Samara, Emil

AbstractObjectiveCurrent 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.MethodsTwo 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.ResultsIn 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).SignificanceThese 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.

BackgroundCXCR4 mediates the retention and survival of acute myelogenous leukemia blasts in bone marrow and contributes to their resistance to chemotherapy. The authors evaluated a combination of the high‐affinity CXCR4 antagonist BL‐8040 with high‐dose cytarabine (HiDAC) chemotherapy in a phase 2a study of patients with relapsed and refractory AML.MethodsForty‐two patients received treatment with BL‐8040 monotherapy for 2 days followed by a combination of BL‐8040 with HiDAC for 5 days. Six escalating BL‐8040 dose levels were investigated (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, and 2.0 mg/kg), and 1.5 mg/kg was selected as the dose for the expansion phase (n = 23).ResultsBL‐8040 in combination with HiDAC was safe and well tolerated at all dose levels. Clinical response was observed with BL‐8040 doses ≥1.0 mg/kg. The composite response rate (complete remissions plus complete remissions with incomplete hematologic recovery of platelets or neutrophils) was 29% (12 of 42) in all patients and 39% (9 of 23) in the 1.5‐mg/kg phase. The median overall survival was 8.4 months for all patients, 10.8 months in the 1.5‐mg/kg phase, and 21.8 months for responding patients in the 1.5‐mg/kg cohort. Two days of BL‐8040 monotherapy triggered the mobilization of blasts into peripheral blood, with significantly higher mean fold‐changes in responders versus nonresponders. This was accompanied by a decrease in bone marrow blasts.ConclusionsThe current results demonstrate the efficacy of CXCR4 targeting with BL‐8040 and support continued clinical development in acute myelogenous leukemia.