Citations

AbstractObjectivesDrug treatment for children with epilepsy should, ideally, be governed by evidence from adequate and well‐controlled clinical studies. However, these studies are difficult to conduct, and so direct evidence supporting the informed use of specific drugs is often lacking. The Research Roundtable for Epilepsy (RRE) met in 2020 to align on an approach to therapy development for focal seizures in children age 1 month <2 years of age.MethodsThe RRE reviewed the regulatory landscape, epidemiology, seizure semiology, antiseizure medicine pharmacology, and safety issues applicable to this population.ResultsAfter reviewing evidence, the conclusion was that pediatric efficacy trials would be impracticable to conduct but a waiver of the regulatory requirement to conduct any study would lead to an absence of information to guide dosing in a critical population. Review of available data and discussion of RRE attendees led to the conclusion that the requirements for extrapolation of efficacy from older children down to infants from age 1 month to <2 years old appeared to be met. After the RRE, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved brivaracetam for use in children with focal epilepsy above the age of 1 month in August 2021 and lacosamide in October 2021, both based on the principle of extrapolation from data in older children.SignificanceThese recommendations should result in more rapid accessibility of antiseizure medications for infants.

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.

Objective: In a randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cosyntropin injectable suspension, 1 mg/mL, compared to vigabatrin for infantile spasms syndrome. An additional arm was included to assess the efficacy of combination therapy (cosyntropin and vigabatrin) compared with cosyntropin monotherapy. Methods: Children (2 months to 2 years) with new-onset infantile spasms syndrome and hypsarhythmia were randomized into 3 arms: cosyntropin, vigabatrin, and cosyntropin and vigabatrin combined. Daily seizures and adverse events were recorded, and EEG was repeated at day 14 to assess for resolution of hypsarhythmia. The primary outcome measure was the composite of resolution of hypsarhythmia and absence of clinical spasms at day 14. Fisher exact test was used to compare outcomes. Results: 37 children were enrolled and 34 were included in the final efficacy analysis (1 withdrew prior to treatment and 2 did not return seizure diaries). Resolution of both hypsarhythmia and clinical spasms was achieved in in 9 of 12 participants (75%) treated with cosyntropin, 1/9 (11%) vigabatrin, and 5/13 (38%) cosyntropin and vigabatrin combined. The primary comparison of cosyntropin versus vigabatrin was significant (64% [95% confidence interval 21, 82], P < .01). Adverse events were reported in all 3 treatment arms: 31 (86%) had an adverse event, 7 (19%) had a serious adverse event, and 15 (42%) had an adverse event of special interest with no difference between treatment arms. Significance: This randomized trial was underpowered because of incomplete enrollment, yet it demonstrated that cosyntropin was more effective for short-term outcomes than vigabatrin as initial treatment for infantile spasms.

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.

Circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have mandated a change to standard management of infantile spasms. On April 6, 2020, the Child Neurology Society issued an online statement of immediate recommendations to streamline diagnosis and treatment of infantile spasms with utilization of telemedicine, outpatient studies, and selection of first-line oral therapies as initial treatment. The rationale for the recommendations and specific guidance including follow-up assessment are provided in this manuscript. These recommendations are indicated as enduring if intended to outlast the pandemic, and limited if intended only for the pandemic health care crisis but may be applicable to future disruptions of health care delivery.

Summary Objective A prospective multicenter phase III trial was undertaken to evaluate the performance and tolerability in the epilepsy monitoring unit ( EMU ) of an investigational wearable surface electromyographic ( sEMG ) monitoring system for the detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures ( GTCSs ). Methods One hundred ninety‐nine patients with a history of GTCSs who were admitted to the EMU in 11 level IV epilepsy centers for clinically indicated video‐electroencephalographic monitoring also received sEMG monitoring with a wearable device that was worn on the arm over the biceps muscle. All recorded sEMG data were processed at a central site using a previously developed detection algorithm. Detected GTCSs were compared to events verified by a majority of three expert reviewers. Results For all subjects, the detection algorithm detected 35 of 46 (76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61–0.87) of the GTCSs, with a positive predictive value ( PPV ) of 0.03 and a mean false alarm rate ( FAR ) of 2.52 per 24 h. For data recorded while the device was placed over the midline of the biceps muscle, the system detected 29 of 29 GTCSs (100%, 95% CI = 0.88–1.00), with a detection delay averaging 7.70 s, a PPV of 6.2%, and a mean FAR of 1.44 per 24 h. Mild to moderate adverse events were reported in 28% (55 of 199) of subjects and led to study withdrawal in 9% (17 of 199). These adverse events consisted mostly of skin irritation caused by the electrode patch that resolved without treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. Significance Detection of GTCSs using an sEMG monitoring device on the biceps is feasible. Proper positioning of this device is important for accuracy, and for some patients, minimizing the number of false positives may be challenging.