The Midazolam RAMPART Study Medical Records Project: A Unique Use of Real-World Data in a Complex Collaborative Partnership to Support a New Drug Application.

INTRODUCTION: This project aimed to retrospectively obtain, review, and extract key safety data from medical records of participants enrolled in RAMPART, the NIH-supported Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to ARrival Trial of intramuscular midazolam versus intravenous lorazepam for pre-hospital treatment of status epilepticus, to support a US new drug application (NDA) for intramuscular midazolam. METHODS: A collaborative partnership was established between the NDA sponsor, the RAMPART trial lead academic institution, US government agencies, and contract research organizations to retrieve, review, and extract relevant safety data from the medical records of RAMPART participants and summarize those data to include in an NDA submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). RESULTS: Key data in the medical records of 890 RAMPART trial participants (1020 enrollments, including 130 repeat enrollments) were reviewed and extracted into a project database. Safety events occurred in 771 (86.6%) participants, and included additional information not collected in the RAMPART trial. This database also enabled subgroup analyses based on medical history and prior/concurrent medications, building upon previous analyses according to age, sex, and race. No previously unrecognized safety patterns were identified, and no association was observed between efficacy and medical history or medication usage. CONCLUSIONS: The use of unstructured real-world retrospective medical record data can effectively support an NDA submission in place of conducting another interventional clinical trial. This retrospective medical records review and extraction of additional safety data contributed to the FDA approval of intramuscular midazolam for the pre-hospital treatment of status epilepticus in 2018. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT00809146.

Safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment with diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting for the treatment of acute repetitive seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an open-label continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS. METHODS: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected. RESULTS: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injection-site bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers to patients with epilepsy who require intermittent intervention for acute repetitive seizures.

PURPOSE: A diazepam auto­injector (AI) has been developed for intramuscular administration to treat acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the diazepam AI when administered by caregivers to control an episode of ARS (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00319501). METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double­blind, parallel­group, placebo­controlled, multicenter study, subjects with epilepsy on a stable antiepileptic drug regimen who required intermittent medical intervention to control ARS were randomized 1:1 to the placebo AI or the diazepam AI group. Subjects were stratified according to age (2­5, 6­11, ≥12 years). Dose (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg) was based on age and weight. A single dose of study medication was dispensed to be administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting when required. The primary end point was time to next seizure or rescue from 15 min to 12 h postdose. Secondary end points included rescue medication use, number of seizures postdose, caregiver and physician treatment assessments, and safety measures. KEY FINDINGS: Of 234 subjects randomized, 81/110 in the placebo AI group and 82/124 in the diazepam AI group were included in the intent­to­treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Time to next seizure or rescue was significantly longer in the diazepam AI group compared with the placebo AI group, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34­0.88; p = 0.012) for diazepam AI versus placebo AI, adjusted for age group. The 25th percentile for time to the next seizure or rescue was 1.18 h (95% CI 0.38­2.03) for placebo AI and 2.70 h (95% CI 0.48­11.42) for diazepam AI; the median was 5.9 h for placebo AI and was inestimable for diazepam AI due to the low number of events experienced by subjects in that group. The proportion of subjects using rescue medication postdose was 30% (24/81) placebo AI versus 17% (14/82) diazepam AI (p = 0.066). An event (seizure or rescue) occurred in 55.6% of subjects in the placebo AI group and 35.4% in the diazepam AI group. The number of seizures experienced during the 12­h postdose period was significantly lower for diazepam AI (median 0.0) compared with placebo AI (median 1.0; p = 0.010). Treatment­emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 44% (35/79) of subjects in the placebo AI group and 42% (34/81) in the diazepam AI group. The most common TEAEs reported were injection site pain (15% placebo AI, 17% diazepam AI) and injection site hemorrhage (6% placebo AI, 5% diazepam AI). SIGNIFICANCE: The diazepam AI was significantly more effective than placebo AI at delaying the next seizure or rescue. Secondary efficacy end points were generally supportive of the primary outcome. Diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers was effective for the treatment of ARS and was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo.