unlikely to be related to treatment. Diazepam nasal spray was administered 4390 times for 3853 seizure clusters, with 485 clusters treated with a second dose within 24 h; 53.4% of patients had monthly average usage of one to two doses, 41.7% two to five doses, and 4.9% more than five doses. No serious TEAEs were considered to be treatment related. TEAEs possibly or probably related to treatment (n = 30) were most commonly nasal discomfort (6.1%); headache (2.5%); and dysgeusia, epistaxis, and somnolence (1.8% each). Only 13 patients (7.9%) showed nasal irritation, and there were no relevant olfactory changes. The safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was generally similar across subgroups based on age, monthly usage, concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, or seasonal allergy/rhinitis. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:In this large open-label safety study, the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray was consistent with the established profile of rectal diazepam, and the high retention rate supports effectiveness in this population. A second dose was used in only 12.6% of seizure clusters.

OBJECTIVE:Need for rescue therapy differs among patients with seizure clusters. Diazepam nasal spray is approved to treat seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age. This analysis used interim data from a phase 3 safety study to assess safety profile and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray using average number of doses/month as a proxy measurement. METHODS:This phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose, safety study of diazepam nasal spray enrolled patients (6-65 years) with epilepsy and need of benzodiazepine rescue. Patients were stratified by average number of doses/month (<2, moderate frequency; 2-5, high frequency; >5, very-high frequency). Safety was evaluated based on treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), assessed nasal irritation, and olfaction. The proportion of treatments given as a second dose was used as an exploratory proxy for effectiveness. RESULTS:Of 175 enrolled patients (data cutoff, October 31, 2019), 158 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray. Frequency of use was moderate in 43.7% of patients, high in 50.6% of patients, and very high in 5.7% of patients. Patients treated 3397 seizure episodes (moderate frequency, 14.2%; high frequency, 59.9%; very high frequency, 25.8%). Nasal discomfort was the most common treatment-related TEAE in all groups. No notable changes in nasal irritation or olfaction were observed. Second doses represented only 2.5%, 7.5%, and 17.2% of all doses in the moderate-, high-, and very-high-frequency groups, respectively. Overall retention rate was 82.9%, without an observed relationship to frequency of use. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Frequency of dosing diazepam nasal spray had little impact on the safety/tolerability profile across a range of <2 to >5 doses/month. Effectiveness was suggested for all dosing frequencies by the high proportion of seizure clusters not treated with a second dose. These results support the utility, safety profile, and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across frequencies of seizure cluster burden.

Depression is associated with adverse outcomes in epilepsy but is undertreated in this population. Project UPLIFT, a telephone-based depression self-management program, was developed for adults with epilepsy and has been shown to reduce depressive symptoms in English-speaking patients. There remains an unmet need for accessible mental health programs for Hispanic adults with epilepsy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and effects on depressive symptoms of a culturally adapted version of UPLIFT for the Hispanic community. Hispanic patients with elevated depressive symptoms (n = 72) were enrolled from epilepsy clinics in New York City and randomized to UPLIFT or usual care. UPLIFT was delivered in English or Spanish to small groups in eight weekly telephone sessions. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, retention, and adherence rates and acceptability was assessed by self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores) were compared between study arms over 12 months. The mean age was 43.3±11.3, 71% of participants were female and 67% were primary Spanish speakers. Recruitment (76% consent rate) and retention rates (86-93%) were high. UPLIFT participants completed a median of six out of eight sessions and satisfaction ratings were high, but rates of long-term practice were low. Rates of clinically significant depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥5) were lower in UPLIFT versus usual care throughout follow-up (63% vs. 72%, 8 weeks; 40% vs. 70%, 6 months; 47% vs. 70%, 12 months). Multivariable-adjusted regressions demonstrated statistically significant differences at 6 months (OR = 0.24, 95% CI, 0.06-0.93), which were slightly reduced at 12 months (OR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.08-1.16). Results suggest that UPLIFT is feasible and acceptable among Hispanic adults with epilepsy and demonstrate promising effects on depressive symptoms. Larger trials in geographically diverse samples are warranted.

OBJECTIVE:Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco), indicated for acute treatment of frequent seizure activity (seizure clusters) in patients with epilepsy ≥6 years of age, is designed to be a rapid, noninvasive, socially acceptable route of administration. This interim analysis evaluated the safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant use of benzodiazepines, with use of a second dose for a seizure cluster as a proxy for effectiveness. METHODS:A long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study enrolled patients with epilepsy who had seizures despite a stable antiseizure medication regimen. RESULTS:Among 175 patients enrolled by October 31, 2019, a total of 158 were treated with diazepam nasal spray (aged 6-65 years; 53.8% female). Of those, 119 (75.3%) received concomitant benzodiazepines (60, chronic; 59, intermittent); 39 (24.7%) did not. Use of a second dose was similar in patients using chronic concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 11.1% [144/1299]) and those with no concomitant benzodiazepines (second dose in 10.3% [41/398]). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred for 80.0% with chronic use of concomitant benzodiazepines and 61.5% without. Cardiorespiratory depression was not reported, and no serious TEAEs were treatment related. Study retention was high: 83.3% in the chronic benzodiazepine group and 76.9% in the no-benzodiazepine group. Findings were similar in a sub-analysis of patients who were (n = 44) or were not (n = 75) taking clobazam. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This analysis of patients from a long-term study shows a similar safety profile of diazepam nasal spray in patients with and without concomitant benzodiazepines, and consistent with the established profile for diazepam. Use of a single dose of diazepam nasal spray and high study retention rates suggest the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients irrespective of chronic daily benzodiazepine use. Results were similar in the clobazam sub-analysis. These results support the safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray in patients with concomitant benzodiazepine use.

OBJECTIVE:The objective was to summarize pregnancy and fetal/postnatal outcomes following maternal perampanel exposure using preclinical and clinical data, and to use physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to improve understanding of perampanel pharmacokinetics (PK) during pregnancy. METHODS:Preclinical developmental studies with perampanel were conducted in pregnant rats and rabbits. Clinical data were collated from the Eisai global perampanel safety database, comprising reports of perampanel exposure during pregnancy from routine clinical settings, interventional studies, and non-interventional post-marketing studies, searched for events coded to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) high-level group terms of Pregnancy, Labor, Delivery, and Postpartum Conditions and/or the Standardized MedDRA Query terms of Congenital, Familiar, and Genetic Disorders. A PBPK model was used to predict clinical perampanel PK throughout pregnancy. RESULTS:Preclinical studies indicated that perampanel may be linked with post-implantation loss and/or some specific physical development delays but not fertility and early embryonic development. As of August 31, 2018, 96 pregnancies in 90 women receiving perampanel had been reported. No concomitant medications were reported in 26 (28.9%) women taking perampanel. Overall, 43 pregnancies reached full term (all normal live births), 28 did not reach term (induced abortion, n = 18; spontaneous miscarriage, n = 6; incomplete spontaneous miscarriage, n = 2; premature delivery, n = 1; stillbirth [Fallot's tetralogy], n = 1), 18 were lost to follow-up, and seven were ongoing at data cut-off. Adverse events were reported in five full-term neonates (low Apgar score, n = 2; fatal neonatal aspiration, n = 1; cystic fibrosis and congenital deafness, n = 1; poor sucking reflex and shallow breathing, n = 1). PK simulations predicted perampanel exposure decreases throughout pregnancy and is up to four- and three-fold lower towards the end of pregnancy compared with non-pregnant women for total and unbound perampanel, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:These data provide preliminary information on perampanel use during pregnancy and should be interpreted with caution. Further outcome data are required to estimate the prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes with perampanel exposure.

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected the operations of New York City hospitals during March and April of 2020. This article describes the transformation of a neurology division at a 450-bed tertiary care hospital in a multi-ethnic community in Brooklyn during this initial wave of COVID-19. In lieu of a mass redeployment of staff to internal medicine teams, we report a novel method for a neurology division to participate in a hospital's expansion of care for patients with COVID-19 while maintaining existing team structures and their inherent supervisory and interpersonal support mechanisms.