ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures.MethodsThis randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study was conducted at 173 centers in 19 countries, including the United States and Canada. Eligible patients were aged ≥16 years and had uncontrolled partial-onset seizures despite treatment with 1–2 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). After an 8-week baseline period, patients were randomized to once-daily placebo (n = 226), ESL 800 mg (n = 216), or ESL 1,200 mg (n = 211). Following a 2-week titration period, patients received ESL 800 or 1,200 mg once-daily for 12 weeks. Seizure data were captured and documented using event-entry or daily entry diaries.ResultsStandardized seizure frequency (SSF) during the maintenance period (primary end point) was reduced with ESL 1,200 mg (p = 0.004), and there was a trend toward improvement with ESL 800 mg (p = 0.06), compared with placebo. When data for titration and maintenance periods were combined, ESL 800 mg (p = 0.001) and 1,200 mg (p < 0.001) both reduced SSF. There were no statistically significant interactions between treatment response and geographical region (p = 0.38) or diary version (p = 0.76). Responder rate (≥50% reduction in SSF) was significantly higher with ESL 1,200 mg (42.6%, p < 0.001) but not ESL 800 mg (30.5%, p = 0.07) than placebo (23.1%). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation increased with ESL dose. The most common TEAEs were dizziness, somnolence, nausea, headache, and diplopia.SignificanceAdjunctive ESL 1,200 mg once-daily was more efficacious than placebo in adult patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. The once-daily 800 mg dose showed a marginal effect on SSF, but did not reach statistical significance. Both doses were well tolerated. Efficacy assessment was not affected by diary format used.

Patients with advanced cancer, previously untreated, were given 60 mg/m2 cisplatin plus 60 mg/m2 adriamycin by monthly intravenous injections. Signs and symptoms of a predominantly sensory peripheral neuropathy developed in 92% of the patients. Patients complained of dysesthesias and paresthesias in hands and feet. Clinically, there was progressive decrease or loss of tendon reflexes, decreased vibratory sense, and mild decrease in light touch and pin sensation. Distal sensory latencies became prolonged or dropped out completely, but there was little change in motor nerve conduction velocities or motor unit action potentials. Sural nerve biopsies showed loss of large-diameter nerve fibers, with axonal and myelin degeneration.

ESL (800 and 1200mg QD) was effective and well tolerated as adjunctive therapy for adults with refractory POS.

SUMMARYPurpose: A diazepam auto-injector (AI) has been developed for intramuscular administration to treat acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the diazepam AI when administered by caregivers to control an episode of ARS. Methods: In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, subjects with epilepsy on a stable antiepileptic drug regimen who required intermittent medical intervention to control ARS were randomized 1:1 to the placebo AI or the diazepam AI group. Subjects were stratified according to age (2-5, 6-11, ≥12 years). Dose (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg) was based on age and weight. A single dose of study medication was dispensed to be administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting when required. The primary end point was time to next seizure or rescue from 15 min to 12 h postdose. Secondary end points included rescue medication use, number of seizures postdose, caregiver and physician treatment assessments, and safety measures. Key Findings: Of 234 subjects randomized, 81/110 in the placebo AI group and 82/124 in the diazepam AI group were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Time to next seizure or rescue was significantly longer in the diazepam AI group compared with the placebo AI group, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.88; p = 0.012) for diazepam AI versus placebo AI, adjusted for age group. The 25th percentile for time to the next seizure or rescue was 1.18 h (95% CI 0.38-2.03) for placebo AI and 2.70 h (95% CI 0.48-11.42) for diazepam AI; the median was 5.9 h for placebo AI and was inestimable for diazepam AI due to the low number of events experienced by subjects in that group. The proportion of subjects using rescue medication postdose was 30% (24/81) placebo AI versus 17% (14/82) diazepam AI (p = 0.066). An event (seizure or rescue) occurred in 55.6% of subjects in the placebo AI group and 35.4% in the diazepam AI group. The number of seizures experienced during the 12-h postdose period was significantly lower for diazepam AI (median 0.0) compared with placebo AI (median 1.0; p = 0.010). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 44% (35/79) of subjects in the placebo AI group and 42% (34/81) in the diazepam AI group. The most common TEAEs reported were injection site pain (15% placebo AI, 17% diazepam AI) and injection site hemorrhage (6% placebo AI, 5% diazepam AI). Significance: The diazepam AI was significantly more effective than placebo AI at delaying the next seizure or rescue. Secondary efficacy end points were generally supportive of the primary outcome. Diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers was effective for the treatment of ARS and was well-tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo.

SUMMARYObjective: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an openlabel continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS. Methods: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected. Results: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injectionsite bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs. Significance: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option.