Mutations in the SCN9A gene leading to deficiency of its protein product, Na(v)1.7, cause congenital indifference to pain (CIP). CIP is characterized by the absence of the ability to sense pain associated with noxious stimuli. In contrast, the opposite phenotype to CIP, inherited erythromelalgia (IEM), is a disorder of spontaneous pain caused by missense mutations resulting in gain-of-function in Na(v)1.7 that promote neuronal hyperexcitability. The primary aim of this study was to demonstrate that Na(v)1.7 antagonism could alleviate the pain of IEM, thereby demonstrating the utility of this opposite phenotype model as a tool for rapid proof-of-concept for novel analgesics. An exploratory, randomized, double-blind, 2-period crossover study was conducted in 4 SCN9A mutation-proven IEM patients. In each treatment period (2days), separated by a 2-day washout period, patients were orally administered XEN402 (400mg twice daily) or matching placebo. In 3 patients, pain was induced by heat or exercise during each treatment arm. A fourth patient, in constant severe pain, required no induction. Patient-reported outcomes of pain intensity and/or relief were recorded, and the time taken to induce pain was measured. The ability to induce pain in IEM patients was significantly attenuated by XEN402 compared with placebo. XEN402 increased the time to maximal pain induction and significantly reduced the amount of pain (42% less) after induction (P=.014). This pilot study showed that XEN402 blocks Na(v)1.7-mediated pain associated with IEM, thereby demonstrating target engagement in humans and underscoring the use of rare genetic disorders with mutant target channels as a novel approach to rapid proof-of-concept.

Based on available RCTs, 1-year high-dose IFN-α monotherapy appears to be more effective than PEG-IFN-α for treatment of HDV patients, with efficacy rates of approximately 30%. There is a lack of head-to-head comparisons. Combination therapies and longer treatment duration need to be investigated.

This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.

No abstract