Search

Objectives - To evaluate, for the first time in patients with epilepsy, the tolerability and safety of escalating doses of oral perampanel, a novel, selective, non-competitive AMPA antagonist, as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial-onset seizures. Materials and methods - Two consecutive, randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation studies recruited adults (18-70 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures receiving one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs. In study 206, patients were treated for 12 weeks (8-week dose-titration, 4-week dose-maintenance) with placebo or perampanel (up to 4 mg/day, dosed once-or twice-daily). In study 208, patients received placebo or perampanel once-daily (up to 12 mg) for 16 weeks (12-week titration, 4-week maintenance). Results - Overall, 153 patients were randomized into study 206 (perampanel twice-daily, n = 51; perampanel once-daily, n = 51; placebo, n = 51). Study 208 included 48 patients (perampanel once-daily, n = 38; placebo, n = 10). The highest dose in study 206 - 4 mg/day - was well tolerated, with similar proportions of patients tolerating once-daily (82.4%) and twice-daily (82.4%) perampanel and placebo (82.4%) treatments. In study 208 most patients tolerated doses of 6 mg perampanel once-daily in a Kaplan-Meier analysis. In both studies, the most common adverse events were CNS-related; most were of mild/moderate severity. Conclusions Perampanel was well tolerated across doses of 4-12 mg/day. The studies showed preliminary evidence of efficacy and identified doses to be evaluated in larger clinical studies.

Tonabersat is a novel benzopyran derivative that blocks the cortical spreading depression proposed to be associated with migraine attacks. The ability of single oral doses of 15, 25, 40 and 80 mg of tonabersat to relieve the symptoms of moderate to severe migraine was evaluated in 859 migraineurs enrolled in two dose-ranging, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials, one international and the other North American. In the international study, significantly more patients given tonabersat than given placebo experienced relief of headache pain at 2 h (15 mg, 36.8%; 40 mg, 40.7%), the principal efficacy variable, and at 4 h (40 mg, 63.0%) and complete abolition of headache at 4 h (40 mg, 34.3%). None of the primary or secondary efficacy variables indicated significant differences between tonabersat and placebo in the North American study. Tonabersat was generally well tolerated, with dizziness and nausea the most common side-effects. Serious adverse events were uncommon, and no patient withdrew from either study because of adverse events. These results suggest a possible interplay between tonabersat pharmacokinetics (the relatively long time required to reach maximum plasma concentrations) and patient characteristics (previous triptan exposure) in the management of acute migraine attacks. Based on the pharmacokinetics and actions on cortical spreading depression, tonabersat may have potential value in migraine prophylaxis.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients received a single 50-mg oral dose of a 5-HT(1D) agonist, PNU-142633 (n = 34), or matching placebo (n = 35) during an acute migraine attack. No statistically significant treatment effects were observed at 1 and 2 h after dosing, even after stratifying by baseline headache intensity. At 1 and 2 h post-dose, 8.8% and 29.4% of the PNU-142633 group, respectively, and 8.6% and 40.0% of the placebo group, respectively, experienced headache relief; 2.9% and 8.8% of the PNU-142633 group and 0% and 5.7% of the placebo group were free of headache pain. Adverse events associated with PNU-142633 treatment included chest pain (two patients) and QTc prolongation (three patients). Results from this study suggest that anti-migraine efficacy is not mediated solely through the 5-HT(1D) receptor subtype, although this receptor may contribute, at least in part, to the adverse cardiovascular effects observed with 5-HT agonist medications.

Previous studies demonstrated that zolmitriptan at doses of 1 to 25 mg was highly effective in treating acute migraine attacks. The 2.5-mg dose had a favorable therapeutic effect with high efficacy and good tolerability. The objective of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of a single 2.5-mg dose of zolmitriptan (Zomig, formerly known as 311C90) for acute treatment of a single moderate or severe migraine attack. The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Female and male patients, 12 to 65 years old, with migraine (with or without aura) for ≥1 year, one to six migraines per month, and age at onset < 50 years were included; 327 patients were screened and randomized to receive either zolmitriptan (n = 219) or placebo (n = 108). Patients treated a single moderate or severe migraine headache with 2.5 mg zolmitriptan or placebo and recorded clinical efficacy and adverse events on a diary form. Headache response at 2 hours was 62% for zolmitripan compared with 36% for placebo(p < 0.001); at 4 hours, headche response was 70% with zolmitriptan and 37% with placebo (p < 0.001). Headache recurrence in patients treated with 2.5 mg zolmitriptan was 22% (versus placebo 30%). The headache response at 4 hours, pain-free rate, and response rate of nonheadache symptoms favored zolmitriptan over placebo. No serious adverse events were associated with zolmitriptan treatment. A 2.5-mg dose of zolmitriptan is clinically effective and well tolerated for the acute treatment of migraine.

Objectives Evaluate interim long-term tolerability, safety and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel, a novel alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-5-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA)-receptor antagonist, in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. Materials and methods Study 207, an open-label extension (OLE) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00368472), enrolled patients (1870 years) who completed one of two randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation Phase II studies. The OLE Treatment Phase comprised a 12-week Titration Period (2 mg increments of perampanel every 2 weeks to 12 mg/day, maximum) and a Maintenance Period, during which patients continued treatment up to a planned maximum of 424 weeks ( 8 years). Interim analysis data cut-off date was 1 December, 2010. Results Of 180 patients completing the Phase II studies, 138 enrolled in study 207. At the time of interim analyses (approximately 4 years after study start), over a third (n = 53, 38.4%) remained on perampanel; 41.3% (n = 57) of patients had >3 years of exposure; and 13.0% (n = 18) had at least 4 years' exposure. Mean +/- standard deviation (SD) duration of exposure was 116 +/- 75 weeks and mean +/- SD dose during the OLE Maintenance Period was 7.3 +/- 3.3 mg. No new safety signals emerged with long-term treatment. Consistent with previous studies, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were as follows: dizziness, headache and somnolence. Overall median (range) per cent change from baseline in seizure frequency per 28 days during open-label treatment was -31.5% (-99.2 to 512.2). Conclusions Long-term up to 4 years adjunctive perampanel had a favourable tolerability profile in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. Improvements in seizure control were maintained with long-term treatment.

To evaluate, for the first time in patients with epilepsy, the tolerability and safety of escalating doses of oral perampanel, a novel, selective, non-competitive AMPA antagonist, as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial-onset seizures.Two consecutive, randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation studies recruited adults (18-70 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures receiving one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs. In study 206, patients were treated for 12 weeks (8-week dose-titration, 4-week dose-maintenance) with placebo or perampanel (up to 4 mg/day, dosed once- or twice-daily). In study 208, patients received placebo or perampanel once-daily (up to 12 mg) for 16 weeks (12-week titration, 4-week maintenance).Overall, 153 patients were randomized into study 206 (perampanel twice-daily, n = 51; perampanel once-daily, n = 51; placebo, n = 51). Study 208 included 48 patients (perampanel once-daily, n = 38; placebo, n = 10). The highest dose in study 206 - 4 mg/day - was well tolerated, with similar proportions of patients tolerating once-daily (82.4%) and twice-daily (82.4%) perampanel and placebo (82.4%) treatments. In study 208 most patients tolerated doses of ≥ 6 mg perampanel once-daily in a Kaplan-Meier analysis. In both studies, the most common adverse events were CNS-related; most were of mild/moderate severity.Perampanel was well tolerated across doses of 4-12 mg/day. The studies showed preliminary evidence of efficacy and identified doses to be evaluated in larger clinical studies.

The following is a summary of guidelines created under the auspices of the National Headache Foundation, in an effort to improve the care of headache patients in primary care practice. The guidelines represent the consensus of an advisory panel of practitioners chosen by the NHF for their expertise in four specialty areas. A complete set of guidelines can be obtained by calling the National Headache Foundation at 1-800-843-2256 or by writing to them at 428 W. St. James Pl., 2nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60614-2750; the cost is $10.

The recent publication of drug formularies by third-party payers has serious implications for the practice of medicine. These formularies list the medications for which the consumer can be reimbursed by the third-party payer. The most restrictive of the five formularies I have received lists only two agents for the treatment of migraine headaches: Cafergot (at an incorrect dose of 1/100 mg) and Ergotrate which is no longer available. The most liberal of the formularies lists analgesics, Cafergot, Midrin, and Imitrex for the treatment of acute attacks, and as prophylactic agents, Inderal, Sansert, and analgesics (known to cause rebound headaches when used in this fashion in migraine patients). Abortive agents of proven value, such as DHE-45 and NSAIDs, and preventative medications, such as calcium channel blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, methylergonovine, and divalproex sodium, are not available. No one could quarrel with a goal of developing a cost-effective formulary. However, the authors of these formularies have clearly demonstrated their inability to provide even a current, accurate, and adequate formulary by existent standards of care in the treatment of migraine headache. While it is easy to criticize these formularies, it is more difficult to develop a comprehensive list that would satisfy the practitioners' need to provide relief for their patients with a minimum of side effects, and the needs of third-party payers (presumed) to provide quality care at the most economical level.

SYNOPSIS This study examines the practicality and efficacy of dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) when self-administered sub-cutaneously in a population of refectory headache patients. Forty-three patients with chronic daily headache or migraine headache without aura, who had been taught self-injection of DHE either through the Raskin Protocol or in an outpatient headache clinic, were contacted by telephone and administered a questionnaire regarding usage and results from DHE injection. Ninety-two percent of patients could successfully administer DHE. Forty-six percent of patients experienced 90% or greater relief of pain and the majority of patients (77%) had greater than 50% relief. Emergency room use was decreased in 83% and 80% preferred DHE to their previous therapy. While side effects were common (79%), only four patients (9%) stopped DHE for this reason. No convincing evidence for the development of rebound headaches due to DHE was found in this sample.

In the latter phases of construction of the nuclear-powered merchant ship, the NS Savannah, pressurization tests of the primary system were begun. After the primary system was hydrostatically tested, the piping was insulated so that the temperature of the system could be raised for the hot-flushing operation. Since the system was still under inspection for leak tightness, all joints and areas of potential leaks were left uninsulated. Because the insulating operation was not complete, the insulation had not been waterproofed. In the course of the hot-flushing operation, several leaks developed in the primary system, including a valve gasket failure. As a result of these events, the insulation was wet with high-purity water in several locations within the reactor containment compartment. Since it was known that the thermal insulation applied to the primary system piping contained chlorides and that the primary system had been thermally cycled several times after the insulation had been wet, an investigation was initiated to determine whether the system had been damaged. It was found that the proper conditions existed for chloride stress-corrosion cracking of the austenitic stainless steel in the primary system. Laboratory investigation of a sample of pipe removed from the primary system indicated that chloride stress-corrosion cracking had begun but that the reaction had been interrupted before serious damage occurred.