Neurology

During an opioid-addiction epidemic, can any new opioid pain drug meet prevailing safety demands to gain regulatory approval?

On Jan. 14 and 15, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted virtually unanimously against two new opioid formulations and evenly split for and against a third; the 2 days of data and discussion showed how high a bar new opioids face these days for getting onto the U.S. market.

The bar’s height is very understandable given how many Americans have become addicted to opioids over the past decade, more often than not by accident while using pain medications as they believed they had been directed, said experts during the sessions held on the FDA’s campus in White Oak, Md.

Among the many upshots of the opioid crisis, the meetings held to discuss these three contender opioids highlighted the bitter irony confronting attempts to bring new, safer opioids to the U.S. market: While less abusable pain-relief medications that still harness the potent analgesic power of mu opioid receptor agonists are desperately desired, new agents in this space now receive withering scrutiny over their safeguards against misuse and abuse, and over whether they add anything meaningfully new to what’s already available. While these demands seem reasonable, perhaps even essential, it’s unclear whether any new opioid-based pain drugs will ever fully meet the safety that researchers, clinicians, and the public now seek.

A special FDA advisory committee that combined the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee with members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee considered the application for three different opioid drugs from three separate companies. None received a clear endorsement. Oxycodegol, a new type of orally delivered opioid molecule engineered to slow brain entry and thereby delay an abuser’s high, got voted down without any votes in favor and 27 votes against agency approval. Aximris XR, an extended-release oxycodone formulation that successfully deterred intravenous abuse but had no deterrence efficacy for intranasal or oral abuse failed by a 2-24 vote against. The third agent, CTC, a novel formulation of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with the NSAID celecoxib designed to be analgesic but with limited opioid-abuse appeal, came the closest to meaningful support with a tied 13-13 vote from advisory committee members for and against agency approval. FDA staff takes advisory committee opinions and votes into account when making their final decisions about drug marketing approvals.

In each case, the committee members, mostly the same roster assembled for each of the three agents, identified specific concerns with the data purported to show each drug’s safety and efficacy. But the gathered experts and consumer representatives also consistently cited holistic challenges to approving new opioids and the stiffer criteria these agents face amid a continuing wave of opioid misuse and abuse.

“In the context of the public health issues, we don’t want to be perceived in any way of taking shortcuts,” said Linda S. Tyler, PharmD,, an advisory committee member and professor of pharmacy and chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “There is no question that for a new product to come to market in this space it needs to add to what’s on the market, meet a high bar, and provide advantages compared with what’s already on the market,” she said.

Tramadol plus celecoxib gains some support

The proposed combined formulation of tramadol and celecoxib came closest to meeting that bar, as far as the advisory committee was concerned, coming away with 13 votes favoring approval to match 13 votes against. The premise behind this agent, know as CTC (cocrystal of tramadol and celecoxib), was that it combined a modest dose (44 mg) of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with a 56-mg dose of celecoxib in a twice-daily pill. Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and director of acute pain management at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and a speaker at the session on behalf of the applicant company, spelled out the rationale behind CTC: “We are caught in a dilemma. We need to reduce opioid use, but we also need to treat pain. We have an urgent need to have pain treatment options that are effective but have low potential for abuse and dependence. We are looking at multimodal analgesia, that uses combination of agents, recognizing that postoperative pain is a mixed pain syndrome. Multimodal pain treatments are now considered standard care. We want to minimize opioids to the lowest dose possible to produce safe analgesia. Tramadol is the least-preferred opioid for abuse,” and is rated as schedule IV, the U.S. designation for drugs considered to have a low level of potential for causing abuse or dependence. “Opioids used as stand-alone agents have contributed to the current opioid crisis,” Dr. Viscusi told the committee.

In contrast to tramadol’s schedule IV status, the mainstays of recent opioid pain therapy have been hydrocodone and oxycodone, schedule II opioids rated as having a “high potential for abuse.”

Several advisory committee members agreed that CTC minimized patient exposure to an opioid. “This drug isn’t even tramadol; it’s tramadol light. It has about as low a dose [of an opioid] as you can have and still have a drug,” said member Lee A. Hoffer, PhD, a medical anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, who studies substance use disorders. “All opioids are dangerous, even at a low dose, but there is a linear relationship based on potency, so if we want to have an opioid for acute pain, I’d like it to have the lowest morphine milligram equivalent possible. The ideal is no opioids, but that is not what happens,” he said. The CTC formulation delivers 17.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per pill, the manufacturer’s representatives said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a “relatively low” daily opioid dose as 20-50 MME.

Some committee members hailed the CTC formulation as a meaningful step toward cutting opioid consumption.

“We may be very nervous about abuse of scheduled opioids, but a schedule IV opioid in an opioid-sparing formulation is as good as it gets in 2020,” said committee member Kevin L. Zacharoff, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “Any opioid has potential for abuse, but this is a safer alternative to the schedule II drugs. There is less public health risk with this,” said committee member Sherif Zaafran, MD, a Houston anesthesiologist. “This represents an incremental but important approach to addressing the opioid crisis, especially if used to replace schedule II opioids,” said Brandon D.L. Marshall, PhD, an epidemiologist and substance abuse researcher at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

But despite agreement that CTC represented a new low in the MME of an opioid given to patients, several committee members still saw the formulation as problematic by introducing any opioid, no matter how small the dose.

“The landscape of tramadol use and prescribing is evolving. There’s been an exponential upturn in tramadol prescribing. It’s perceived [as] safer, but it’s not completely safe. Will this change tramadol abuse and open the door to abuse of other opioids? This is what got us into trouble with opioids in the first place. Patients start with a prescription opioid that they perceive is safe. Patients don’t start with oxycodone or heroin. They start with drugs that are believed to be safe. I feel this combination has less risk for abuse, but I’m worried that it would produce a false sense of security for tolerability and safety,” said committee member Maryann E. Amirshahi, MD, a medical toxicologist at Georgetown University and MedStar Health in Washington.

Several other committee members returned to this point throughout the 2 days of discussions: The majority of Americans who have become hooked on opioids reached that point by taking an opioid pain medication for a legitimate medical reason and using the drug the way they had understood they should.

“I’m most concerned about unintentional misuse leading to addiction and abuse. Most people with an opioid addiction got it inadvertently, misusing it by mistake,” said committee member Suzanne B. Robotti, a consumer representative and executive director of DES Action USA. “I’m concerned about approving an opioid, even an opioid with a low abuse history, without a clearer picture of the human abuse potential data and what would happen if this drug were abused,” she added, referring to the proposed CTC formulation.

“All the patients I work with started [their opioid addiction] as pain patients,” Dr. Hoffer said.

“The most common use and abuse of opioids is orally. We need to avoid having patients who use the drug as prescribed and still end up addicted,” said committee member Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, a neurologist and director of pain management at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington.

What this means, said several panelists, is functionally clamping down a class-wide lid on new opioids. “The way to reduce deaths from abuse is to reduce addiction, and to have an impact you need to reduce opioid exposure.” said committee member Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“In this opioid crisis, we ask for data that we wouldn’t ordinarily ask for. I feel there are unanswered questions about the abuse potential [of CTC]. We have seen a recent reduction in oxycodone use, which is great, but also an increase in tramadol use. We should not be fooled. Tramadol is an opioid, even if it’s schedule IV,” Dr. Tyler said.

Two other opioids faced greater opposition

The other two agents that the committee considered received much less support and sharper skepticism. The application for Aximris XR, an extended release form of oxycodone with a purported abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) that relies on being difficult to extract for intravenous use as well as possibly having effective deterrence mechanisms for other forms of abuse. But FDA staffers reported that the only effective deterrence they could document was against manipulation for intravenous use, making Aximris XR the first opioid seeking ADF labeling based on deterrence to a single delivery route. This led several committee members, as well as the FDA, to comment on the clinical meaningfulness of ADF for one route. So far, the FDA approved ADF labeling for seven opioids, most notably OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone with the biggest share of the U.S. market for opioids with ADF labeling.

“For ADF, we label based on what we expect from the premarket data. We don’t really know how that translates into what happens once the drug is on the market. Every company with an ADF in their label is required to do postmarketing studies on the abuse routes that are supposed to be deterred. We see shifts to other routes. Assessment of ADF is incredibly challenging, both scientifically and logistically, because there has not been a lot of uptake of these products, for a variety of reasons,” said Judy Staffa, PhD, associate director for Public Health Initiatives in the Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The company that markets OxyContin has been the first to submit to the FDA all of its required postmarketing data on ADF efficacy, and the agency is now reviewing this filing, Dr. Staffa said.

The data presented for Aximris XR appeared to generally fail to convince committee members that it provided a meaningful addition to the range of opioids with ADF designations already available, which meant that their decision mostly came down to whether they felt it made sense to bring a me-too opioid to the U.S. market. Their answer was mostly no.

“In the end, it’s another opioid, and I’m not sure we need another opioid,” said committee member Lonnie K. Zeltzer, MD, professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences and director of pediatric pain at the University of California, Los Angeles “There are so many options for patients and for people who abuse these drug. I don’t see this formulation as having a profound impact, but I’m very concerned about adding more prescription opioids,” said Martin Garcia-Bunuel, MD, deputy chief of staff for the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore. Another concern of some committee members was that ADF remains a designation with an uncertain meaning, pending the FDA’s analysis of the OxyContin data.

“At the end of the day, we don’t know whether any of the [ADF] stuff makes a difference,” noted Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for M Health Fairview in Minneapolis and a committee member,

The third agent, oxycodegol, a molecule designed to pass more slowly across the blood-brain barrier because of an attached polyethylene glycol chain that’s supposed to prevent a rapid high after ingestion and hence cut abuse potential. It received unanimous committee rejection, primarily because its safety and efficacy evidence had so many holes, but the shadow of opioid abuse permeated the committee’s discussion.

“One dogma in the abuse world is that slowing entry into the brain reduces abuse potential, but the opioid crisis showed that this is not the only factor. Some people have become addicted to slow-acting drugs. The abuse potential of this drug, oxycodegol, needs to be considered given where we’ve been with the opioid crisis,” said Jane B. Acri, PhD, chief of the Medications Discovery and Toxicology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“During the opioid epidemic, do we want to approve more opioids? If the [pain] efficacy is about the same as oxycodone, is better safety or abuse potential a reason to approve it? We need guidance [from the FDA] about what is ‘better enough.’ No opioid will ever be perfect; there will always be abuse and misuse. But what is good enough to justify bringing another opioid onto the market? What is a good enough improvement? I don’t have an answer,” Dr. Hernandez-Diaz said.

Adviser comments showed that the continued threat of widespread opioid addiction has cooled prospects for new opioid approvals by making FDA advisers skittish over how to properly score the incremental value of a new opioid.

“Do we need to go back to the drawing board on how we make decisions on exposing the American public to these kinds of agents?” Dr. Garcia-Bunuel asked. “I don’t think we have the tools to make these decisions.”

mzoler@mdedge.com

During an opioid-addiction epidemic, can any new opioid pain drug meet prevailing safety demands to gain regulatory approval?

On Jan. 14 and 15, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted virtually unanimously against two new opioid formulations and evenly split for and against a third; the 2 days of data and discussion showed how high a bar new opioids face these days for getting onto the U.S. market.

The bar’s height is very understandable given how many Americans have become addicted to opioids over the past decade, more often than not by accident while using pain medications as they believed they had been directed, said experts during the sessions held on the FDA’s campus in White Oak, Md.

Among the many upshots of the opioid crisis, the meetings held to discuss these three contender opioids highlighted the bitter irony confronting attempts to bring new, safer opioids to the U.S. market: While less abusable pain-relief medications that still harness the potent analgesic power of mu opioid receptor agonists are desperately desired, new agents in this space now receive withering scrutiny over their safeguards against misuse and abuse, and over whether they add anything meaningfully new to what’s already available. While these demands seem reasonable, perhaps even essential, it’s unclear whether any new opioid-based pain drugs will ever fully meet the safety that researchers, clinicians, and the public now seek.

A special FDA advisory committee that combined the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee with members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee considered the application for three different opioid drugs from three separate companies. None received a clear endorsement. Oxycodegol, a new type of orally delivered opioid molecule engineered to slow brain entry and thereby delay an abuser’s high, got voted down without any votes in favor and 27 votes against agency approval. Aximris XR, an extended-release oxycodone formulation that successfully deterred intravenous abuse but had no deterrence efficacy for intranasal or oral abuse failed by a 2-24 vote against. The third agent, CTC, a novel formulation of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with the NSAID celecoxib designed to be analgesic but with limited opioid-abuse appeal, came the closest to meaningful support with a tied 13-13 vote from advisory committee members for and against agency approval. FDA staff takes advisory committee opinions and votes into account when making their final decisions about drug marketing approvals.

In each case, the committee members, mostly the same roster assembled for each of the three agents, identified specific concerns with the data purported to show each drug’s safety and efficacy. But the gathered experts and consumer representatives also consistently cited holistic challenges to approving new opioids and the stiffer criteria these agents face amid a continuing wave of opioid misuse and abuse.

“In the context of the public health issues, we don’t want to be perceived in any way of taking shortcuts,” said Linda S. Tyler, PharmD,, an advisory committee member and professor of pharmacy and chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “There is no question that for a new product to come to market in this space it needs to add to what’s on the market, meet a high bar, and provide advantages compared with what’s already on the market,” she said.

Tramadol plus celecoxib gains some support

The proposed combined formulation of tramadol and celecoxib came closest to meeting that bar, as far as the advisory committee was concerned, coming away with 13 votes favoring approval to match 13 votes against. The premise behind this agent, know as CTC (cocrystal of tramadol and celecoxib), was that it combined a modest dose (44 mg) of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with a 56-mg dose of celecoxib in a twice-daily pill. Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and director of acute pain management at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and a speaker at the session on behalf of the applicant company, spelled out the rationale behind CTC: “We are caught in a dilemma. We need to reduce opioid use, but we also need to treat pain. We have an urgent need to have pain treatment options that are effective but have low potential for abuse and dependence. We are looking at multimodal analgesia, that uses combination of agents, recognizing that postoperative pain is a mixed pain syndrome. Multimodal pain treatments are now considered standard care. We want to minimize opioids to the lowest dose possible to produce safe analgesia. Tramadol is the least-preferred opioid for abuse,” and is rated as schedule IV, the U.S. designation for drugs considered to have a low level of potential for causing abuse or dependence. “Opioids used as stand-alone agents have contributed to the current opioid crisis,” Dr. Viscusi told the committee.

In contrast to tramadol’s schedule IV status, the mainstays of recent opioid pain therapy have been hydrocodone and oxycodone, schedule II opioids rated as having a “high potential for abuse.”

Several advisory committee members agreed that CTC minimized patient exposure to an opioid. “This drug isn’t even tramadol; it’s tramadol light. It has about as low a dose [of an opioid] as you can have and still have a drug,” said member Lee A. Hoffer, PhD, a medical anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, who studies substance use disorders. “All opioids are dangerous, even at a low dose, but there is a linear relationship based on potency, so if we want to have an opioid for acute pain, I’d like it to have the lowest morphine milligram equivalent possible. The ideal is no opioids, but that is not what happens,” he said. The CTC formulation delivers 17.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per pill, the manufacturer’s representatives said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a “relatively low” daily opioid dose as 20-50 MME.

Some committee members hailed the CTC formulation as a meaningful step toward cutting opioid consumption.

“We may be very nervous about abuse of scheduled opioids, but a schedule IV opioid in an opioid-sparing formulation is as good as it gets in 2020,” said committee member Kevin L. Zacharoff, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “Any opioid has potential for abuse, but this is a safer alternative to the schedule II drugs. There is less public health risk with this,” said committee member Sherif Zaafran, MD, a Houston anesthesiologist. “This represents an incremental but important approach to addressing the opioid crisis, especially if used to replace schedule II opioids,” said Brandon D.L. Marshall, PhD, an epidemiologist and substance abuse researcher at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

But despite agreement that CTC represented a new low in the MME of an opioid given to patients, several committee members still saw the formulation as problematic by introducing any opioid, no matter how small the dose.

“The landscape of tramadol use and prescribing is evolving. There’s been an exponential upturn in tramadol prescribing. It’s perceived [as] safer, but it’s not completely safe. Will this change tramadol abuse and open the door to abuse of other opioids? This is what got us into trouble with opioids in the first place. Patients start with a prescription opioid that they perceive is safe. Patients don’t start with oxycodone or heroin. They start with drugs that are believed to be safe. I feel this combination has less risk for abuse, but I’m worried that it would produce a false sense of security for tolerability and safety,” said committee member Maryann E. Amirshahi, MD, a medical toxicologist at Georgetown University and MedStar Health in Washington.

Several other committee members returned to this point throughout the 2 days of discussions: The majority of Americans who have become hooked on opioids reached that point by taking an opioid pain medication for a legitimate medical reason and using the drug the way they had understood they should.

“I’m most concerned about unintentional misuse leading to addiction and abuse. Most people with an opioid addiction got it inadvertently, misusing it by mistake,” said committee member Suzanne B. Robotti, a consumer representative and executive director of DES Action USA. “I’m concerned about approving an opioid, even an opioid with a low abuse history, without a clearer picture of the human abuse potential data and what would happen if this drug were abused,” she added, referring to the proposed CTC formulation.

“All the patients I work with started [their opioid addiction] as pain patients,” Dr. Hoffer said.

“The most common use and abuse of opioids is orally. We need to avoid having patients who use the drug as prescribed and still end up addicted,” said committee member Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, a neurologist and director of pain management at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington.

What this means, said several panelists, is functionally clamping down a class-wide lid on new opioids. “The way to reduce deaths from abuse is to reduce addiction, and to have an impact you need to reduce opioid exposure.” said committee member Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“In this opioid crisis, we ask for data that we wouldn’t ordinarily ask for. I feel there are unanswered questions about the abuse potential [of CTC]. We have seen a recent reduction in oxycodone use, which is great, but also an increase in tramadol use. We should not be fooled. Tramadol is an opioid, even if it’s schedule IV,” Dr. Tyler said.

Two other opioids faced greater opposition

The other two agents that the committee considered received much less support and sharper skepticism. The application for Aximris XR, an extended release form of oxycodone with a purported abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) that relies on being difficult to extract for intravenous use as well as possibly having effective deterrence mechanisms for other forms of abuse. But FDA staffers reported that the only effective deterrence they could document was against manipulation for intravenous use, making Aximris XR the first opioid seeking ADF labeling based on deterrence to a single delivery route. This led several committee members, as well as the FDA, to comment on the clinical meaningfulness of ADF for one route. So far, the FDA approved ADF labeling for seven opioids, most notably OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone with the biggest share of the U.S. market for opioids with ADF labeling.

“For ADF, we label based on what we expect from the premarket data. We don’t really know how that translates into what happens once the drug is on the market. Every company with an ADF in their label is required to do postmarketing studies on the abuse routes that are supposed to be deterred. We see shifts to other routes. Assessment of ADF is incredibly challenging, both scientifically and logistically, because there has not been a lot of uptake of these products, for a variety of reasons,” said Judy Staffa, PhD, associate director for Public Health Initiatives in the Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The company that markets OxyContin has been the first to submit to the FDA all of its required postmarketing data on ADF efficacy, and the agency is now reviewing this filing, Dr. Staffa said.

The data presented for Aximris XR appeared to generally fail to convince committee members that it provided a meaningful addition to the range of opioids with ADF designations already available, which meant that their decision mostly came down to whether they felt it made sense to bring a me-too opioid to the U.S. market. Their answer was mostly no.

“In the end, it’s another opioid, and I’m not sure we need another opioid,” said committee member Lonnie K. Zeltzer, MD, professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences and director of pediatric pain at the University of California, Los Angeles “There are so many options for patients and for people who abuse these drug. I don’t see this formulation as having a profound impact, but I’m very concerned about adding more prescription opioids,” said Martin Garcia-Bunuel, MD, deputy chief of staff for the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore. Another concern of some committee members was that ADF remains a designation with an uncertain meaning, pending the FDA’s analysis of the OxyContin data.

“At the end of the day, we don’t know whether any of the [ADF] stuff makes a difference,” noted Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for M Health Fairview in Minneapolis and a committee member,

The third agent, oxycodegol, a molecule designed to pass more slowly across the blood-brain barrier because of an attached polyethylene glycol chain that’s supposed to prevent a rapid high after ingestion and hence cut abuse potential. It received unanimous committee rejection, primarily because its safety and efficacy evidence had so many holes, but the shadow of opioid abuse permeated the committee’s discussion.

“One dogma in the abuse world is that slowing entry into the brain reduces abuse potential, but the opioid crisis showed that this is not the only factor. Some people have become addicted to slow-acting drugs. The abuse potential of this drug, oxycodegol, needs to be considered given where we’ve been with the opioid crisis,” said Jane B. Acri, PhD, chief of the Medications Discovery and Toxicology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“During the opioid epidemic, do we want to approve more opioids? If the [pain] efficacy is about the same as oxycodone, is better safety or abuse potential a reason to approve it? We need guidance [from the FDA] about what is ‘better enough.’ No opioid will ever be perfect; there will always be abuse and misuse. But what is good enough to justify bringing another opioid onto the market? What is a good enough improvement? I don’t have an answer,” Dr. Hernandez-Diaz said.

Adviser comments showed that the continued threat of widespread opioid addiction has cooled prospects for new opioid approvals by making FDA advisers skittish over how to properly score the incremental value of a new opioid.

“Do we need to go back to the drawing board on how we make decisions on exposing the American public to these kinds of agents?” Dr. Garcia-Bunuel asked. “I don’t think we have the tools to make these decisions.”

mzoler@mdedge.com

During an opioid-addiction epidemic, can any new opioid pain drug meet prevailing safety demands to gain regulatory approval?

On Jan. 14 and 15, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted virtually unanimously against two new opioid formulations and evenly split for and against a third; the 2 days of data and discussion showed how high a bar new opioids face these days for getting onto the U.S. market.

The bar’s height is very understandable given how many Americans have become addicted to opioids over the past decade, more often than not by accident while using pain medications as they believed they had been directed, said experts during the sessions held on the FDA’s campus in White Oak, Md.

Among the many upshots of the opioid crisis, the meetings held to discuss these three contender opioids highlighted the bitter irony confronting attempts to bring new, safer opioids to the U.S. market: While less abusable pain-relief medications that still harness the potent analgesic power of mu opioid receptor agonists are desperately desired, new agents in this space now receive withering scrutiny over their safeguards against misuse and abuse, and over whether they add anything meaningfully new to what’s already available. While these demands seem reasonable, perhaps even essential, it’s unclear whether any new opioid-based pain drugs will ever fully meet the safety that researchers, clinicians, and the public now seek.

A special FDA advisory committee that combined the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee with members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee considered the application for three different opioid drugs from three separate companies. None received a clear endorsement. Oxycodegol, a new type of orally delivered opioid molecule engineered to slow brain entry and thereby delay an abuser’s high, got voted down without any votes in favor and 27 votes against agency approval. Aximris XR, an extended-release oxycodone formulation that successfully deterred intravenous abuse but had no deterrence efficacy for intranasal or oral abuse failed by a 2-24 vote against. The third agent, CTC, a novel formulation of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with the NSAID celecoxib designed to be analgesic but with limited opioid-abuse appeal, came the closest to meaningful support with a tied 13-13 vote from advisory committee members for and against agency approval. FDA staff takes advisory committee opinions and votes into account when making their final decisions about drug marketing approvals.

In each case, the committee members, mostly the same roster assembled for each of the three agents, identified specific concerns with the data purported to show each drug’s safety and efficacy. But the gathered experts and consumer representatives also consistently cited holistic challenges to approving new opioids and the stiffer criteria these agents face amid a continuing wave of opioid misuse and abuse.

“In the context of the public health issues, we don’t want to be perceived in any way of taking shortcuts,” said Linda S. Tyler, PharmD,, an advisory committee member and professor of pharmacy and chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “There is no question that for a new product to come to market in this space it needs to add to what’s on the market, meet a high bar, and provide advantages compared with what’s already on the market,” she said.

Tramadol plus celecoxib gains some support

The proposed combined formulation of tramadol and celecoxib came closest to meeting that bar, as far as the advisory committee was concerned, coming away with 13 votes favoring approval to match 13 votes against. The premise behind this agent, know as CTC (cocrystal of tramadol and celecoxib), was that it combined a modest dose (44 mg) of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with a 56-mg dose of celecoxib in a twice-daily pill. Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and director of acute pain management at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and a speaker at the session on behalf of the applicant company, spelled out the rationale behind CTC: “We are caught in a dilemma. We need to reduce opioid use, but we also need to treat pain. We have an urgent need to have pain treatment options that are effective but have low potential for abuse and dependence. We are looking at multimodal analgesia, that uses combination of agents, recognizing that postoperative pain is a mixed pain syndrome. Multimodal pain treatments are now considered standard care. We want to minimize opioids to the lowest dose possible to produce safe analgesia. Tramadol is the least-preferred opioid for abuse,” and is rated as schedule IV, the U.S. designation for drugs considered to have a low level of potential for causing abuse or dependence. “Opioids used as stand-alone agents have contributed to the current opioid crisis,” Dr. Viscusi told the committee.

In contrast to tramadol’s schedule IV status, the mainstays of recent opioid pain therapy have been hydrocodone and oxycodone, schedule II opioids rated as having a “high potential for abuse.”

Several advisory committee members agreed that CTC minimized patient exposure to an opioid. “This drug isn’t even tramadol; it’s tramadol light. It has about as low a dose [of an opioid] as you can have and still have a drug,” said member Lee A. Hoffer, PhD, a medical anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, who studies substance use disorders. “All opioids are dangerous, even at a low dose, but there is a linear relationship based on potency, so if we want to have an opioid for acute pain, I’d like it to have the lowest morphine milligram equivalent possible. The ideal is no opioids, but that is not what happens,” he said. The CTC formulation delivers 17.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per pill, the manufacturer’s representatives said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a “relatively low” daily opioid dose as 20-50 MME.

Some committee members hailed the CTC formulation as a meaningful step toward cutting opioid consumption.

“We may be very nervous about abuse of scheduled opioids, but a schedule IV opioid in an opioid-sparing formulation is as good as it gets in 2020,” said committee member Kevin L. Zacharoff, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “Any opioid has potential for abuse, but this is a safer alternative to the schedule II drugs. There is less public health risk with this,” said committee member Sherif Zaafran, MD, a Houston anesthesiologist. “This represents an incremental but important approach to addressing the opioid crisis, especially if used to replace schedule II opioids,” said Brandon D.L. Marshall, PhD, an epidemiologist and substance abuse researcher at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

But despite agreement that CTC represented a new low in the MME of an opioid given to patients, several committee members still saw the formulation as problematic by introducing any opioid, no matter how small the dose.

“The landscape of tramadol use and prescribing is evolving. There’s been an exponential upturn in tramadol prescribing. It’s perceived [as] safer, but it’s not completely safe. Will this change tramadol abuse and open the door to abuse of other opioids? This is what got us into trouble with opioids in the first place. Patients start with a prescription opioid that they perceive is safe. Patients don’t start with oxycodone or heroin. They start with drugs that are believed to be safe. I feel this combination has less risk for abuse, but I’m worried that it would produce a false sense of security for tolerability and safety,” said committee member Maryann E. Amirshahi, MD, a medical toxicologist at Georgetown University and MedStar Health in Washington.

Several other committee members returned to this point throughout the 2 days of discussions: The majority of Americans who have become hooked on opioids reached that point by taking an opioid pain medication for a legitimate medical reason and using the drug the way they had understood they should.

“I’m most concerned about unintentional misuse leading to addiction and abuse. Most people with an opioid addiction got it inadvertently, misusing it by mistake,” said committee member Suzanne B. Robotti, a consumer representative and executive director of DES Action USA. “I’m concerned about approving an opioid, even an opioid with a low abuse history, without a clearer picture of the human abuse potential data and what would happen if this drug were abused,” she added, referring to the proposed CTC formulation.

“All the patients I work with started [their opioid addiction] as pain patients,” Dr. Hoffer said.

“The most common use and abuse of opioids is orally. We need to avoid having patients who use the drug as prescribed and still end up addicted,” said committee member Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, a neurologist and director of pain management at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington.

What this means, said several panelists, is functionally clamping down a class-wide lid on new opioids. “The way to reduce deaths from abuse is to reduce addiction, and to have an impact you need to reduce opioid exposure.” said committee member Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“In this opioid crisis, we ask for data that we wouldn’t ordinarily ask for. I feel there are unanswered questions about the abuse potential [of CTC]. We have seen a recent reduction in oxycodone use, which is great, but also an increase in tramadol use. We should not be fooled. Tramadol is an opioid, even if it’s schedule IV,” Dr. Tyler said.

Two other opioids faced greater opposition

The other two agents that the committee considered received much less support and sharper skepticism. The application for Aximris XR, an extended release form of oxycodone with a purported abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) that relies on being difficult to extract for intravenous use as well as possibly having effective deterrence mechanisms for other forms of abuse. But FDA staffers reported that the only effective deterrence they could document was against manipulation for intravenous use, making Aximris XR the first opioid seeking ADF labeling based on deterrence to a single delivery route. This led several committee members, as well as the FDA, to comment on the clinical meaningfulness of ADF for one route. So far, the FDA approved ADF labeling for seven opioids, most notably OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone with the biggest share of the U.S. market for opioids with ADF labeling.

“For ADF, we label based on what we expect from the premarket data. We don’t really know how that translates into what happens once the drug is on the market. Every company with an ADF in their label is required to do postmarketing studies on the abuse routes that are supposed to be deterred. We see shifts to other routes. Assessment of ADF is incredibly challenging, both scientifically and logistically, because there has not been a lot of uptake of these products, for a variety of reasons,” said Judy Staffa, PhD, associate director for Public Health Initiatives in the Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The company that markets OxyContin has been the first to submit to the FDA all of its required postmarketing data on ADF efficacy, and the agency is now reviewing this filing, Dr. Staffa said.

The data presented for Aximris XR appeared to generally fail to convince committee members that it provided a meaningful addition to the range of opioids with ADF designations already available, which meant that their decision mostly came down to whether they felt it made sense to bring a me-too opioid to the U.S. market. Their answer was mostly no.

“In the end, it’s another opioid, and I’m not sure we need another opioid,” said committee member Lonnie K. Zeltzer, MD, professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences and director of pediatric pain at the University of California, Los Angeles “There are so many options for patients and for people who abuse these drug. I don’t see this formulation as having a profound impact, but I’m very concerned about adding more prescription opioids,” said Martin Garcia-Bunuel, MD, deputy chief of staff for the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore. Another concern of some committee members was that ADF remains a designation with an uncertain meaning, pending the FDA’s analysis of the OxyContin data.

“At the end of the day, we don’t know whether any of the [ADF] stuff makes a difference,” noted Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for M Health Fairview in Minneapolis and a committee member,

The third agent, oxycodegol, a molecule designed to pass more slowly across the blood-brain barrier because of an attached polyethylene glycol chain that’s supposed to prevent a rapid high after ingestion and hence cut abuse potential. It received unanimous committee rejection, primarily because its safety and efficacy evidence had so many holes, but the shadow of opioid abuse permeated the committee’s discussion.

“One dogma in the abuse world is that slowing entry into the brain reduces abuse potential, but the opioid crisis showed that this is not the only factor. Some people have become addicted to slow-acting drugs. The abuse potential of this drug, oxycodegol, needs to be considered given where we’ve been with the opioid crisis,” said Jane B. Acri, PhD, chief of the Medications Discovery and Toxicology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“During the opioid epidemic, do we want to approve more opioids? If the [pain] efficacy is about the same as oxycodone, is better safety or abuse potential a reason to approve it? We need guidance [from the FDA] about what is ‘better enough.’ No opioid will ever be perfect; there will always be abuse and misuse. But what is good enough to justify bringing another opioid onto the market? What is a good enough improvement? I don’t have an answer,” Dr. Hernandez-Diaz said.

Adviser comments showed that the continued threat of widespread opioid addiction has cooled prospects for new opioid approvals by making FDA advisers skittish over how to properly score the incremental value of a new opioid.

“Do we need to go back to the drawing board on how we make decisions on exposing the American public to these kinds of agents?” Dr. Garcia-Bunuel asked. “I don’t think we have the tools to make these decisions.”

mzoler@mdedge.com

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 27-0 on Jan. 14 against recommending agency approval of oxycodegol, a new type of opioid molecule designed to slow passage of the drug through the blood-brain barrier and hence cause less of a “high” and potentially blunt the drug’s abuse potential.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

But the panel, which includes members from both the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, unanimously shared the opinion that the data submitted by the drug developer, Nektar, failed to clearly demonstrate the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“There was a lot of ambiguity [in the data] about safety and efficacy, and this is too important an issue to have so much ambiguity,” summed up Ronald S. Litman, DO, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and chair of the combined committee.

“The subliminal message” that would surround oxycodegol if it received FDA approval would be that it is a “safer” opioid, “and that would make it a blockbuster drug, and for that to happen you need data that [prove] the benefits outweigh risks, but we didn’t see those data. It was all speculation, and we can’t approve a potential blockbuster opioid in the middle of a public health opioid crisis based on speculation,” commented Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis and a committee member.

According to Nektar, oxycodegol is a new molecular entity that combines a morphinan pharmacophore, oxycodol, with a six-unit chain of polyethylene glycol, a design that slows movement of the drug into the brain by about an hour after an oral dose when compared with oxycodone. It works as a full mu opioid receptor agonist that inhibits the nociceptive pathways while it reduces reinforcing or euphoric effects and other negative CNS-mediated side effects because of its slowed entry into the central nervous system.

But, as became apparent during the course of the day’s presentations and questions, while the clinical evidence in general supported this mechanism, the data were flawed by many limitations and caveats. FDA staffers critiqued the company’s data set for a variety of issues, including testing dosages that were “arbitrary and flawed,” evidence for “high oral abuse potential” in one study, including “a high rate of euphoria” of 17% even at the recommended dosage level (and a higher euphoria incidence at a higher dosage), limited information on additional pain medications that enrolled patients had used both before enrollment and during the study, and possible enrollment bias. Many panel members also raised concerns that included the efficacy data coming from a single randomized study, incomplete data on possible hepatic toxicity, no data to address potential abuse via injection or inhalation, a very modest demonstrated increment in pain relief, and abuse potential studies that relied on a single dose of the drug.

On the other hand, many committee members, and others in the pain field, applauded the general concept behind oxycodegol and urged the developer to run additional studies and collect more data for a future FDA application.

There has been “a lot of controversy” about oxycodegol, often centered on the question “why do we need another opioid,” commented Steven P. Cohen, MD, professor of anesthesiology, neurology, and pain medicine and chief of pain medicine at Johns Hopkins Health in Baltimore. “Having another opioid on the market with a different pain indication and possibly lower abuse potential” would be welcome and “almost certainly would not result in more prescriptions or abuse,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not a committee member but addressed in an interview the need for new and effective pain medications that offer an alternative to conventional opioids. “Patients who might otherwise be prescribed a different opioid might receive oxycodegol instead,” he suggested. But first, the developing company will need to collect a lot more clinical data than it has reported so far.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 27-0 on Jan. 14 against recommending agency approval of oxycodegol, a new type of opioid molecule designed to slow passage of the drug through the blood-brain barrier and hence cause less of a “high” and potentially blunt the drug’s abuse potential.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

But the panel, which includes members from both the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, unanimously shared the opinion that the data submitted by the drug developer, Nektar, failed to clearly demonstrate the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“There was a lot of ambiguity [in the data] about safety and efficacy, and this is too important an issue to have so much ambiguity,” summed up Ronald S. Litman, DO, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and chair of the combined committee.

“The subliminal message” that would surround oxycodegol if it received FDA approval would be that it is a “safer” opioid, “and that would make it a blockbuster drug, and for that to happen you need data that [prove] the benefits outweigh risks, but we didn’t see those data. It was all speculation, and we can’t approve a potential blockbuster opioid in the middle of a public health opioid crisis based on speculation,” commented Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis and a committee member.

According to Nektar, oxycodegol is a new molecular entity that combines a morphinan pharmacophore, oxycodol, with a six-unit chain of polyethylene glycol, a design that slows movement of the drug into the brain by about an hour after an oral dose when compared with oxycodone. It works as a full mu opioid receptor agonist that inhibits the nociceptive pathways while it reduces reinforcing or euphoric effects and other negative CNS-mediated side effects because of its slowed entry into the central nervous system.

But, as became apparent during the course of the day’s presentations and questions, while the clinical evidence in general supported this mechanism, the data were flawed by many limitations and caveats. FDA staffers critiqued the company’s data set for a variety of issues, including testing dosages that were “arbitrary and flawed,” evidence for “high oral abuse potential” in one study, including “a high rate of euphoria” of 17% even at the recommended dosage level (and a higher euphoria incidence at a higher dosage), limited information on additional pain medications that enrolled patients had used both before enrollment and during the study, and possible enrollment bias. Many panel members also raised concerns that included the efficacy data coming from a single randomized study, incomplete data on possible hepatic toxicity, no data to address potential abuse via injection or inhalation, a very modest demonstrated increment in pain relief, and abuse potential studies that relied on a single dose of the drug.

On the other hand, many committee members, and others in the pain field, applauded the general concept behind oxycodegol and urged the developer to run additional studies and collect more data for a future FDA application.

There has been “a lot of controversy” about oxycodegol, often centered on the question “why do we need another opioid,” commented Steven P. Cohen, MD, professor of anesthesiology, neurology, and pain medicine and chief of pain medicine at Johns Hopkins Health in Baltimore. “Having another opioid on the market with a different pain indication and possibly lower abuse potential” would be welcome and “almost certainly would not result in more prescriptions or abuse,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not a committee member but addressed in an interview the need for new and effective pain medications that offer an alternative to conventional opioids. “Patients who might otherwise be prescribed a different opioid might receive oxycodegol instead,” he suggested. But first, the developing company will need to collect a lot more clinical data than it has reported so far.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 27-0 on Jan. 14 against recommending agency approval of oxycodegol, a new type of opioid molecule designed to slow passage of the drug through the blood-brain barrier and hence cause less of a “high” and potentially blunt the drug’s abuse potential.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

But the panel, which includes members from both the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, unanimously shared the opinion that the data submitted by the drug developer, Nektar, failed to clearly demonstrate the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“There was a lot of ambiguity [in the data] about safety and efficacy, and this is too important an issue to have so much ambiguity,” summed up Ronald S. Litman, DO, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and chair of the combined committee.

“The subliminal message” that would surround oxycodegol if it received FDA approval would be that it is a “safer” opioid, “and that would make it a blockbuster drug, and for that to happen you need data that [prove] the benefits outweigh risks, but we didn’t see those data. It was all speculation, and we can’t approve a potential blockbuster opioid in the middle of a public health opioid crisis based on speculation,” commented Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis and a committee member.

According to Nektar, oxycodegol is a new molecular entity that combines a morphinan pharmacophore, oxycodol, with a six-unit chain of polyethylene glycol, a design that slows movement of the drug into the brain by about an hour after an oral dose when compared with oxycodone. It works as a full mu opioid receptor agonist that inhibits the nociceptive pathways while it reduces reinforcing or euphoric effects and other negative CNS-mediated side effects because of its slowed entry into the central nervous system.

But, as became apparent during the course of the day’s presentations and questions, while the clinical evidence in general supported this mechanism, the data were flawed by many limitations and caveats. FDA staffers critiqued the company’s data set for a variety of issues, including testing dosages that were “arbitrary and flawed,” evidence for “high oral abuse potential” in one study, including “a high rate of euphoria” of 17% even at the recommended dosage level (and a higher euphoria incidence at a higher dosage), limited information on additional pain medications that enrolled patients had used both before enrollment and during the study, and possible enrollment bias. Many panel members also raised concerns that included the efficacy data coming from a single randomized study, incomplete data on possible hepatic toxicity, no data to address potential abuse via injection or inhalation, a very modest demonstrated increment in pain relief, and abuse potential studies that relied on a single dose of the drug.

On the other hand, many committee members, and others in the pain field, applauded the general concept behind oxycodegol and urged the developer to run additional studies and collect more data for a future FDA application.

There has been “a lot of controversy” about oxycodegol, often centered on the question “why do we need another opioid,” commented Steven P. Cohen, MD, professor of anesthesiology, neurology, and pain medicine and chief of pain medicine at Johns Hopkins Health in Baltimore. “Having another opioid on the market with a different pain indication and possibly lower abuse potential” would be welcome and “almost certainly would not result in more prescriptions or abuse,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not a committee member but addressed in an interview the need for new and effective pain medications that offer an alternative to conventional opioids. “Patients who might otherwise be prescribed a different opioid might receive oxycodegol instead,” he suggested. But first, the developing company will need to collect a lot more clinical data than it has reported so far.

mzoler@mdedge.com

BALTIMORE – The rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidity remain stable for 10 years after diagnosis in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Compared with controls, however, young adults with childhood-onset epilepsy have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

The findings suggest that “diagnoses that are identified at baseline continue to be a problem over time,” said Jana E. Jones, PhD, associate professor of neuropsychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although neurologists understand that comorbidities are common among patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, “it would be good for us to continue to learn what factors are influencing this,” she added.
 

Investigators sought predictors of outcomes at 10 years

Since 2004, Dr. Jones and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin have been conducting a study of patients with childhood-onset epilepsy. After the population had completed 10 years of follow-up, the researchers analyzed the data to identify potential patterns of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. One question that they sought to answer was whether any baseline factors could predict outcomes at 10 years.

The researchers analyzed data for 53 patients with childhood-onset epilepsy and 55 controls without epilepsy. At baseline, participants were between ages 8 years and 18 years and had no intellectual disability or neurologic impairment. Within 1 year of epilepsy diagnosis, each participant underwent a psychiatric interview based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). Ten years later, participants underwent the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a psychiatric interview for adults. Information about medical comorbidities was collected through interviews and record review at baseline and through an online survey at the 10-year follow-up.

Participants’ mean age at baseline was 12 years. Mean IQ was 105 for the epilepsy group and 109 for the control group. At 10 years, participants’ mean age was about 23 years. Among patients with epilepsy, 55% had focal epilepsy, and 42% had generalized epilepsy. About 40% of participants with epilepsy were in remission at 10 years, which Dr. Jones and colleagues defined as having achieved 5 years without taking medications and without having seizures. At 10 years after diagnosis, 51% of patients with epilepsy were not taking any seizure medication, including approximately 11% of patients with epilepsy who were not categorized as in remission. Most patients taking medication were on monotherapy.
 

Trends in psychiatric and medical comorbidities

At baseline, approximately 75% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric or medical diagnosis, compared with 40% of controls. At the 10-year follow-up, 62% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with 35% of controls. Among controls, 4% had a medical comorbidity (i.e., asthma) alone at baseline. Asthma was the most common medical comorbidity at baseline among patients with epilepsy, and other comorbidities included sleep disorder, head injury, and scoliosis. Six percent of patients had a medical comorbidity alone at baseline. The proportion of patients with both psychiatric and medical comorbidity was 8% at baseline. Patients with epilepsy at baseline had an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity.

At 10 years, the most common medical comorbidity among patients with epilepsy was head injury (18.9%), followed by allergies and asthma. The rate of migraine was about 13% among controls and slightly less in the epilepsy group. Dr. Jones and colleagues found no significant differences in medical comorbidities between groups at 10 years. At that point, the rate of medical comorbidity was 4% among patients and 11% among controls.

The rate of psychiatric comorbidity remained relatively stable over 10 years, said Dr. Jones. Approximately 47% of patients with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis at 10 years, compared with 29% of controls. In addition, 38% of patients with epilepsy had both psychiatric and medical diagnoses, compared with 29% of controls. Epilepsy increased the risk of psychiatric comorbidity at the 10-year follow-up. Neither medications, remission status, nor seizure type predicted any comorbidity at 10 years.

Dr. Jones and colleagues compared comorbidity rates between the study sample and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which reported population-based data that included an epilepsy sample. About 47% of the epilepsy group had an anxiety disorder, compared with 40.7% in the NCS-R. The rate of anxiety disorders was higher in the control group (45.5%) than in the control group (30.8%) in the NCS-R. Approximately 26.4% of the population in Dr. Jones’s study had a mood disorder, compared with 25.9% in the National Comorbidity Survey.

Dr. Jones and colleagues are conducting 15-year follow-up of their original population. One question they will examine is whether medical comorbidities will increase in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy as they approach age 30 years.

Two of the investigators received funding in the form of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kesselmayer RF et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.288.

BALTIMORE – The rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidity remain stable for 10 years after diagnosis in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Compared with controls, however, young adults with childhood-onset epilepsy have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

The findings suggest that “diagnoses that are identified at baseline continue to be a problem over time,” said Jana E. Jones, PhD, associate professor of neuropsychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although neurologists understand that comorbidities are common among patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, “it would be good for us to continue to learn what factors are influencing this,” she added.
 

Investigators sought predictors of outcomes at 10 years

Since 2004, Dr. Jones and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin have been conducting a study of patients with childhood-onset epilepsy. After the population had completed 10 years of follow-up, the researchers analyzed the data to identify potential patterns of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. One question that they sought to answer was whether any baseline factors could predict outcomes at 10 years.

The researchers analyzed data for 53 patients with childhood-onset epilepsy and 55 controls without epilepsy. At baseline, participants were between ages 8 years and 18 years and had no intellectual disability or neurologic impairment. Within 1 year of epilepsy diagnosis, each participant underwent a psychiatric interview based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). Ten years later, participants underwent the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a psychiatric interview for adults. Information about medical comorbidities was collected through interviews and record review at baseline and through an online survey at the 10-year follow-up.

Participants’ mean age at baseline was 12 years. Mean IQ was 105 for the epilepsy group and 109 for the control group. At 10 years, participants’ mean age was about 23 years. Among patients with epilepsy, 55% had focal epilepsy, and 42% had generalized epilepsy. About 40% of participants with epilepsy were in remission at 10 years, which Dr. Jones and colleagues defined as having achieved 5 years without taking medications and without having seizures. At 10 years after diagnosis, 51% of patients with epilepsy were not taking any seizure medication, including approximately 11% of patients with epilepsy who were not categorized as in remission. Most patients taking medication were on monotherapy.
 

Trends in psychiatric and medical comorbidities

At baseline, approximately 75% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric or medical diagnosis, compared with 40% of controls. At the 10-year follow-up, 62% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with 35% of controls. Among controls, 4% had a medical comorbidity (i.e., asthma) alone at baseline. Asthma was the most common medical comorbidity at baseline among patients with epilepsy, and other comorbidities included sleep disorder, head injury, and scoliosis. Six percent of patients had a medical comorbidity alone at baseline. The proportion of patients with both psychiatric and medical comorbidity was 8% at baseline. Patients with epilepsy at baseline had an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity.

At 10 years, the most common medical comorbidity among patients with epilepsy was head injury (18.9%), followed by allergies and asthma. The rate of migraine was about 13% among controls and slightly less in the epilepsy group. Dr. Jones and colleagues found no significant differences in medical comorbidities between groups at 10 years. At that point, the rate of medical comorbidity was 4% among patients and 11% among controls.

The rate of psychiatric comorbidity remained relatively stable over 10 years, said Dr. Jones. Approximately 47% of patients with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis at 10 years, compared with 29% of controls. In addition, 38% of patients with epilepsy had both psychiatric and medical diagnoses, compared with 29% of controls. Epilepsy increased the risk of psychiatric comorbidity at the 10-year follow-up. Neither medications, remission status, nor seizure type predicted any comorbidity at 10 years.

Dr. Jones and colleagues compared comorbidity rates between the study sample and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which reported population-based data that included an epilepsy sample. About 47% of the epilepsy group had an anxiety disorder, compared with 40.7% in the NCS-R. The rate of anxiety disorders was higher in the control group (45.5%) than in the control group (30.8%) in the NCS-R. Approximately 26.4% of the population in Dr. Jones’s study had a mood disorder, compared with 25.9% in the National Comorbidity Survey.

Dr. Jones and colleagues are conducting 15-year follow-up of their original population. One question they will examine is whether medical comorbidities will increase in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy as they approach age 30 years.

Two of the investigators received funding in the form of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kesselmayer RF et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.288.

BALTIMORE – The rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidity remain stable for 10 years after diagnosis in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Compared with controls, however, young adults with childhood-onset epilepsy have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

The findings suggest that “diagnoses that are identified at baseline continue to be a problem over time,” said Jana E. Jones, PhD, associate professor of neuropsychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although neurologists understand that comorbidities are common among patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, “it would be good for us to continue to learn what factors are influencing this,” she added.
 

Investigators sought predictors of outcomes at 10 years

Since 2004, Dr. Jones and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin have been conducting a study of patients with childhood-onset epilepsy. After the population had completed 10 years of follow-up, the researchers analyzed the data to identify potential patterns of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. One question that they sought to answer was whether any baseline factors could predict outcomes at 10 years.

The researchers analyzed data for 53 patients with childhood-onset epilepsy and 55 controls without epilepsy. At baseline, participants were between ages 8 years and 18 years and had no intellectual disability or neurologic impairment. Within 1 year of epilepsy diagnosis, each participant underwent a psychiatric interview based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). Ten years later, participants underwent the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a psychiatric interview for adults. Information about medical comorbidities was collected through interviews and record review at baseline and through an online survey at the 10-year follow-up.

Participants’ mean age at baseline was 12 years. Mean IQ was 105 for the epilepsy group and 109 for the control group. At 10 years, participants’ mean age was about 23 years. Among patients with epilepsy, 55% had focal epilepsy, and 42% had generalized epilepsy. About 40% of participants with epilepsy were in remission at 10 years, which Dr. Jones and colleagues defined as having achieved 5 years without taking medications and without having seizures. At 10 years after diagnosis, 51% of patients with epilepsy were not taking any seizure medication, including approximately 11% of patients with epilepsy who were not categorized as in remission. Most patients taking medication were on monotherapy.
 

Trends in psychiatric and medical comorbidities

At baseline, approximately 75% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric or medical diagnosis, compared with 40% of controls. At the 10-year follow-up, 62% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with 35% of controls. Among controls, 4% had a medical comorbidity (i.e., asthma) alone at baseline. Asthma was the most common medical comorbidity at baseline among patients with epilepsy, and other comorbidities included sleep disorder, head injury, and scoliosis. Six percent of patients had a medical comorbidity alone at baseline. The proportion of patients with both psychiatric and medical comorbidity was 8% at baseline. Patients with epilepsy at baseline had an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity.

At 10 years, the most common medical comorbidity among patients with epilepsy was head injury (18.9%), followed by allergies and asthma. The rate of migraine was about 13% among controls and slightly less in the epilepsy group. Dr. Jones and colleagues found no significant differences in medical comorbidities between groups at 10 years. At that point, the rate of medical comorbidity was 4% among patients and 11% among controls.

The rate of psychiatric comorbidity remained relatively stable over 10 years, said Dr. Jones. Approximately 47% of patients with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis at 10 years, compared with 29% of controls. In addition, 38% of patients with epilepsy had both psychiatric and medical diagnoses, compared with 29% of controls. Epilepsy increased the risk of psychiatric comorbidity at the 10-year follow-up. Neither medications, remission status, nor seizure type predicted any comorbidity at 10 years.

Dr. Jones and colleagues compared comorbidity rates between the study sample and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which reported population-based data that included an epilepsy sample. About 47% of the epilepsy group had an anxiety disorder, compared with 40.7% in the NCS-R. The rate of anxiety disorders was higher in the control group (45.5%) than in the control group (30.8%) in the NCS-R. Approximately 26.4% of the population in Dr. Jones’s study had a mood disorder, compared with 25.9% in the National Comorbidity Survey.

Dr. Jones and colleagues are conducting 15-year follow-up of their original population. One question they will examine is whether medical comorbidities will increase in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy as they approach age 30 years.

Two of the investigators received funding in the form of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kesselmayer RF et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.288.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

A phase 2 study of temozolomide in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) received one of the 12 grants awarded in October by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enhance the development of medical products for patients with rare diseases. Jason Sicklick, MD, and the University of California San Diego in La Jolla will receive $1.5 million over 3 years to conduct the phase 2 study (NCT03556384). The objective of the study is to determine the efficacy at 6 months of temozolomide therapy in patients with the SDH-mutant/deficient subtype. Temozolomide is approved by the FDA to treat newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme and refractory anaplastic astrocytomas. It is not approved for the treatment of SDH-mutant/deficient GIST.

The FDA awarded the grants through the Orphan Products Clinical Trials Grants Program. Other orphan diseases receiving grants included glomerulopathy, gliomas, Fanconi anemia, sickle cell respiratory complications, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, HPV associated respiratory papillomatosis, refractory viral infections and T-cell immunodeficiency, oral cancer, retinoblastoma, cerebellar brain tumors, and acute myeloid leukemia.

A phase 2 study of temozolomide in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) received one of the 12 grants awarded in October by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enhance the development of medical products for patients with rare diseases. Jason Sicklick, MD, and the University of California San Diego in La Jolla will receive $1.5 million over 3 years to conduct the phase 2 study (NCT03556384). The objective of the study is to determine the efficacy at 6 months of temozolomide therapy in patients with the SDH-mutant/deficient subtype. Temozolomide is approved by the FDA to treat newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme and refractory anaplastic astrocytomas. It is not approved for the treatment of SDH-mutant/deficient GIST.

The FDA awarded the grants through the Orphan Products Clinical Trials Grants Program. Other orphan diseases receiving grants included glomerulopathy, gliomas, Fanconi anemia, sickle cell respiratory complications, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, HPV associated respiratory papillomatosis, refractory viral infections and T-cell immunodeficiency, oral cancer, retinoblastoma, cerebellar brain tumors, and acute myeloid leukemia.

A phase 2 study of temozolomide in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) received one of the 12 grants awarded in October by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enhance the development of medical products for patients with rare diseases. Jason Sicklick, MD, and the University of California San Diego in La Jolla will receive $1.5 million over 3 years to conduct the phase 2 study (NCT03556384). The objective of the study is to determine the efficacy at 6 months of temozolomide therapy in patients with the SDH-mutant/deficient subtype. Temozolomide is approved by the FDA to treat newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme and refractory anaplastic astrocytomas. It is not approved for the treatment of SDH-mutant/deficient GIST.

The FDA awarded the grants through the Orphan Products Clinical Trials Grants Program. Other orphan diseases receiving grants included glomerulopathy, gliomas, Fanconi anemia, sickle cell respiratory complications, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, HPV associated respiratory papillomatosis, refractory viral infections and T-cell immunodeficiency, oral cancer, retinoblastoma, cerebellar brain tumors, and acute myeloid leukemia.

Physicians may soon have another tool to help patients deal with pain: virtual reality (VR) therapy. A New York Times article earlier this year described this new treatment option and the way immersive VR experiences seem to crowd pain sensations out of the brain.

copyright pixologicstudio/thinkstockphotos.com

Jeffrey I. Gold, PhD, director of the Children’s Outcomes, Research, and Evaluation program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told the newspaper that VR was “like an endogenous narcotic providing a physiological and chemical burst that causes you to feel good.”

So far, VR has been most successfully used in cases of acute pain. “But it can also enhance the effectiveness of established techniques like physical therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy to treat debilitating chronic pain,” the New York Times reported.

“Using VR as an adjunct, we can teach coping skills, techniques patients can use on their own that will help diminish chronic pain,” said Hunter Hoffman, PhD, principal investigator at the Human Photonics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle. “Learning changes the brain and gives patients something that continues to work when they take the helmet off. When patients realize their pain isn’t inevitable, they’re more receptive to doing physical therapy exercises and more likely to move on their own.”

Others with experience in VR say the technique can foster mindfulness, which teaches the mind how to quiet the body and nervous system through breathing.

Pilot studies of VR and pain management are underway, and software companies are developing programs that create therapeutic VR environments.

Reference

1. “Virtual Reality as Therapy for Pain.” Jane E. Brody, New York Times. 2019 Apr 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/well/live/virtual-reality-as-therapy-for-pain.html.

Physicians may soon have another tool to help patients deal with pain: virtual reality (VR) therapy. A New York Times article earlier this year described this new treatment option and the way immersive VR experiences seem to crowd pain sensations out of the brain.

copyright pixologicstudio/thinkstockphotos.com

Jeffrey I. Gold, PhD, director of the Children’s Outcomes, Research, and Evaluation program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told the newspaper that VR was “like an endogenous narcotic providing a physiological and chemical burst that causes you to feel good.”

So far, VR has been most successfully used in cases of acute pain. “But it can also enhance the effectiveness of established techniques like physical therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy to treat debilitating chronic pain,” the New York Times reported.

“Using VR as an adjunct, we can teach coping skills, techniques patients can use on their own that will help diminish chronic pain,” said Hunter Hoffman, PhD, principal investigator at the Human Photonics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle. “Learning changes the brain and gives patients something that continues to work when they take the helmet off. When patients realize their pain isn’t inevitable, they’re more receptive to doing physical therapy exercises and more likely to move on their own.”

Others with experience in VR say the technique can foster mindfulness, which teaches the mind how to quiet the body and nervous system through breathing.

Pilot studies of VR and pain management are underway, and software companies are developing programs that create therapeutic VR environments.

Reference

1. “Virtual Reality as Therapy for Pain.” Jane E. Brody, New York Times. 2019 Apr 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/well/live/virtual-reality-as-therapy-for-pain.html.

Physicians may soon have another tool to help patients deal with pain: virtual reality (VR) therapy. A New York Times article earlier this year described this new treatment option and the way immersive VR experiences seem to crowd pain sensations out of the brain.

copyright pixologicstudio/thinkstockphotos.com

Jeffrey I. Gold, PhD, director of the Children’s Outcomes, Research, and Evaluation program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told the newspaper that VR was “like an endogenous narcotic providing a physiological and chemical burst that causes you to feel good.”

So far, VR has been most successfully used in cases of acute pain. “But it can also enhance the effectiveness of established techniques like physical therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy to treat debilitating chronic pain,” the New York Times reported.

“Using VR as an adjunct, we can teach coping skills, techniques patients can use on their own that will help diminish chronic pain,” said Hunter Hoffman, PhD, principal investigator at the Human Photonics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle. “Learning changes the brain and gives patients something that continues to work when they take the helmet off. When patients realize their pain isn’t inevitable, they’re more receptive to doing physical therapy exercises and more likely to move on their own.”

Others with experience in VR say the technique can foster mindfulness, which teaches the mind how to quiet the body and nervous system through breathing.

Pilot studies of VR and pain management are underway, and software companies are developing programs that create therapeutic VR environments.

Reference

1. “Virtual Reality as Therapy for Pain.” Jane E. Brody, New York Times. 2019 Apr 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/well/live/virtual-reality-as-therapy-for-pain.html.

Receiving clinical care within 1 week of a concussion is associated with faster recovery times, compared with having an initial clinic visit more than 1 week after the injury, according to a study published Jan. 6 in JAMA Neurology.

In addition, more severe visual motion sensitivity symptoms are associated with longer recovery times, said lead author Anthony P. Kontos, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Kontos is associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh and the research director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program.

“Without clinical guidance and behavioral management recommendations post injury, athletes may have been engaging in counterproductive recovery strategies, such as a strict rest or excessive physical activity,” the authors said. “This explanation is supported by the fact that athletes recovered in a similar amount of time after that first evaluation.”

Various factors may influence recovery after a concussion, including age, sex, and comorbidities. To examine the relationship between time since injury at the start of clinical care and recovery time, the investigators conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study. They analyzed data from patients seen in a sports medicine clinic between August 2016 and March 2018. Eligible patients were aged 12-22 years and had a diagnosed, symptomatic, sport-related concussion. The researchers excluded patients with incomplete recovery data.

The investigators included 162 patients in their analyses; 98 of these patients were seen within 7 days of the injury, and 64 were seen 8-20 days after a concussion. Both groups had a mean age of 15 years and similar proportions of female patients (52% in the early-care group vs. 62.5% in the late-care group). At the first clinical visit, symptom severity and cognitive, ocular, and vestibular test results were similar in both groups.

The researchers defined recovery time as the number of days from injury until the date of clearance for a full return to play. Physicians cleared patients to return to play when they returned to preinjury levels of symptoms and preinjury performance on cognitive, ocular, and vestibular tests with no increase in symptoms after exertion.

Patients’ recovery times ranged from 9 to 299 days; the average recovery time was 57 days. Fifty-two percent of patients in the early-care group recovered in 30 days or fewer, compared with 19% of patients in late-care group. Patients in the early-care group had a mean recovery of 51.1 days, whereas patients in the late-care group had a mean recovery of 66 days.

In a logistic regression model, late care “was associated with a 5.8-times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days,” the researchers reported. Visual motion sensitivity symptoms also were associated with increased odds of protracted recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5).

“Once care was established, time to recovery did not differ for athletes evaluated within the first week of injury compared with those evaluated 2-3 weeks post injury,” Dr. Kontos and colleagues concluded. “Education on injury and behavioral recommendations to optimize concussion recovery and earlier initiation of active rehabilitation strategies, including exertion and vestibular therapy, are plausible explanations for the association of a shorter recovery time with earlier care. However, future research should focus on the specific mechanisms by which earlier health care postconcussion promotes faster recovery and determine if these findings apply to other subpopulations, including military personnel.”

The researchers noted that they excluded from their analysis 254 patients who had incomplete recovery data but otherwise met inclusion criteria, which may have led to selection bias.

Dr. Kontos disclosed grants from the National Football League and personal fees from APA Books and University of Pittsburgh projects outside the scope of this study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kontos AP et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4552.

Receiving clinical care within 1 week of a concussion is associated with faster recovery times, compared with having an initial clinic visit more than 1 week after the injury, according to a study published Jan. 6 in JAMA Neurology.

In addition, more severe visual motion sensitivity symptoms are associated with longer recovery times, said lead author Anthony P. Kontos, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Kontos is associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh and the research director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program.

“Without clinical guidance and behavioral management recommendations post injury, athletes may have been engaging in counterproductive recovery strategies, such as a strict rest or excessive physical activity,” the authors said. “This explanation is supported by the fact that athletes recovered in a similar amount of time after that first evaluation.”

Various factors may influence recovery after a concussion, including age, sex, and comorbidities. To examine the relationship between time since injury at the start of clinical care and recovery time, the investigators conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study. They analyzed data from patients seen in a sports medicine clinic between August 2016 and March 2018. Eligible patients were aged 12-22 years and had a diagnosed, symptomatic, sport-related concussion. The researchers excluded patients with incomplete recovery data.

The investigators included 162 patients in their analyses; 98 of these patients were seen within 7 days of the injury, and 64 were seen 8-20 days after a concussion. Both groups had a mean age of 15 years and similar proportions of female patients (52% in the early-care group vs. 62.5% in the late-care group). At the first clinical visit, symptom severity and cognitive, ocular, and vestibular test results were similar in both groups.

The researchers defined recovery time as the number of days from injury until the date of clearance for a full return to play. Physicians cleared patients to return to play when they returned to preinjury levels of symptoms and preinjury performance on cognitive, ocular, and vestibular tests with no increase in symptoms after exertion.

Patients’ recovery times ranged from 9 to 299 days; the average recovery time was 57 days. Fifty-two percent of patients in the early-care group recovered in 30 days or fewer, compared with 19% of patients in late-care group. Patients in the early-care group had a mean recovery of 51.1 days, whereas patients in the late-care group had a mean recovery of 66 days.

In a logistic regression model, late care “was associated with a 5.8-times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days,” the researchers reported. Visual motion sensitivity symptoms also were associated with increased odds of protracted recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5).

“Once care was established, time to recovery did not differ for athletes evaluated within the first week of injury compared with those evaluated 2-3 weeks post injury,” Dr. Kontos and colleagues concluded. “Education on injury and behavioral recommendations to optimize concussion recovery and earlier initiation of active rehabilitation strategies, including exertion and vestibular therapy, are plausible explanations for the association of a shorter recovery time with earlier care. However, future research should focus on the specific mechanisms by which earlier health care postconcussion promotes faster recovery and determine if these findings apply to other subpopulations, including military personnel.”

The researchers noted that they excluded from their analysis 254 patients who had incomplete recovery data but otherwise met inclusion criteria, which may have led to selection bias.

Dr. Kontos disclosed grants from the National Football League and personal fees from APA Books and University of Pittsburgh projects outside the scope of this study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kontos AP et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4552.

Receiving clinical care within 1 week of a concussion is associated with faster recovery times, compared with having an initial clinic visit more than 1 week after the injury, according to a study published Jan. 6 in JAMA Neurology.

In addition, more severe visual motion sensitivity symptoms are associated with longer recovery times, said lead author Anthony P. Kontos, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Kontos is associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh and the research director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Sports Medicine Concussion Program.

“Without clinical guidance and behavioral management recommendations post injury, athletes may have been engaging in counterproductive recovery strategies, such as a strict rest or excessive physical activity,” the authors said. “This explanation is supported by the fact that athletes recovered in a similar amount of time after that first evaluation.”

Various factors may influence recovery after a concussion, including age, sex, and comorbidities. To examine the relationship between time since injury at the start of clinical care and recovery time, the investigators conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study. They analyzed data from patients seen in a sports medicine clinic between August 2016 and March 2018. Eligible patients were aged 12-22 years and had a diagnosed, symptomatic, sport-related concussion. The researchers excluded patients with incomplete recovery data.

The investigators included 162 patients in their analyses; 98 of these patients were seen within 7 days of the injury, and 64 were seen 8-20 days after a concussion. Both groups had a mean age of 15 years and similar proportions of female patients (52% in the early-care group vs. 62.5% in the late-care group). At the first clinical visit, symptom severity and cognitive, ocular, and vestibular test results were similar in both groups.

The researchers defined recovery time as the number of days from injury until the date of clearance for a full return to play. Physicians cleared patients to return to play when they returned to preinjury levels of symptoms and preinjury performance on cognitive, ocular, and vestibular tests with no increase in symptoms after exertion.

Patients’ recovery times ranged from 9 to 299 days; the average recovery time was 57 days. Fifty-two percent of patients in the early-care group recovered in 30 days or fewer, compared with 19% of patients in late-care group. Patients in the early-care group had a mean recovery of 51.1 days, whereas patients in the late-care group had a mean recovery of 66 days.

In a logistic regression model, late care “was associated with a 5.8-times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days,” the researchers reported. Visual motion sensitivity symptoms also were associated with increased odds of protracted recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5).

“Once care was established, time to recovery did not differ for athletes evaluated within the first week of injury compared with those evaluated 2-3 weeks post injury,” Dr. Kontos and colleagues concluded. “Education on injury and behavioral recommendations to optimize concussion recovery and earlier initiation of active rehabilitation strategies, including exertion and vestibular therapy, are plausible explanations for the association of a shorter recovery time with earlier care. However, future research should focus on the specific mechanisms by which earlier health care postconcussion promotes faster recovery and determine if these findings apply to other subpopulations, including military personnel.”

The researchers noted that they excluded from their analysis 254 patients who had incomplete recovery data but otherwise met inclusion criteria, which may have led to selection bias.

Dr. Kontos disclosed grants from the National Football League and personal fees from APA Books and University of Pittsburgh projects outside the scope of this study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kontos AP et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4552.

BALTIMORE – Monitoring children who have tuberous sclerosis with EEG and treating them with vigabatrin (Sabril) at the first sign of preseizure abnormalities, rather than the usual practice of no surveillance and waiting until they have seizures, prevents epilepsy and cognitive decline, according to European investigators.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Early surveillance is recommended and standard practice in Europe. That’s not the case in the United States, but might be someday pending the results of the PREVENT trial (Preventing Epilepsy Using Vigabatrin In Infants With Tuberous Sclerosis Complex), an ongoing, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–funded study to confirm the European findings.

“We are trying to convince doctors” in the United States and other “countries to do this. If you are not convinced to do early treatment,” at least “do surveillance with EEG. You will diagnose epilepsy earlier, and treat earlier, and children will do much better,” said Sergiusz Jozwiak, MD, PhD, head of pediatric neurology at Warsaw Medical University and recipient of an award from the U.S. Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance for his pioneering work.

Some U.S. physicians are already doing preventive treatment, but it’s hit and miss. “We are talking about monitoring children below the age of 2 years,” when seizures are associated with cognitive decline, he noted at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Dr. Jozwiak presented a follow-up at the meeting to his 2011 investigation, the first prevention study in tuberous sclerosis. Fourteen infants diagnosed within 2 months of birth underwent video-EEG monitoring every 4-6 weeks until age 2 years and were treated with vigabatrin 100-150 mg/kg per day when multifocal epileptiform discharges – a sign of impending seizures – were detected. Outcomes were compared with infants treated traditionally, with no EEG monitoring and vigabatrin only after they seized.

The children are about 9 years old now; the median IQ in the prevention arm is 94 versus 46 in the control group (P less than .03). Seven of the 14 prevention children (50%) never had a clinical seizure, while all but 1 of 25 (96%) in the control arm did (P = .001). Six of 11 prevention children (55%) versus 4 of 24 in the control group (17%), were able to come off antiepileptic drugs altogether, with no seizures (P less than .03). The work was published shortly before the epilepsy meeting.

The original 2011 report, which had similarly favorable outcomes when the children were 2 years old, led directly to the EpiStop trial, conducted at 16 mostly European centers and also reported at the meeting. Dr. Jozwiak was the senior investigator.

The design was different; all of the infants had EEG monitoring every 4 weeks until month 6, then every 6 weeks until age 12 months, then every 2 months until age 2 years. At the first detection of multifocal epileptiform discharges, infants were randomized 1:1 to vigabatrin or to the control group, with further monitoring followed by vigabatrin at the first seizure on EEG or first clinical seizure. An additional group of children – the open-label arm – also had EEG monitoring, but when to start vigabatrin was left up to the study site.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Only 50 of the original 94 children completed the trial to the full 2 years; tuberous sclerosis comorbidities drove many of them out, said lead investigator Katarzyna Kotulska-Jozwiak, MD, PhD, head of neurology at Children’s Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw.

Even so, the 25 children treated preventively in the randomized and open-label cohorts were more than three times as likely to be seizure free at 2 years (P = .01), and 74% less likely to develop drug-resistant epilepsy (P = .013). None of the prevention children developed infantile spasms versus 10 controls (40%) treated at first clinical or EEG seizure.

The incidence of neurodevelopmental delay was 34%, and autism 33%, at 24 months, and did not differ between prevention and control subjects. It’s probably because even children in the control group benefited from EEG surveillance and early treatment, the investigators said.

Historically, the rate of intellectual disability with usual treatment is around 60%, Dr. Kotulska-Jozwiak noted.

Overall, Dr. Jozwiak said that European physicians are more comfortable using vigabatrin than U.S. doctors, where the drug hasn’t been on the market as long and carries a Food and Drug Administration boxed warning of visual impairment. Its indications in the United States include infantile spasms in children 1-24 months old.

Levetiracetam (Keppra) is another option, but it’s not as effective in tuberous sclerosis. The PREVENT trial is using vigabatrin, and some U.S. doctors “are changing their minds, but it takes time,” Dr. Jozwiak said.

He noted that TSC is increasingly being diagnosed in utero, which gives a leg up on early diagnosis and prevention. The giveaways are heart tumors on ECG and cortical tubers on fetal MRI.

Dr. Jozwiak thinks the prevention approach might also help in other early seizure disorders, such as Sturge-Weber syndrome.

The work was funded by the European Commission and Polish government. Dr. Jozwiak and Dr. Kotulska-Jozwiak didn’t have any disclosures.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Jozwiak S et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.218; Kotulska-Jozwiak K et al. AES 2019, Abstract 2.121.

BALTIMORE – Monitoring children who have tuberous sclerosis with EEG and treating them with vigabatrin (Sabril) at the first sign of preseizure abnormalities, rather than the usual practice of no surveillance and waiting until they have seizures, prevents epilepsy and cognitive decline, according to European investigators.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Early surveillance is recommended and standard practice in Europe. That’s not the case in the United States, but might be someday pending the results of the PREVENT trial (Preventing Epilepsy Using Vigabatrin In Infants With Tuberous Sclerosis Complex), an ongoing, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–funded study to confirm the European findings.

“We are trying to convince doctors” in the United States and other “countries to do this. If you are not convinced to do early treatment,” at least “do surveillance with EEG. You will diagnose epilepsy earlier, and treat earlier, and children will do much better,” said Sergiusz Jozwiak, MD, PhD, head of pediatric neurology at Warsaw Medical University and recipient of an award from the U.S. Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance for his pioneering work.

Some U.S. physicians are already doing preventive treatment, but it’s hit and miss. “We are talking about monitoring children below the age of 2 years,” when seizures are associated with cognitive decline, he noted at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Dr. Jozwiak presented a follow-up at the meeting to his 2011 investigation, the first prevention study in tuberous sclerosis. Fourteen infants diagnosed within 2 months of birth underwent video-EEG monitoring every 4-6 weeks until age 2 years and were treated with vigabatrin 100-150 mg/kg per day when multifocal epileptiform discharges – a sign of impending seizures – were detected. Outcomes were compared with infants treated traditionally, with no EEG monitoring and vigabatrin only after they seized.

The children are about 9 years old now; the median IQ in the prevention arm is 94 versus 46 in the control group (P less than .03). Seven of the 14 prevention children (50%) never had a clinical seizure, while all but 1 of 25 (96%) in the control arm did (P = .001). Six of 11 prevention children (55%) versus 4 of 24 in the control group (17%), were able to come off antiepileptic drugs altogether, with no seizures (P less than .03). The work was published shortly before the epilepsy meeting.

The original 2011 report, which had similarly favorable outcomes when the children were 2 years old, led directly to the EpiStop trial, conducted at 16 mostly European centers and also reported at the meeting. Dr. Jozwiak was the senior investigator.

The design was different; all of the infants had EEG monitoring every 4 weeks until month 6, then every 6 weeks until age 12 months, then every 2 months until age 2 years. At the first detection of multifocal epileptiform discharges, infants were randomized 1:1 to vigabatrin or to the control group, with further monitoring followed by vigabatrin at the first seizure on EEG or first clinical seizure. An additional group of children – the open-label arm – also had EEG monitoring, but when to start vigabatrin was left up to the study site.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Only 50 of the original 94 children completed the trial to the full 2 years; tuberous sclerosis comorbidities drove many of them out, said lead investigator Katarzyna Kotulska-Jozwiak, MD, PhD, head of neurology at Children’s Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw.

Even so, the 25 children treated preventively in the randomized and open-label cohorts were more than three times as likely to be seizure free at 2 years (P = .01), and 74% less likely to develop drug-resistant epilepsy (P = .013). None of the prevention children developed infantile spasms versus 10 controls (40%) treated at first clinical or EEG seizure.

The incidence of neurodevelopmental delay was 34%, and autism 33%, at 24 months, and did not differ between prevention and control subjects. It’s probably because even children in the control group benefited from EEG surveillance and early treatment, the investigators said.

Historically, the rate of intellectual disability with usual treatment is around 60%, Dr. Kotulska-Jozwiak noted.

Overall, Dr. Jozwiak said that European physicians are more comfortable using vigabatrin than U.S. doctors, where the drug hasn’t been on the market as long and carries a Food and Drug Administration boxed warning of visual impairment. Its indications in the United States include infantile spasms in children 1-24 months old.

Levetiracetam (Keppra) is another option, but it’s not as effective in tuberous sclerosis. The PREVENT trial is using vigabatrin, and some U.S. doctors “are changing their minds, but it takes time,” Dr. Jozwiak said.

He noted that TSC is increasingly being diagnosed in utero, which gives a leg up on early diagnosis and prevention. The giveaways are heart tumors on ECG and cortical tubers on fetal MRI.

Dr. Jozwiak thinks the prevention approach might also help in other early seizure disorders, such as Sturge-Weber syndrome.

The work was funded by the European Commission and Polish government. Dr. Jozwiak and Dr. Kotulska-Jozwiak didn’t have any disclosures.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Jozwiak S et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.218; Kotulska-Jozwiak K et al. AES 2019, Abstract 2.121.

BALTIMORE – Monitoring children who have tuberous sclerosis with EEG and treating them with vigabatrin (Sabril) at the first sign of preseizure abnormalities, rather than the usual practice of no surveillance and waiting until they have seizures, prevents epilepsy and cognitive decline, according to European investigators.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Early surveillance is recommended and standard practice in Europe. That’s not the case in the United States, but might be someday pending the results of the PREVENT trial (Preventing Epilepsy Using Vigabatrin In Infants With Tuberous Sclerosis Complex), an ongoing, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–funded study to confirm the European findings.

“We are trying to convince doctors” in the United States and other “countries to do this. If you are not convinced to do early treatment,” at least “do surveillance with EEG. You will diagnose epilepsy earlier, and treat earlier, and children will do much better,” said Sergiusz Jozwiak, MD, PhD, head of pediatric neurology at Warsaw Medical University and recipient of an award from the U.S. Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance for his pioneering work.

Some U.S. physicians are already doing preventive treatment, but it’s hit and miss. “We are talking about monitoring children below the age of 2 years,” when seizures are associated with cognitive decline, he noted at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Dr. Jozwiak presented a follow-up at the meeting to his 2011 investigation, the first prevention study in tuberous sclerosis. Fourteen infants diagnosed within 2 months of birth underwent video-EEG monitoring every 4-6 weeks until age 2 years and were treated with vigabatrin 100-150 mg/kg per day when multifocal epileptiform discharges – a sign of impending seizures – were detected. Outcomes were compared with infants treated traditionally, with no EEG monitoring and vigabatrin only after they seized.

The children are about 9 years old now; the median IQ in the prevention arm is 94 versus 46 in the control group (P less than .03). Seven of the 14 prevention children (50%) never had a clinical seizure, while all but 1 of 25 (96%) in the control arm did (P = .001). Six of 11 prevention children (55%) versus 4 of 24 in the control group (17%), were able to come off antiepileptic drugs altogether, with no seizures (P less than .03). The work was published shortly before the epilepsy meeting.

The original 2011 report, which had similarly favorable outcomes when the children were 2 years old, led directly to the EpiStop trial, conducted at 16 mostly European centers and also reported at the meeting. Dr. Jozwiak was the senior investigator.

The design was different; all of the infants had EEG monitoring every 4 weeks until month 6, then every 6 weeks until age 12 months, then every 2 months until age 2 years. At the first detection of multifocal epileptiform discharges, infants were randomized 1:1 to vigabatrin or to the control group, with further monitoring followed by vigabatrin at the first seizure on EEG or first clinical seizure. An additional group of children – the open-label arm – also had EEG monitoring, but when to start vigabatrin was left up to the study site.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Only 50 of the original 94 children completed the trial to the full 2 years; tuberous sclerosis comorbidities drove many of them out, said lead investigator Katarzyna Kotulska-Jozwiak, MD, PhD, head of neurology at Children’s Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw.

Even so, the 25 children treated preventively in the randomized and open-label cohorts were more than three times as likely to be seizure free at 2 years (P = .01), and 74% less likely to develop drug-resistant epilepsy (P = .013). None of the prevention children developed infantile spasms versus 10 controls (40%) treated at first clinical or EEG seizure.

The incidence of neurodevelopmental delay was 34%, and autism 33%, at 24 months, and did not differ between prevention and control subjects. It’s probably because even children in the control group benefited from EEG surveillance and early treatment, the investigators said.

Historically, the rate of intellectual disability with usual treatment is around 60%, Dr. Kotulska-Jozwiak noted.

Overall, Dr. Jozwiak said that European physicians are more comfortable using vigabatrin than U.S. doctors, where the drug hasn’t been on the market as long and carries a Food and Drug Administration boxed warning of visual impairment. Its indications in the United States include infantile spasms in children 1-24 months old.

Levetiracetam (Keppra) is another option, but it’s not as effective in tuberous sclerosis. The PREVENT trial is using vigabatrin, and some U.S. doctors “are changing their minds, but it takes time,” Dr. Jozwiak said.

He noted that TSC is increasingly being diagnosed in utero, which gives a leg up on early diagnosis and prevention. The giveaways are heart tumors on ECG and cortical tubers on fetal MRI.

Dr. Jozwiak thinks the prevention approach might also help in other early seizure disorders, such as Sturge-Weber syndrome.

The work was funded by the European Commission and Polish government. Dr. Jozwiak and Dr. Kotulska-Jozwiak didn’t have any disclosures.
 

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Jozwiak S et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.218; Kotulska-Jozwiak K et al. AES 2019, Abstract 2.121.