Administration of oxathridine, a first-in-class histamine-3 receptor partial agonist in healthy male volunteers: Central nervous system depression and pseudo-hallucinations.

AIMS: To characterise the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of single ascending doses of oxathridine, a first-in-class histamine-3 receptor partialagonist, in healthy male volunteers. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study including the NeuroCart, consisting of a battery of drug sensitive neurophysiological tests, was performed. Oxathridine was administered orally as an aqueous solution. After dosing, safety and NeuroCart tests (adaptive tracking [AT], body sway [BS], saccadic peak velocity [SPV], smooth pursuit [SP] eye movements, VAS according to Bond and Lader, VAS according to Bowdle [VAS B&L, Bowdle], pharmaco-electroencephalogram [pEEG], Sustained Attention to Response Task [SART]) were performed at set times. RESULTS: Forty volunteers completed the study. Given doses were: 0.5, 2.5, 5, 0.25 and 1.5 mg. At 5 mg, unacceptable and unanticipated adverse events (AEs) of (orthostatic) hypotension and pseudo-hallucinations were reported. Statistically significant effects ([CI]; p-value) of 2.5 mg and 5 mg oxathridine were observed on AT ([-8.28, -1.60]; p = 0.0048), ([-8.10, -1.51]; p = 0.00530), BS ([0.6, 80.2]; p = 0.0455), ([5.9, 93.1]; p = 0.0205) and SPV ([-59.0, -15.9]; p = 0.0011), ([-43.9, -1.09]; p = 0.0399), respectively. Oxathridine 5 mg significantly increased all three VAS Bowdle subscale scores; VAS external ([0.183, 0.476]; p = <.0001), VAS internal ([0.127, 0.370]; p = 0.0001) and VAS feeling high ([0.263, 0.887]; p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: NeuroCart tests indicated central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects. Oxathridine also unexpectedly caused pseudohallucinations. Although this led to the decision to stop further development of oxathridine, these observations suggest that the H3R system could be an interesting new target for the development of novel antipsychotics.

Safety and efficacy of pitolisant in children aged 6 years or older with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Narcolepsy is a life-long disorder characterised by excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy, often arising in childhood or adolescence. Pitolisant, a selective histamine H3 receptor inverse agonist, has been approved in Europe and USA for adults with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy, with a favourable safety profile. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pitolisant in children with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy. METHODS: For this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multisite study, we recruited patients aged 6-17 years with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy in 11 sleep centres in five countries (Italy, France, Netherlands, Russia, and Finland). Participants were required to have a Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale score of 15 or greater and to have not received psychostimulants for at least 14 days before enrolment; participants who needed anticataplectics (including sodium oxybate) were required to have been on a stable dose for at least 1 month. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with pitolisant or placebo in a 2:1 ratio at the end of screening. Randomisation was stratified by study centre and treatment was allocated using an interactive web response system. After a 4-week screening period including a 2-week baseline period, patients entered in a 4-week individual up-titration scheme from 5 mg a day to a maximum of 40 mg a day of pitolisant or placebo; treatment was administered at a stable dose for 4 weeks, followed by a 1-week placebo period. For the primary analysis, we assessed pitolisant versus placebo using change in the Ullanlinna Narcolepsy Scale (UNS) total score from baseline to the end of double-blind period in the full analysis set, defined as all randomly allocated patients who received at least one dose of treatment and who had at least one baseline UNS value. A decrease in the UNS total score reflects a reduction in both excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. All adverse events were assessed in the safety population, defined as all participants who took at least one dose of study medication. An open-label follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02611687. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2016, and April 3, 2021, we screened 115 participants and 110 were randomly assigned (mean age 12·9 [SD 3·0] years, 61 [55%] male, and 90 [82%] with cataplexy; 72 assigned to pitolisant and 38 to placebo); 107 (70 receiving pitolisant and 37 receiving placebo) completed the double-blind period. The mean adjusted difference in UNS total score from baseline to the end of the double-blind period was -6·3 (SE 1·1) in the pitolisant group and -2·6 (1·4) in the placebo group (least squares mean difference -3·7; 95% CI -6·4 to -1·0, p=0·007). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 22 (31%) of 72 patients in the pitolisant group and 13 (34%) of 38 patients in the placebo group. The most frequently reported adverse events (affecting ≥5% of patients) in either group were headache (14 [19%] in the pitolisant group and three [8%] in the placebo group) and insomnia (five [7%] in the pitolisant group and one [3%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Pitolisant treatment resulted in an improvement in narcolepsy symptoms in children, although the UNS was not validated for use in children with narcolepsy when our study began. The safety profile was similar to that reported in adults but further studies are needed to confirm long-term safety. FUNDING: Bioprojet.

Bioavailability and cardiovascular effects of adrenaline administered by Anapen 500 µg auto-injector in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: Anaphylaxis guidelines recommend intramuscular adrenaline, commonly 300 µg administered using an auto-injector device. However, overweight/obese patients may require a higher adrenaline dose for adequate cardiovascular (CV) response. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) CV profiles after a single 500 µg adrenaline injection via Anapen auto-injector in healthy normal weight males and otherwise healthy, overweight or obese females. METHODS: In this exploratory open-label, single-centre study, 54 healthy volunteers aged 18-50 years received a single 500 µg adrenaline injection (Anapen auto-injector) in the thigh (antero-lateral middle third [18 males] or antero-inferior third [36 females]). Assessments included depot depth (ultrasonography), plasma adrenaline levels (liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry) and heart rate (HR; ECG Holter monitor). RESULTS: Ultrasonography showed that 82.4% of normal weight males received intramuscular injections; all overweight and obese females received subcutaneous injections. Anapen injection produced rapid increases in circulating adrenaline levels and significant increases in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and HR. Second peak plasma adrenaline concentrations (Cmax2 ) were reduced, and time to Cmax2 increased in overweight and obese females compared with males with normal body mass index; area under the curve (0-240 min) (AUC(0-240) ) was increased in overweight and obese females. Obese females had reduced maximal SBP values compared with normal weight males or overweight females; overweight and obese females had markedly different HR time courses compared with normal weight males. CONCLUSION: A 500 µg adrenaline injection via Anapen produced rapid PK/PD changes in normal weight, overweight and obese subjects, irrespective of intramuscular or subcutaneous injection, and was well tolerated.

Pitolisant, a wake-promoting agent devoid of psychostimulant properties: Preclinical comparison with amphetamine, modafinil, and solriamfetol.

Several therapeutic options are currently available to treat excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in patients suffering from narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. However, there are no comparisons between the various wake-promoting agents in terms of mechanism of action, efficacy, or safety. The goal of this study was to compare amphetamine, modafinil, solriamfetol, and pitolisant at their known primary pharmacological targets, histamine H3 receptors (H3R), dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin transporters, and in various in vivo preclinical models in relation to neurochemistry, locomotion, behavioral sensitization, and food intake. Results confirmed that the primary pharmacological effect of amphetamine, modafinil, and solriamfetol was to increase central dopamine neurotransmission, in part by inhibiting its transporter. Furthermore, solriamfetol increased levels of extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens, and decreased the 3,4-dihydroxyphenyl acetic acid (DOPAC)/DA ratio in the striatum, as reported for modafinil and amphetamine. All these compounds produced hyperlocomotion, behavioral sensitization, and hypophagia, which are common features of psychostimulants and of compounds with abuse potential. In contrast, pitolisant, a selective and potent H3R antagonist/inverse agonist that promotes wakefulness, had no effect on striatal dopamine, locomotion, or food intake. In addition, pitolisant, devoid of behavioral sensitization by itself, attenuated the hyperlocomotion induced by either modafinil or solriamfetol. Therefore, pitolisant presents biochemical, neurochemical, and behavioral profiles different from those of amphetamine and other psychostimulants such as modafinil or solriamfetol. In conclusion, pitolisant is a differentiated therapeutic option, when compared with psychostimulants, for the treatment of EDS, as this agent does not show any amphetamine-like properties within in vivo preclinical models.

Pitolisant for Residual Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in OSA Patients Adhering to CPAP: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in individuals with OSA syndrome persisting despite good adherence to CPAP is a disabling condition. Pitolisant is a selective histamine H3-receptor antagonist with wake-promoting effects. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is pitolisant effective and safe for reducing daytime sleepiness in individuals with moderate to severe OSA adhering to CPAP treatment but experiencing residual EDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized (3:1), placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial, pitolisant was titrated individually at up to 20 mg/day and taken over 12 weeks. The primary end point was change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary end points were maintenance of wakefulness assessed by the Oxford Sleep Resistance Test, Clinical Global Impressions scale of severity, the patient's global opinion, EuroQoL quality-of-life questionnaire score, Pichot fatigue questionnaire score, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four OSA participants (82.8% men; mean age, 53.1 years; mean Apnea Hypopnea Index with CPAP, 4.2/h; baseline ESS score, 14.7) were randomized to pitolisant (n = 183) or placebo (n = 61). ESS significantly decreased with pitolisant compared with placebo (-2.6; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.4; P < .001), and the rate of responders to therapy (ESS ≤ 10 or change in ESS ≥ 3) was significantly higher with pitolisant (71.0% vs 54.1%; P = .013). Adverse event occurrence (mainly headache and insomnia) was higher in the pitolisant group compared with the placebo group (47.0% and 32.8%, respectively; P = .03). No cardiovascular or other significant safety concerns were reported. INTERPRETATION: Pitolisant used as adjunct to CPAP therapy for OSA with residual sleepiness despite good CPAP adherence significantly reduced subjective and objective sleepiness and improved participant-reported outcomes and physician-reported disease severity. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01071876; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov; EudraCT N°: 2009-017248-14; URL: eudract.ema.europa.eu.

Pitolisant for Daytime Sleepiness in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Who Refuse Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Treatment. A Randomized Trial.

Rationale: Excessive daytime sleepiness is a common disabling symptom in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pitolisant, a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist with wake-promoting effects, for the treatment of daytime sleepiness in patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea refusing continuous positive airway pressure treatment.Methods: In an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized (3:1), placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial, pitolisant was individually titrated at up to 20 mg/d over 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. Key secondary endpoints were maintenance of wakefulness assessed on the basis of the Oxford Sleep Resistance test, safety, Clinical Global Impression of severity, patient's global opinion, EuroQol quality-of-life questionnaire, and Pichot fatigue questionnaire.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 268 patients with obstructive sleep apnea (75% male; mean age, 52 yr; apnea-hypopnea index, 49/h; baseline sleepiness score, 15.7) were randomized (200 to pitolisant and 68 to placebo) and analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was reduced more with pitolisant than with placebo (-2.8; 95% confidence interval, -4.0 to -1.5; P < 0.001). Wake maintenance tests were not improved. The Pichot fatigue score was reduced with pitolisant. The overall impact of pitolisant was confirmed by both physicians' and patients' questionnaires. Adverse event incidence, mainly headache, insomnia, nausea, and vertigo, was similar in the pitolisant and placebo groups (29.5% and 25.4%, respectively), with no cardiovascular or other significant safety concerns.Conclusions: Pitolisant significantly reduced self-reported daytime sleepiness and fatigue and improved patient-reported outcomes and physician disease severity assessment in sleepy patients with obstructive sleep apnea refusing or nonadherent to continuous positive airway pressure.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01072968) and EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017251-94).

Long-term use of pitolisant to treat patients with narcolepsy: Harmony III Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To asses the long-term safety and efficacy of pitolisant, an histamine H3-receptor antagonist, on narcolepsy. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, pragmatic study, recruited adult patients with narcolepsy and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥12. After a titration period, patients were treated for up to 1 year with oral pitolisant once-a-day at up to 40 mg. Concomitant stimulants and anti-cataplectic agents were allowed. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included ESS, cataplexy, and other diary parameters. RESULTS: Patients (n = 102, 75 with cataplexy) received pitolisant, for the first time in 73 of them. Sixty-eight patients (51 with cataplexy) completed the 12-month treatment. Common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache (11.8% of patients), insomnia (8.8%), weight gain (7.8%), anxiety (6.9%), depressive symptoms (4.9%), and nausea (4.9%). Seven patients had a serious adverse effect, unrelated to pitolisant except for a possibly related miscarriage. One-third of patients stopped pitolisant, mostly (19.6%) for insufficient benefit. ESS score decreased by 4.6 ± 0.6. Two-thirds of patients completing the treatment were responders (ESS ≤ 10 or ESS decrease ≥ 3), and one third had normalized ESS (≤10). Complete and partial cataplexy, hallucinations, sleep paralysis, and sleep attacks were reduced by 76%, 65%, 54%, 63%, and 27%, respectively. Pitolisant as monotherapy (43% of patients) was better tolerated and more efficacious on ESS than on add-on, but efficacy was maintained in this last case. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term safety and efficacy of pitolisant on daytime sleepiness, cataplexy, hallucinations, and sleep paralysis is confirmed.

Bioavailability and Cardiovascular Effects of Adrenaline Administered by Anapen Autoinjector in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The administration of adrenaline is a life-saving intervention for anaphylactic reactions. However, it has been questioned whether the needle length of the autoinjectors is sufficient to achieve genuine intramuscular delivery and optimal bioavailability. OBJECTIVE: To assess the adequacy of Anapen, which has a relatively short needle length (10.5 mm), through a comparison of the depot localization, plasma pharmacokinetics, and cardiovascular responses of adrenaline delivered via Anapen versus a prefilled syringe with a 25.4-mm needle, which is generally used for intramuscular injections. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, crossover study compared the impact of adrenaline administration at 2 sites in the thigh of 18 normal weight male volunteers, using either Anapen or the prefilled syringe; in addition, we studied the treatment of 12 overweight women with Anapen. The depot depth was measured by ultrasonography, plasma adrenaline level was evaluated by ultra performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS), and heart rates were measured using a Holter monitor. RESULTS: Intramuscular injections were given with both devices at both thigh sites in nonobese men, but not in overweight women. Adrenaline levels showed a double peak, with parallel changes in the heart rate. The first peak, of potential vital importance in anaphylaxis treatment, occurred at approximately 10 minutes postinjection, with maximum concentration and area under the curve significantly higher with Anapen than with prefilled syringes; the magnitude of the second peak did not differ among the various conditions. Unexpectedly, in overweight women treated with Anapen, the magnitude of the first peak was similar to that observed in men, despite the injection being subcutaneous, and the overall bioavailability was enhanced. CONCLUSIONS: Needle length and intramuscular injection are not absolute requirements for autoinjector efficacy, but the monitoring of injection location, biphasic adrenaline levels, and cardiovascular responses is important for the assessment of their therapeutic relevance in anaphylaxis.

Nonclinical cardiovascular safety of pitolisant: comparing International Conference on Harmonization S7B and Comprehensive in vitro Pro-arrhythmia Assay initiative studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We evaluated the concordance of results from two sets of nonclinical cardiovascular safety studies on pitolisant. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Nonclinical studies envisaged both in the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) S7B guideline and Comprehensive in vitro Pro-arrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative were undertaken. The CiPA initiative included in vitro ion channels, stem cell-derived human ventricular myocytes, and in silico modelling to simulate human ventricular electrophysiology. ICH S7B-recommended assays included in vitro hERG (KV 11.1) channels, in vivo dog studies with follow-up investigations in rabbit Purkinje fibres and the in vivo Carlsson rabbit pro-arrhythmia model. KEY RESULTS: Both sets of nonclinical data consistently excluded pitolisant from having clinically relevant QT-liability or pro-arrhythmic potential. CiPA studies revealed pitolisant to have modest calcium channel blocking and late INa reducing activities at high concentrations, which resulted in pitolisant reducing dofetilide-induced early after-depolarizations (EADs) in the ICH S7B studies. Studies in stem cell-derived human cardiomyocytes with dofetilide or E-4031 given alone and in combination with pitolisant confirmed these properties. In silico modelling confirmed that the ion channel effects measured are consistent with results from both the stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes and rabbit Purkinje fibres and categorized pitolisant as a drug with low torsadogenic potential. Results from the two sets of nonclinical studies correlated well with those from two clinical QT studies. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings support the CiPA initiative but suggest that sponsors should consider investigating drug effects on EADs and the use of pro-arrhythmia models when the results from CiPA studies are ambiguous.

Safety and efficacy of pitolisant on cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Histaminergic neurons are crucial to maintain wakefulness, but their role in cataplexy is unknown. We assessed the safety and efficacy of pitolisant, a histamine H3 receptor inverse agonist, for treatment of cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy. METHODS: For this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial we recruited patients with narcolepsy from 16 sleep centres in nine countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine). Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, diagnosed with narcolepsy with cataplexy according to version two of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders criteria, experienced at least three cataplexies per week, and had excessive daytime sleepiness (defined as an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≥12). We used a computer-generated sequence via an interactive web response system to randomly assign patients to receive either pitolisant or placebo once per day (1:1 ratio). Randomisation was done in blocks of four. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment lasted for 7 weeks: 3 weeks of flexible dosing decided by investigators according to efficacy and tolerance (5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg oral pitolisant), followed by 4 weeks of stable dosing (5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg). The primary endpoint was the change in the average number of cataplexy attacks per week as recorded in patient diaries (weekly cataplexy rate [WCR]) between the 2 weeks of baseline and the 4 weeks of stable dosing period. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01800045. FINDINGS: The trial was done between April 19, 2013, and Jan 28, 2015. We screened 117 patients, 106 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (54 to pitolisant and 52 to placebo) and, after dropout, 54 patients from the pitolisant group and 51 from the placebo group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The WCR during the stable dosing period compared with baseline was decreased by 75% (WCRfinal=2·27; WCRbaseline=9·15; WCRfinal/baseline=0·25) in patients who received pitolisant and 38% (WCRfinal=4·52; WCRbaseline=7·31; WCRfinal/baseline=0·62) in patients who received placebo (rate ratio 0·512; 95% CI 0·43-0·60, p<0·0001). Treatment-related adverse events were significantly more common in the pitolisant group than in the placebo group (15 [28%] of 54 vs 6 [12%] of 51; p=0·048). There were no serious adverse events, but one case of severe nausea in the pitolisant group. The most frequent adverse events in the pitolisant group (headache, irritability, anxiety, and nausea) were mild or moderate except one case of severe nausea. No withdrawal syndrome was detected following pitolisant treatment; one case was detected in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Pitolisant was well tolerated and efficacious in reducing cataplexy. If confirmed in long-term studies, pitolisant might constitute a useful first-line therapy for cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy, for whom there are currently few therapeutic options. FUNDING: Bioprojet, France.