Wheless, James W.

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.

Abstract Objective An exploratory analysis from a long‐term, phase 3, open‐label, repeat‐dose safety study of diazepam nasal spray for acute treatment of seizure clusters assessed the use of a second dose up to 24 hours after the initial dose and effectiveness in potentially reducing the number of seizures. Methods Seizures and doses were recorded in diaries. Results Of 175 patients enrolled, 163 received ≥1 dose of diazepam nasal spray and were included in the safety population; those patients received a total of 4390 doses for a total of 3853 seizure clusters. Less than half of these patients used a second dose a least once during the study (79 patients [48.5%]), with a total of 485 second doses for seizure clusters (12.6% of all seizure clusters). Among these 79 patients, 33 (41.8%) used only one second dose during the study (range: 1–82). The proportion of seizure clusters treated with a second dose over time was consistently low across 24 h: 0–4 h, 152 (3.9%); 4–6 h, 72 (1.9%); 6–8 h, 39 (1.0%); 8–12 h, 55 (1.4%); 12–16 h, 42 (1.1%); 16–20 h, 42 (1.1%); 20–24 h, 83 (2.2%). Rates of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment‐related TEAEs occurring within 1 day of a second dose were low (15.2% and 5.1%, respectively). Significance Patients with epilepsy may experience seizure clusters lasting up to 24 hours, and little is known about the effectiveness of rescue therapies for that duration. The current labeling of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved outpatient treatments for seizure clusters (rectal diazepam, intranasal midazolam, and diazepam nasal spray) allows for a second dose, if needed, for control. These findings support the safety profile of second doses, and the low use supports the effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray across 24 hours.

Abstract 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 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.

AbstractObjectiveNeed 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOf 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.SignificanceFrequency 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.

Abstract 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 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.

Summary Ketogenic dietary therapies ( KDTs ) are established, effective nonpharmacologic treatments for intractable childhood epilepsy. For many years KDTs were implemented differently throughout the world due to lack of consistent protocols. In 2009, an expert consensus guideline for the management of children on KDT was published, focusing on topics of patient selection, pre‐ KDT counseling and evaluation, diet choice and attributes, implementation, supplementation, follow‐up, side events, and KDT discontinuation. It has been helpful in outlining a state‐of‐the‐art protocol, standardizing KDT for multicenter clinical trials, and identifying areas of controversy and uncertainty for future research. Now one decade later, the organizers and authors of this guideline present a revised version with additional authors, in order to include recent research, especially regarding other dietary treatments, clarifying indications for use, side effects during initiation and ongoing use, value of supplements, and methods of KDT discontinuation. In addition, authors completed a survey of their institution's practices, which was compared to responses from the original consensus survey, to show trends in management over the last 10 years.

Objectives: To characterize the burden of seizure clusters (SC) on patients and caregivers, a large internet-based survey was conducted. Methods: The Seizure Cluster Burden of Illness US Survey was conducted online by Harris Poll on behalf of The Epilepsy Foundation in September 2014. Respondents included adult patients 18 years and above with epilepsy or a seizure disorder who had experienced SC in the past year (defined as ≥2 seizures within 24 h outside the patient’s typical seizure pattern), caregivers providing current care for a patient with SC (adult or child), and clinicians (neurologists, epileptologists) who treat adult or pediatric patients. Responses to a wide range of topics, including emotional well-being, daily function, productivity, and approach to clinical practice, were collected. Results: There were 861 respondents (259 adult SC patients, 263 caregivers, and 339 clinicians). A majority of all respondent groups felt SC have a moderate/major negative impact on patient and caregiver quality of life, including emotional, financial, and social components. Responses indicated possible overutilization of emergency room services and underutilization of rescue treatment. Only 30% of patients reported having a seizure emergency plan. Some responses showed discrepancies between clinicians and patients/caregivers in the perceived degree of negative impact of SC and management practices for SC. Conclusions: These results suggest the need for increased education on managing SC. Clinicians need to develop seizure emergency plans and discuss rescue therapies, whereas patients and caregivers need to ask for and utilize these management strategies.