Dataset Information

Consistent safety and tolerability of Valtoco^® (diazepam nasal spray) in relationship to usage frequency in patients with seizure clusters: Interim results from a phase 3, long-term, open-label, repeat-dose safety study.

ABSTRACT:

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Miller I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8408590 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDiazepam 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.MethodsA long-term, phase 3, open-label safety study enrolled patients with epilepsy who had seizures despite a stable antiseizure medication regimen.ResultsAmong 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.SignificanceThis 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess pharmacokinetics and safety of diazepam nasal spray (NRL-1; VALTOCO®) in pediatric and adult patients with epilepsy in seizure and nonseizure states.MethodsA single dose of diazepam nasal spray (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg based on weight) was administered during each of two conditions (ictal/peri-ictal and interictal condition) to patients 6-65 years old with partial or generalized epilepsy with motor seizures or seizures with clear alteration of awareness; a second dose was permitted if needed for persistent seizures. Dosing could be interictal or ictal/peri-ictal first, with a washout of ≥14 days. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were taken at prespecified time points. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), sedation, nasal irritation, nasal mucosal pain, and olfactory changes were assessed.ResultsOf 57 patients in the study (mean age = 28.1 years [range = 6-59], 54.4% female, 80.7% white), 49 were included in the primary pharmacokinetic analyses. Diazepam pharmacokinetic profiles were similar under both conditions, with approximately 2-hour median time to mean (SD) maximum plasma concentrations of 164 (88) and 189 (110) ng/mL for ictal/peri-ictal and interictal conditions, respectively; drug exposure during the first 6 hours postdosing was 532 (313) and 615 (368) h•ng/mL, respectively. Seventeen patients (29.8%) reported TEAEs, of whom eight (14%) had treatment-related TEAEs, with those reported in ≥2 patients being dysgeusia (n = 3, 5.3%) and nasal discomfort (n = 2, 3.5%). One patient had serious TEAEs (recurrent seizures, metabolic encephalopathy), which were deemed unrelated to study treatment. No changes in respiratory rate were observed, nor were there clinically relevant changes in sedation, olfaction, nasal irritation, or acute nasal mucosal pain.SignificanceThe epileptic conditions (ictal/peri-ictal, interictal) had minimal impact on diazepam nasal spray pharmacokinetics in patients with epilepsy. Therefore, diazepam nasal spray can be administered ictally and interictally. Diazepam nasal spray safety was consistent with the profile of diazepam.

Project description:ObjectiveDiazepam buccal film (DBF) is in development for treatment of patients experiencing bouts of increased seizure activity. We assessed safety, tolerability, and usability of self- or caregiver-administered DBF in the outpatient setting.MethodsPatients aged 2-65 years needing treatment with a rescue benzodiazepine at least once monthly were eligible for the study. DBF (5-17.5 mg) was dispensed based on age and body weight. Patients/caregivers administered DBF for up to five seizure episodes per month. Adverse events (AEs) and usability assessments were recorded after the first dose, then every 3 months.ResultsOnehundred eighteen patients who used ≥1 DBF dose (adults, n = 82; adolescents, n = 19; children, n = 17) were enrolled. Eleven treatment-related AEs (10 being mild or moderate in severity) occurred in nine (7.6%) patients over a mean of 243 days of follow-up. No patient discontinued participation because of AEs. Mild local buccal discomfort, buccal swelling, and cheek skin sensitivity were reported by one patient each. Twenty-two serious AEs were reported; one was treatment-related. The three deaths reported, all unrelated to DBF, resulted from seizures or seizure with brain malignancy. Self-administration by adults was attempted on 23.6% (188/795) of use occasions. Administration of DBF occurred under ictal or peri-ictal conditions on 49.5% (538/1087) of use occasions, and DBF was successfully administered on a first or second attempt on 96.6% (1050/1087) of use occasions. Overall, patients received their dose of DBF on 99.2% (1078/1087) of use occasions. A second DBF dose was required within 24 hours after the first dose on 8.5% (92/1087) of use occasions.SignificanceIn this observational study of chronic intermittent use, DBF was easy to administer, safe, and well tolerated in adult, adolescent, and pediatric patients with epilepsy experiencing seizure emergencies. DBF can be readily self-administered by adults with epilepsy, as well as successfully administered by a caregiver in seizure emergencies.

Project description:Anxiety disorders (AD) are the most common mental conditions affecting an estimated 40 million adults in the United States. Amiloride, a diuretic agent, has shown efficacy in reducing anxious responses in preclinical models by inhibiting the acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC). By delivering amiloride via nasal route, rapid onset of action can be achieved due to direct "nose-to-brain" access. Therefore, this study reports the formulation, physical, chemical, and microbiological stability of an extemporaneously prepared amiloride 2 mg/mL nasal spray. The amiloride nasal spray was prepared by adding 100 mg of amiloride hydrochloride to 50 mL of sterile water for injection in a sterile reagent bottle. A stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was developed and validated. Forced-degradation studies were performed to confirm the ability of the HPLC method to identify the degradation products from amiloride distinctively. The physical stability of the amiloride nasal spray was assessed by pH, clarity, and viscosity assessments. For chemical stability studies, samples of nasal sprays stored at room temperature were collected at time-points 0, 3 hr., 24 hr., and 7 days and were assayed in triplicate using the stability-indicating HPLC method. Microbiological stability of the nasal spray solution was evaluated for up to 7 days based on the sterility test outlined in United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) chapter 71. The stability-indicating HPLC method identified the degradation products of amiloride without interference from amiloride. All tested solutions retained over 90% of the initial amiloride concentration for the 7-day study period. There were no changes in color, pH, and viscosity in any sample. The nasal spray solutions were sterile for up to 7 days in all samples tested. An extemporaneously prepared nasal spray solution of amiloride hydrochloride (2 mg/mL) was physically, chemically, and microbiologically stable for 7 days when stored at room temperature.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) for the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis have been previously demonstrated in several clinical studies. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FFNS 110 mcg once daily with placebo in patients with irritant (non-allergic) rhinitis triggered predominantly by air pollution. METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study of subjects in Thailand with irritant rhinitis who received either FFNS 110 mcg (N=53) or placebo (N=49) once-daily. Subjects with a ?2 year history of air pollution as their predominant rhinitis trigger, negative skin test to local seasonal/perennial allergens, positive histamine skin test, and normal sinus radiograph were enrolled if they met minimum reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) ?4.5 (maximum=9) and a nasal congestion score of ?2 (maximum =3). All were assessed for nasal eosinophilia at study entry and completion. Air quality was monitored throughout the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline over the treatment period in daily rTNSS, the average of the morning and evening rTNSS. The key secondary measure was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in morning pre-dose instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS). RESULTS:The Air Quality Index (AQI) during the study generally did not reach unhealthy levels. Baseline daily rTNSS scores were similar between treatment groups (FFNS=6.7; placebo=6.4). The least square mean change from baseline in rTNSS was -2.17 and -2.10 for FFNS and placebo, respectively, with a difference of -0.065 (p=0.845). Gradual improvements were seen in both treatment groups for iTNSS; however, the treatment difference (-0.075) was not statistically significant (p=0.827). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for AM and PM rTNSS, individual nasal symptoms, daily reflective, AM and PM reflective and AM pre-dose instantaneous total ocular symptom scores (TOSS) or individual ocular symptom scores. Nasal cytology at baseline found more than two-thirds of subjects had <20% eosinophils. Adverse events were few and similar between groups and noted as mild in intensity. CONCLUSION:Subjects receiving FFNS had similar improvement to placebo in their rhinitis symptoms. The lack of a treatment effect may be in part due to the overall good air quality present throughout the study or an insufficient dose or duration of FFNS. The safety findings showed FFNS 110 mcg once daily to be well tolerated.

Project description:BackgroundIntranasal drug delivery offers a non-invasive and convenient dosing option for patients and physicians, especially for conditions requiring chronic/repeated-treatment administration. However, in some cases such delivery may be harmful to nasal and olfactory epithelia.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of long-term intermittent treatment with esketamine nasal spray, taken in conjunction with an oral antidepressant (AD), on olfactory function and nasal tolerability in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsA total of 1142 patients with TRD participated from four multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies: three short-term studies (two in patients aged 18-64 years, one in patients ≥65 years), and one long-term maintenance study of esketamine nasal spray + AD versus placebo nasal spray + AD. Across the four studies, assessments were performed at 208 sites in 21 countries. Olfactory function was measured using the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®) and the single-staircase Snap & Sniff® Odor Detection Threshold Test (S&S-T). Nasal tolerability, including nasal examinations and a quantitative, self-administered nasal symptom questionnaire (NSQ), was also assessed. Data were analyzed using analyses of covariance.ResultsOf 1142 participants, 734 were women (64.3%). The mean age of all participants ranged from 45.7 to 70.0 years across the studies. Overall, 855 patients received esketamine nasal spray + AD and 432 received placebo nasal spray + AD. Objective evaluation of nasal function showed no evidence of an adverse impact following esketamine administration. Based on the UPSIT® and S&S-T results, intranasal administration of esketamine had no effect on the odor identification or threshold test scores compared with placebo nasal spray + oral AD. Similarly, repeated administration with esketamine nasal spray had no meaningful impact on assessments of nasal function. No dose-response relationship was observed between esketamine doses and the olfactory test scores. Esketamine nasal spray was well tolerated, as indicated by responses on the NSQ and negative nasal examination findings.ConclusionFindings from this analysis indicate that there was no evidence of adverse effect on either olfactory or nasal health measures with repeated intermittent administration of esketamine nasal spray at any dose over the course of short-term (4 weeks) or long-term (16-100 weeks) studies.Clinical trial registrationTRANSFORM-1: NCT02417064, date of registration: 15/04/2015; TRANSFORM-2: NCT02418585, date of registration: 16/04/2015; TRANSFORM-3: NCT02422186, date of registration: 21/04/2015; SUSTAIN-1: NCT02493868, date of registration: 10/07/2015.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An efficient, well tolerated, and safe emergency treatment with a rapid onset of action is needed to prevent seizure clusters and to terminate prolonged seizures and status epilepticus. OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) spray in clinical practice. METHODS:In this retrospective, multicenter observational study, we evaluated all patients with peri-ictal application of in-MDZ during video-EEG monitoring at the epilepsy centers in Frankfurt and Marburg between 2 014 and 2017. For every patient, we analyzed the recurrence of any seizure or generalized tonic-clonic seizures after index seizures with and without in-MDZ administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also evaluated. RESULTS:In-MDZ was used in 243 patients with epilepsy (mean age 35.5 years; range 5-76 years; 46.5% female) for treatment of 459 seizures. A median dose of in-MDZ 5 mg (i.e., two puffs; range 2.5-15 mg) was administered within a median time from EEG seizure onset until in-MDZ application of 1.18 min [interquartile range (IQR) 1.27], while median time from clinical seizure onset until in-MDZ administration was 1.08 min (IQR 1.19). In-MDZ was given within 1 min after EEG seizure onset in 171 seizures. An intraindividual comparison of seizures with and without application of in-MDZ was feasible in 171 patients, demonstrating that in-MDZ reduced the occurrence of any (Cox proportional-hazard model p?<?0.001) and generalized tonic-clonic seizure (Cox proportional-hazard model p?=?0.0167) over a period of 24 h. The seizure-free timespan was doubled from a median of 5.0 h in controls to a median of 10.67 h after in-MDZ administration. We additionally clustered in-MDZ administrations for the 119 patients who received in-MDZ more than once, comparing them with the index cases without in-MDZ. Even when considering subsequent seizures with in-MDZ administration, a patient receiving in-MDZ is still half as likely to incur another seizure in the upcoming 24 h as compared with when the same patient does not receive in-MDZ (hazard ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.42-0.60; p?<?0.01). In-MDZ was well tolerated without major adverse events. The most common side effects were irritation of the nasal mucosa [37 cases (8.1%)], prolonged sedation [26 cases (5.7%)], and nausea and vomiting [12 cases (2.6%)]. A decline in oxygen saturation was measured after 78 seizures (17%). CONCLUSION:We conclude that in-MDZ is a safe and efficient treatment option to prevent short-term recurrence of seizures. In-MDZ can be administered very quickly by trained staff within 1-2 min after seizure onset. No major cardiocirculatory or respiratory adverse events were observed.