Add-on Treatment In Patients Research Articles

Vagus Nerve Stimulation in children: A focus on intellectual disability.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) can be an efficacious add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, who are not eligible for surgery. Evidence of VNS efficacy in children with intellectual disability (ID) is scarce. The purpose of this study was to review all available VNS data in the pediatric population (≤18 years old) and focus on the subpopulation with ID since appropriate treatment of these children is often challenging and complex. Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed and MEDLINE were used to collect all research associated to VNS and ID (or synonyms) leading to a total of 37 studies. Seven studies showed the results of patients with ID and those without separately; thereby only these studies were included in the VNS meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that VNS was less effective in pediatric epilepsy patients with ID compared to those without ID (Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis; p=0.028, OR 0.18 (CI 95% 0.039-0.84)). However, there were no prospective controlled studies. Numerous studies reported quality of life (QoL) improvements in this subpopulation. The most common adverse events weretransient and well tolerated. Side effects on cognition and behavior were not reported. These results might be a reason to consider VNS early on in the treatment of this subgroup. The significantly greater amount of retrospective studies, differences in follow-up (FU), lack of control data, heterogeneous series and limited number of patients could have biased the outcome measurements. Hence, current data do not exclude VNS for children with drug-resistant epilepsy and ID but should be interpreted with caution.

Squill Oxymel, a traditional formulation from Drimia Maritima (L.) Stearn, as an add-on treatment in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma: A pilot, triple-blind, randomized clinical trial

Ethnopharmacological relevanceIn Traditional Iranian Medicine (TIM), Squill (Drimia maritima (L.) Stearn) Oxymel was utilized in the treatment of asthma. Squill has been reported to exert anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-cholinergic, and mucus secretion modulating effects. ObjectiveThis study aimed to make a preliminary evaluation of the efficacy and safety of an add-on Squill Oxymel treatment in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. MethodsIn a 6-week, triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 60 patients with stable moderate to severe persistent asthma were randomly allocated to receive either 10ml syrup of Squill Oxymel, simple oxymel, or a placebo 2 times a day, as an add-on to their routine treatment (inhaled corticosteroids and β2 agonists). Spirometry and plethysmography were performed on patients to evaluate the effect of the treatment at baseline and end of intervention. Forced Expiratory Volume in first second (FEV1) was considered the primary outcome. St. George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ) was also used for the subjective evaluation of patients' responses. ResultsFifty-four patients completed the study. The results showed significant improvement in spirometry parameters, especially FEV1 (1.54±.38 vs. 2.11±.49l), in the Squill Oxymel group compared with the other groups. The increases in FEV1 liter, FEV1%, FEV1/FVC%, and MEF 25–75% during the intervention were significantly higher in the Squill Oxymel group than in the other groups (p<.001). However, the improvement of plethysmographic parameters showed no significant difference between the study groups (p>.05). The SGRQ scores (symptoms, activity, and total score) were significantly improved after intervention in both the Squill Oxymel and the simple honey oxymel groups (p<.001), but not in the placebo group. Nausea and vomiting was reported in 5 patients in Squill oxymel and simple oxymel groups. No other serious adverse event was observed. ConclusionsThe results of the current study show preliminary evidence for the efficacy and safety of the add-on treatment of Squill Oxymel in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

Ephedrine treatment for autoimmune myasthenia gravis

We studied the effect and safety of ephedrine as add-on treatment for patients with myasthenia gravis with acetylcholine receptor antibodies (AChR MG), who do not sufficiently respond to standard treatment. Four patients with AChR MG were included in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomised, multiple crossover series of n-of-1 trials. Each n-of-1 trial consisted of 3 cycles, in which two 5-day intervention periods were followed by 2 days washout. In each cycle, ephedrine 50 mg daily in 2 doses was compared with placebo in the alternate treatment period. Primary outcome was a change in QMG score. Add-on treatment with ephedrine compared with placebo improved QMG score by 1.0 point (95% confidence interval 0.21–1.79), which was significant for the group of trial patients as well as for the population treatment effect. Ephedrine also showed a significant trial average treatment effect for all secondary outcomes, improving MG Composite by 2.7, MG-ADL by 1.0 and VAS score for muscle strength by 1.1. Adverse events were mild and included palpitations, tremor and restlessness. Although all ECGs were normal, ephedrine prolonged the corrected QT interval. Ephedrine as add-on treatment for myasthenia gravis resulted in a small but consistent reduction of symptoms and weakness in patients with moderate disease severity.

Targeting tau protein in Alzheimer's disease

Alzheimer's disease, the most common dementing illness, is a relentlessly progressive and fatal brain disorder that begins approximately 10–15 years before any symptoms manifest. More than 47 million people worldwide have Alzheimer's disease, and this number is expected to reach over 131 million by 2050. 1 Prince M Comas-Herrera A Knapp M Guerchet M Karagiannidou M World Alzheimer Report 2016. Improving healthcare for people living with dementia: coverage, quality and costs now and in the future. Alzheimer's Disease International, London2016 Google Scholar With increasing prevalence, the global impact of the social, economic, and emotional costs associated with Alzheimer's disease is staggering, and the need for better treatments unquestionable, since currently approved medications provide only symptomatic benefit without affecting the underlying disease process. Despite remarkable advances in our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease, no new treatments have been approved globally in more than a decade. 2 Cummings JL Banks SJ Gary RK et al. Alzheimer's disease drug development: translational neuroscience strategies. CNS Spectr. 2013; 18: 128-138 Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar Efficacy and safety of tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy in patients with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 3 trialThe primary analysis for this study was negative, and the results do not suggest benefit of LMTM as an add-on treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Findings from a recently completed 18-month trial of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease will be reported soon. Full-Text PDF

Efficacy and safety of tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy in patients with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 3 trial

Leuco-methylthioninium bis(hydromethanesulfonate; LMTM), a stable reduced form of the methylthioninium moiety, acts as a selective inhibitor of tau protein aggregation both in vitro and in transgenic mouse models. Methylthioninium chloride has previously shown potential efficacy as monotherapy in patients with Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to determine whether LMTM was safe and effective in modifying disease progression in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. We did a 15-month, randomised, controlled double-blind, parallel-group trial at 115 academic centres and private research clinics in 16 countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and Russia with patients younger than 90 years with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Patients concomitantly using other medicines for Alzheimer's disease were permitted to be included because we considered it infeasible not to allow their inclusion; however, patients using medicines carrying warnings of methaemoglobinaemia were excluded because the oxidised form of methylthioninium in high doses has been shown to induce this condition. We randomly assigned participants (3:3:4) to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, 125 mg LMTM twice a day, or control (4 mg LMTM twice a day to maintain blinding with respect to urine or faecal discolouration) administered as oral tablets. We did the randomisation with an interactive web response system using 600 blocks of length ten, and stratified patients by severity of disease, global region, whether they were concomitantly using Alzheimer's disease-labelled medications, and site PET capability. Participants, their study partners (generally carers), and all assessors were masked to treatment assignment throughout the study. The coprimary outcomes were progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) scales from baseline assessed at week 65 in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689246) and the European Union Clinical Trials Registry (2012-002866-11). Between Jan 29, 2013, and June 26, 2014, we recruited and randomly assigned 891 participants to treatment (357 to control, 268 to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, and 266 to 125 mg LMTM twice a day). The prespecified primary analyses did not show any treatment benefit at either of the doses tested for the coprimary outcomes (change in ADAS-Cog score compared with control [n=354, 6·32, 95% CI 5·31-7·34]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day [n=257] -0·02, -1·60 to 1·56, p=0·9834, 125 mg LMTM twice a day [n=250] -0·43, -2·06 to 1·20, p=0·9323; change in ADCS-ADL score compared with control [-8·22, 95% CI -9·63 to -6·82]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day -0·93, -3·12 to 1·26, p=0·8659; 125 mg LMTM twice a day -0·34, -2·61 to 1·93, p=0·9479). Gastrointestinal and urinary effects were the most common adverse events with both high doses of LMTM, and the most common causes for discontinuation. Non-clinically significant dose-dependent reductions in haemoglobin concentrations were the most common laboratory abnormality. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities were noted in less than 1% (8/885) of participants. The primary analysis for this study was negative, and the results do not suggest benefit of LMTM as an add-on treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Findings from a recently completed 18-month trial of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease will be reported soon. TauRx Therapeutics.

WITHDRAWN: Oxcarbazepine add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarize the current evidence regarding oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. To evaluate the effects of oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (28 March 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted Novartis (manufacturers of oxcarbazepine) and experts in the field. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, add-on trials of oxcarbazepine in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed : (a) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) side effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Summary odds ratios were estimated for each outcome. Two trials were included representing 961 randomized patients.Overall Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CIs)) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo 2.96 (2.20, 4.00).Treatment withdrawal OR (95% CIs) compared to placebo 2.17 (1.59, 2.97).Side effects: OR (99% CIs) compared to placebo, ataxia 2.93 (1.72, 4.99); dizziness 3.05 (1.99, 4.67); fatigue 1.80 (1.02, 3.19); nausea 2.88 (1.77, 4.69); somnolence 2.55 (1.84, 3.55); diplopia 4.32 (2.65, 7.04), were significantly associated with oxcarbazepine. Oxcarbazepine has efficacy as an add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy, both in adults and children. However, trials reviewed were of relatively short duration, and provide no evidence about the long-term effects of oxcarbazepine. Results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to patients with other epilepsy types.

P.2.e.003 - The positive modulator of AMPA receptors, S 47445, improved behavior, cognitive, neurochemical and synaptic proteins modifications induced by prenatal restraint stress

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) both as add-on therapy and monotherapy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study.We enrolled 100 patients (mean age: 43.4 ± 12.53 years, 57 females) with nonlesional TLE and TLE with hippocampal sclerosis (HS) that did not respond to the first drug and who were referred to epilepsy centers of the University of Catanzaro, University of Palermo, IRCSS Neuromed of Pozzilli, and Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg. In this open-label, multicenter trial, patients were initiated on oral LCM as add-on therapy to first AED monotherapy or as a later add-on to two concomitant AEDs. Seizure frequency changes and adverse events were recorded for at least six months after LCM was added.Fourteen patients dropped out because of positive MRI findings other than HS. Patients received LCM at 200–400 mg/day. Fifty-eight out of these 86 patients with seizures that were previously drug-resistant had reduced seizure frequency after introduction of LCM. Forty-five out of 86 patients were classified as responders (12 were seizure-free, 33 achieved a reduction > 50%). Interestingly, five patients out of 86 achieved seizure freedom for at least one year and progressively switched to monotherapy with LCM, and all five remained seizure-free at follow-up (6–48 months).Our results may suggest that LCM at doses of 200 to 400 mg/day reduces seizure frequency in adults with TLE regardless of the presence of HS, and that it may be considered as a first add-on treatment for patients with pharmacoresistant TLE.

Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody, as add-on treatment for patients with severe, uncontrolled, eosinophilic asthma (CALIMA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Benralizumab is a humanised, afucosylated, anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that induces direct, rapid, and nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and elevated blood eosinophil counts. In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (CALIMA) undertaken at 303 sites in 11 countries, we enrolled patients aged 12-75 years with severe asthma uncontrolled by medium-dosage to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β₂-agonists (ICS plus LABA) and a history of two or more exacerbations in the previous year. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 56 weeks of benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses 4 weeks apart), or placebo (all subcutaneous injection). Patients were stratified (2:1) by baseline blood eosinophil counts 300 cells per μL or greater and less than 300 cells per μL, respectively. Patients and study centre staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annual exacerbation rate ratio versus placebo for patients receiving high-dosage ICS plus LABA with baseline blood eosinophils 300 cells per μL or greater (intention-to-treat analysis). Key secondary endpoints were pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and total asthma symptom score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01914757. Between Aug 21, 2013, and March 16, 2015, 2505 patients were enrolled, of whom 1306 patients were randomised; 425 patients were randomly assigned to and received benralizumab 30 mg Q4W, 441 to benralizumab 30 mg Q8W, and 440 to placebo. 728 patients were included in the primary analysis population. Benralizumab resulted in significantly lower annual exacerbation rates with the Q4W regimen (rate 0·60 [95% CI 0·48-0·74], rate ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·85], p=0·0018, n=241) and Q8W regimen (rate 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·82], rate ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·54-0·95], p=0·0188, n=239) compared with placebo (rate 0·93 [95% CI 0·77-1·12], n=248). Benralizumab also significantly improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (Q4W and Q8W) and total asthma symptom score (Q8W only) in these patients. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (90 [21%] in the Q4W group, 79 [18%] in the Q8W group, and 92 [21%] in the placebo group) and worsening asthma (61 [14%] in the Q4W group, 47 [11%] in the Q8W group, and 68 [15%] in the group). Benralizumab significantly reduced annual exacerbation rates and was generally well tolerated for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with blood eosinophils 300 cells per μL or greater. Our data further refine the patient population likely to receive the greatest benefit from benralizumab treatment. AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.

Adjunctive perampanel in refractory epilepsy: Experience at tertiary epilepsy care center in Tours.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PER as add-on treatment in patients with severe refractory epilepsy with a particular focus on patients with learning disability and/or psychiatric comorbidity. We pooled retrospective data from adult patients with refractory epilepsy prescribed perampanel from a tertiary center in France between 1st May 2014 and 3rd June 2015. Data collection was done on February 2016. One hundred and one patients were included (mean age: 41.2years, 37.6% with learning disability and 49.5% with psychiatric comorbidity). Mean retention was 8.1months (range: 14days to 17months). On final evaluation, a >50% reduction in seizure frequency was reached in 41.6% of patients, and 7 patients (6.9%) became seizure-free. Sixty-three patients (62.4%) experienced adverse effects. The most common adverse effects were irritability, asthenia, aggression, and sedation. Efficacy, retention of treatment, and safety were equally similar in patients with learning disability or psychiatric comorbidity as for those without. The only significant difference was in percentage of seizure-free patients: 11.1% in the group without learning disability compared with 0% in the group with (p=0.043). Adjunctive PER can achieve clinically meaningful improvement, or even seizure freedom, in more than one-third of patients suffering from severe refractory epilepsies. It seems similarly safe and effective in the subgroup of these patients with learning disability or with psychiatric comorbidity. However, the rate of psychiatric side effects is high,; of note, we asked both patient and caregivers at each visit especially focusing on psychiatric side effects. Patients, caregivers, and families should be informed of potential psychiatric/behavioral risks associated with taking perampanel especially during the initial titration period.

Influence of Previous Failed Antispasticity Therapy on the Efficacy and Tolerability of THC:CBD Oromucosal Spray for Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity

Background: Sativex® (THC:CBD oromucosal spray) is indicated as add-on treatment for patients with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity. We aimed to determine whether antispasticity treatment history influenced the efficacy and safety of add-on THC:CBD oromucosal spray in MS spasticity patients. Methods: Post hoc analysis of an enriched-design clinical trial of THC:CBD oromucosal spray versus placebo, using records of patients under previous and current ineffective antispasticity therapies. Subgroups were patients with at least 1 failed therapy attempt with either baclofen or tizanidine (Group 1) or at least 2 failed therapy attempts with both baclofen and tizanidine (Group 2). Summary: Of 241 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 162 and 57 patients met the criteria for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. In all groups, response on the spasticity 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale was significantly greater with THC:CBD oromucosal spray versus placebo, for minimal clinically important difference (MCID ≥18% improvement vs. baseline) and clinically important difference (CID, ≥30% improvement vs. baseline). THC:CBD oromucosal spray improved spasticity-related symptoms such as sleep quality and timed 10-meter walk independent of the number of prior failed therapy attempts. Tolerability was not influenced by pre-treatment history. Conclusions: THC:CBD oromucosal spray provided consistent relief with good tolerability in MS spasticity patients irrespective of their antispasticity pre-treatment history.

Objective and subjective sleep quality: Melatonin versus placebo add-on treatment in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder withdrawing from long-term benzodiazepine use

Benzodiazepines are frequently long-term prescribed for the treatment of patients with severe mental illness. This prescribing practice is problematic because of well-described side effects including risk of dependence. We examined the efficacy of prolonged-release melatonin on objective and subjective sleep quality during benzodiazepine discontinuation and whether sleep variables were associated with benzodiazepine withdrawal. Eligible patients included adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder and long-term use of benzodiazepines in combination with antipsychotics. All participants gradually tapered the use of benzodiazepines after randomization to add-on treatment with melatonin versus placebo. Here we report a subsample of 23 patients undergoing sleep recordings (one-night polysomnography) and 55 patients participating in subjective sleep quality ratings. Melatonin had no effect on objective sleep efficiency, but significantly improved self-reported sleep quality. Reduced benzodiazepine dosage at the 24-week follow-up was associated with a significantly decreased proportion of stage 2 sleep. These results indicate that prolonged-release melatonin has some efficacy for self-reported sleep quality after gradual benzodiazepine dose reduction, and that benzodiazepine discontinuation is not associated with rebound insomnia in medicated patients with severe mental illness. However, these findings were limited by a small sample size and a low retention rate.

Lacosamide in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: An observational multicentric open-label study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide (LCM) both as add-on therapy and monotherapy in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study. We enrolled 100 patients (mean age: 43.4±12.53years, 57 females) with nonlesional TLE and TLE with hippocampal sclerosis (HS) that did not respond to the first drug and who were referred to epilepsy centers of the University of Catanzaro, University of Palermo, IRCSS Neuromed of Pozzilli, and Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg. In this open-label, multicenter trial, patients were initiated on oral LCM as add-on therapy to first AED monotherapy or as a later add-on to two concomitant AEDs. Seizure frequency changes and adverse events were recorded for at least six months after LCM was added. Fourteen patients dropped out because of positive MRI findings other than HS. Patients received LCM at 200-400mg/day. Fifty-eight out of these 86 patients with seizures that were previously drug-resistant had reduced seizure frequency after introduction of LCM. Forty-five out of 86 patients were classified as responders (12 were seizure-free, 33 achieved a reduction >50%). Interestingly, five patients out of 86 achieved seizure freedom for at least one year and progressively switched to monotherapy with LCM, and all five remained seizure-free at follow-up (6-48months). Our results may suggest that LCM at doses of 200 to 400mg/day reduces seizure frequency in adults with TLE regardless of the presence of HS, and that it may be considered as a first add-on treatment for patients with pharmacoresistant TLE.

Brexpiprazole, cariprazine hydrochloride, and flibanserin

Brexpiprazole (RexultidOtsuka) is an atypical antipsychotic agent with properties and uses that are most similar to those of aripiprazole (e.g., Abilify). It is indicated for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia, and for adjunctive treatment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The mechanism of action of brexpiprazole has not been fully clarified. However, it is thought to involve a combination of partial agonist activity at serotonin 5-HT1A and dopamine D2 receptors and antagonist activity at serotonin 5-HT2A receptors. The effectiveness of brexpiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia was demonstrated in two 6-week placebo-controlled studies where the new drug was demonstrated to be superior to placebo in reducing the occurrence of symptoms of schizophrenia. It was also evaluated in two 6-week placebo-controlled studies as an add-on treatment in patients with MDD for whom an antidepressant alone did not adequately treat their symptoms. Patients treated with brexpiprazole plus an antidepressant reported fewer symptoms of depression than those receiving placebo plus an antidepressant. Brexpiprazole has not been directly compared with aripiprazole or other antipsychotic agents in clinical studies. In addition to schizophrenia or MDD, aripiprazole has labeled indications for the acute treatment of patients with manic and mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, the treatment of Tourette disorder, and treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder. However, these are not labeled indications for brexpiprazole at the present time.

Roflumilast combined with montelukast versus montelukast alone as add-on treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma

Roflumilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, has been shown to provide modest improvements in lung function in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, but its efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma has not been assessed. We hypothesized that this drug might provide benefit if combined with montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, in patients whose symptoms are uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists. We sought to examine the efficacy, safety, and mode of action of the addition of roflumilast and montelukast versus montelukast alone in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. In a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, 2-sequence, crossover study, 64 patients were randomized to receive 500μg of roflumilast plus montelukast followed by placebo plus 10mg of montelukast (sequence AB) or placebo plus 10mg of montelukast followed by 500μg of roflumilast plus 10mg of montelukast (sequence BA). All patients had a diagnosis of bronchial asthma inadequately controlled by at least a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting β-agonist. The analysis of FEV1 change from baseline to week 4 showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment difference of 100mL for roflumilast plus montelukast versus placebo plus montelukast. Also, improvements in patient-reported outcomes and a reduction in urinary leukotriene E4 levels were observed during roflumilast plus montelukast treatment compared with placebo plus montelukast treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of roflumilast. The combination of roflumilast with montelukast compared with montelukast alone improved lung function and asthma control in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and deserves further study for this indication.

Perampanel as add-on treatment in refractory focal epilepsy. The Dianalund experience.

Perampanel (PER) is an antagonist of AMPA receptors that has been approved for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures. To evaluate effectiveness and safety of PER as add-on treatment in patients with severely refractory focal epilepsy. PER was introduced as add-on treatment in 22 consecutive patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. PER was started with 2 mg/day at bedtime and was up-titrated by 2 mg/day every 2-4 weeks. All patients suffered from severely refractory focal epilepsy (86% took 2 or more AEDs prior PER initiation; 40% had been submitted to surgery or were surgery candidates; 7 had VNS). After 12 months since PER initiation, the retention rate was 54.5% and the responder rate was 27.2%, including 9.1% seizure-free patients. Mean PER dose in the responders was 8 mg/day (range 4-10). Most common side effects were tiredness, behavioral changes (primarily aggressivity), dizziness and were reported in 59.1% of patients, leading to PER discontinuation in 31.8% of subjects. PER as add-on treatment can achieve clinically meaningful improvement in patients suffering from severely refractory focal epilepses. Further studies are warranted to explore the tolerability profile, with particular focus on psychiatric adverse events.

Effects of vildagliptin as add-on treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: insights from long-term clinical studies in Japan.

BackgroundVildagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, is wildly used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with mono- or combination-therapy. We review two previously published open-label studies to extract insights on the long-term efficacy and safety of vildagliptin.MethodsTwo studies were conducted in Japan to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as an add-on to other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) for 52 weeks. These studies were performed under the similar protocol in Japanese patients with T2DM who were inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy [excluding other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors].ResultsAddition of vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) to other OAD monotherapy [sulfonylurea (SU), metformin, thiazolidinedione, alpha-glucosidase inhibitor and glinide] reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels by −0.64 %,−0.75 %,−0.92 %,−0.94 % and − 0.64 %, respectively, over 52 weeks of treatment. Overall, the incidence of hypoglycemia was low and was slightly higher in the add-on to SU treatment group compared with the other groups. The incidences of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups, and vildagliptin was well-tolerated as add-on therapy to other OADs.ConclusionsThe evidence from the two studies indicates that vildagliptin as an add-on therapy to other OADs is a clinically reasonable option for Japanese patients with T2DM who respond inadequately to other OAD monotherapy.

Profile of brivaracetam and its potential in the treatment of epilepsy.

Brivaracetam (BRV) (UCB 34714) is currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for approval as an add-on treatment for adult patients with partial seizures. Similar to levetiracetam (LEV), BRV acts as a high-affinity ligand of the synaptic vesicle protein 2A, however, it has been shown to be 10- to 30-fold more potent than LEV. Moreover, BRV does not share the LEV inhibitory activity on the high voltage Ca2+ channels and AMPA receptors, and it has been reported to act as a partial antagonist on neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels. The pharmacokinetic profile of BRV is favorable and linear, and it undergoes an extensive metabolism into inactive compounds, mainly through the hydrolysis of its acetamide group. Furthermore, it does not significantly interact with other antiepileptic drugs and more than 95% is excreted through the urine, with an unchanged fraction of 8%–11%. BRV has a half-life of approximately 8–9 hours and it is usually given twice daily. To date, a wide range of experimental studies have reported the effectiveness of BRV with regards to partial and generalized seizures. In humans, six randomized, placebo-controlled trials and two meta-analyses highlighted the efficacy, or good tolerability, of BRV as an add-on treatment for patients with uncontrolled partial seizures. A wide dose range of BRV has been evaluated in those trials (5–200 mg), but the most suitable for clinical use appears to be 50–100 mg/day. The most common adverse reactions to BRV are mild to moderate, transient, often improve during the course of the treatment, and mainly consist of central nervous system symptoms, such as fatigue, dizziness, and somnolence. The aim of this paper is to critically review the literature data regarding experimental animal models and clinical trials on BRV, and to define its potential usefulness for the clinicians who manage patients with epilepsy.

Stiripentol for focal refractory epilepsy.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2014 (Issue 1). For nearly 30% of people with epilepsy, seizures are not controlled by current treatments. Stiripentol is a new antiepileptic drug (AED) that was developed in France and was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2007 for the treatment of Dravet syndrome as adjunctive therapy with valproate and clobazam, with promising effects. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol as add-on treatment for patients with focal refractory epilepsy who are taking AEDs. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (10 August 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; August 2015, Issue 8)and MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 10 August 2015). We contacted Biocodex (the manufacturer of stiripentol) and epilepsy experts to identify published, unpublished and ongoing trials. Randomised controlled add-on trials of stiripentol in patients with focal refractory epilepsy. Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes investigated included 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, seizure freedom, adverse effects, treatment withdrawal and changes in quality of life. On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. However, we did include one study from the earlier review (32 children with focal epilepsy). This study adopted a 'responder enriched' design and found no clear evidence of a reduction in seizure frequency (≥ 50% seizure reduction) (risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.82) nor evidence of seizure freedom (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.43) when add-on stiripentol was compared with placebo. Stiripentol led to a greater risk of adverse effects considered as a whole (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.47). When specific adverse events were considered, confidence intervals were very wide and showed the possibility of substantial increases and small reductions in risks of neurological (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.88 to 8.01) or gastrointestinal adverse effects (RR 11.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 189.36). Researchers noted no clear reduction in the risk of study withdrawal (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), which was high in both groups (35.0% in add-on placebo and 53.3% in stiripentol group). The external validity of this study was limited because only responders to stiripentol (i.e. patients experiencing a ≥ 50% decrease in seizure frequency compared with baseline) were included in the randomised add-on placebo-controlled double-blind phase. Furthermore, carry-over and withdrawal effects probably influenced outcomes related to seizure frequency. Very limited information derived from the only included study shows that adverse effects considered as a whole seemed to occur significantly more often with add-on stiripentol than with add-on placebo. Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, we have made no changes to the conclusions of this update as presented in the initial review. We can draw no conclusions to support the use of stiripentol as add-on treatment for focal refractory epilepsy. Additional large, randomised, well-conducted trials are needed.

Lacosamide add-on therapy for partial epilepsy.

Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on treatment with another drug. Sometimes multiple treatment combinations are tried to achieve maximum seizure control, although around a third of people do not achieve complete seizure control. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has been licensed as an add-on treatment for partial epilepsy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide when used as an add-on treatment for patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (21 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL , The Cochrane Library Issue 4, April 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 21 May 2015), Scopus (1823 to 13 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (21 May 2015) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 21 May 2015). We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted UCB (sponsors of lacosamide) and experts in the field. Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal for any reason; and (4) adverse events. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Summary risk ratios were estimated for each outcome. We included three trials in our review (1311 participants), which were classified as having low risk of bias. All trials were placebo-controlled and assessed doses ranging from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All trials used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate to high. The overall risk ratio for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 2.10); for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.50 (95% CI 0.85 to 7.34); and for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.88 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.52). Adverse effects significantly associated with lacosamide were abnormal co-ordination (risk ratio (RR) 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), diplopia (RR 5.29, 99% CI 1.97 to 14.23), dizziness (RR 3.53, 99% CI 2.20 to 5.68), nausea (RR 2.37, 99% CI 1.23 to 4.58) and vomiting (RR 3.49, 99% CI 1.43 to 8.54). Adverse effects that were not statistically significant were headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.83 to 2.18), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52) and somnolence (RR 1.44, 99% CI 0.67 to 3.09). This review has shown lacosamide to be effective and fairly well tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy in adults. Higher doses of lacosamide may be more associated with adverse effects and withdrawal of the drug than lower doses. Additional evidence on children is needed, and longer-term efficacy is unknown.

Adding a New Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Agent for Patient Receiving Aspirin after an Acute Coronary Syndrome?--Results from a Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials

Objectives: To synthesize the efficacy and safety outcomes from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) regarding new oral anticoagulant, protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) antagonist, and warfarin adjunctive to aspirin for patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) via pair-wise and network meta-analyses. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library Web of Knowledge, and Scopus. The pair-wise meta-analysis was undertaken respectively to each agent/treatment category via Revmen 5.1. In order to estimate the relative efficacy of each agent/treatment category whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using both fixed- and random-effects model. Covariate analysis was performed to explore the effects of length of follow-up and age of subject on the final results. Results: In total, 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. As shown by the results (OR,95%CI) for the pair-wise meta-analysis, new oral anticoagulants (0.85, [0.78, 0.93] and 3.04, [2.21, 4.19]), PAR-1 antagonists (0.80, [0.52, 1.22] and 1.55, [1.25, 1.93]) and warfarin (0.87, [0.74, 1.02] and 1.77, [1.46, 2.14]) might be able to provide better outcome in the incidences of major adverse events (MAE) but with higher bleeding risk comparing to aspirin treatment alone. Based on the model fit assessment, the random-effects model was adopted. The network meta-analysis (treatment effect comparing to aspirin lone) identified ximelagatran (-0.3044, [-0.8601, 0.2502]), dabigatran (-0.2144, [-0.8666, 0.4525]), rivoroxaban (-0.2179, [-0.5986, 0.1628]) and vorapaxar (-0.2272, [-0.81, 0.1664]) produced better improvements in MAE incidences whereas vorapaxar (0.3764, [-0.4444, 1.124]), warfarin (0.663, [0.3375, 1.037]), ximelagatran (0.7509, [-0.4164, 2.002]) and apixaban (0.8594, [-0.0049, 1.7]) produced less major bleeding events. The indirect comparisons among drug category (difference in incidence comparing to aspirin lone) showed new oral anticoagulants (-0.1974, [-0.284, -0.111]) and PAR-1 antagonists (-0.1239, [-0.215, -0.033]) to besuperior to warfarin (-0.1004, [-0.166, -0.035]) in the occurrences of MAE whereas PAR-1 antagonists (0.4292, [0.2123, 0.6476]) afforded better outcomes in major bleeding events against warfarin (0.5742, [0.3889, 0.7619]) and new oral anticoagulants (1.169, [0.8667, 1.485]). Conclusion: Based on the study results, we cannot recommend the routine administration of new oral anticoagulant as add-on treatment for patients after ACS. However, for ACS patients comorbid with atrial fibrillation, new oral anticoagulant might be superior to warfarin in both efficacy and safety outcomes.