Citations

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.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough racial and ethnic identities are associated with a multitude of disparate medical outcomes, surveillance of these subpopulations in the occupational clinic setting could benefit enormously from a more detailed and nuanced recognition of racial and ethnic identity.MethodsThe research group designed a brief questionnaire to capture several dimensions of this identity and collected data from patients seen for work‐related conditions in four occupational medicine clinics from May 2019 through March 2020. Responses were used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of extant racial/ethnic identity data within our electronic health records system, and were compared to participants' self‐reported industry and occupation, coded according to North American Industry Classification System and Standard Occupational Classification System listings.ResultsOur questionnaire permitted collection of data that defined our patients' specific racial/ethnic identity with far greater detail, identified patients with multiple ethnic identities, and elicited their preferred language. Response rate was excellent (94.2%, n = 773). Non‐White participants frequently selected a racial/ethnic subcategory (78.1%–92.2%). Using our race/ethnicity data as a referent, the electronic health record (EHR) had a high specificity (>87.1%), widely variable sensitivity (11.8%–82.2%), and poorer response rates (75.1% for race, 82.5% for ethnicity, as compared to 93.8% with our questionnaire). Additional analyses revealed some industries and occupations disproportionately populated by patients of particular racial/ethnic identities.ConclusionsOur project demonstrates the usefulness of a questionnaire which more effectively identifies racial/ethnic subpopulations in an occupational medicine clinic, permitting far more detailed characterization of their occupations, industries, and diagnoses.

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.