Spesolimab: A Review of the First IL-36 Blocker Approved for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews clinical trial data that assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical application of spesolimab, an interleukin-36 (IL-36) blocker, for the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was conducted using the search terms: "spesolimab," "BI 655130," and "spevigo" in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 1950 to October 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant articles in English relating to the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of spesolimab were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: In one phase 2 clinical trial evaluating single dose IV spesolimab for GPP flares at day 8, 54% of patients receiving spesolimab had a GPP physician global assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0, and 43% had a GPPGA total score of 0 compared with 6% and 11% for the placebo group, respectively. Another phase 2 clinical trial assessing subcutaneous spesolimab found 23% of patients in low-dose, 29% in medium-dose, and 10% of high-dose spesolimab had flares by week 48 compared with 52% of the placebo group. Hazard ratios for time to GPP flare compared with placebo were 0.16 (P = 0.0005), 0.35 (P = 0.0057), and 0.47 (P = 0.027) for the spesolimab groups, respectively. Infection rates were similar across treatment and placebo groups, and severe adverse events such as drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS), cholelithiasis, and breast cancer occurred with spesolimab. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS: Spesolimab is a first-in-class IL-36 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of acute GPP flares. It is a safe and effective therapeutic agent in preventing future GPP flares, with no current comparator trials with other GPP agents. CONCLUSION: Spesolimab is a safe and effective treatment for acute GPP flares in adults. Future clinical trials can establish safety and efficacy compared with other agents.

Source Localization of Normal Variants Seen on EEG.

PURPOSE: The EEG is an essential neurological diagnostic tool. EEG abnormalities can guide diagnosis and management of epilepsy. There are also distinctive EEG waveforms that are seen in healthy individuals. It is critical not to misinterpret these as abnormal. To emphasize the importance of these waveforms, we analyzed different normal variants via the source localization technology. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of EEGs performed at the Duke University Hospital between June 2014 and Dec 2019. We selected samples of vertex waves, Mu, lambda, POSTS, wickets, and sleep spindles for analysis. EEG were imported to Curry 8 (Compumedics) to calculate the dipole and current density. The averaged head model from the Montreal Neurological Institute database was used for reconstruction. RESULTS: Thirty-four patient EEG samples were selected including five vertex, six Mu, four wicket, seven lambda, five POSTS, and seven spindles. Results from source localization showed that vertex waves are localized in the frontocentral area, whereas spindles in the deep midline central region. Mu were identified in the ipsilateral somatosensory cortex. Lambda and POSTS, on the other hand, had maximum results over the bilateral occipital region and wickets in the ipsilateral temporal lobe. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm and expand previous hypotheses. This allows us to speculate on the origin of these normal EEG variants. Although this study is limited by small sample size, lack of high-density EEG, and patient-specific MRI, our analysis provides an easily replicable three-dimensional visualization of these waveforms.

Prevalence of denervation in the intrinsic foot muscles in patients with distal predominantly small fiber neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the significance of electromyographic findings in the intrinsic foot muscles (IFMs) of patients with skin biopsy proven small fiber neuropathy (SFN). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent skin biopsy for intra-epidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) measurement and electrodiagnostic (EDX) study for evaluation of polyneuropathy. RESULTS: A total of 1416 patents with normal lower extremity EDX studies proximal to the foot were included. Active denervation was seen in 16.1% of IFMs in patients with skin biopsy proven SFN and 4.1% of patients without SFN (P < .0001). Reinnervation changes without active denervation were observed in 30.4% of SFN patients and 23.8% of patients without SFN (P = .01). IENFD was lower in SFN patients with active denervation in IFMs than without (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of active denervation in the IFMs can reveal large fiber dysfunction in SFN patients with otherwise normal routine EDX findings.

Reliability of Robotic Telemedicine for Assessing Critically Ill Patients with the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score and Glasgow Coma Scale.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine is increasingly utilized in the evaluation of critically ill patients, including those with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) or coma. Improving access to providers with neurologic expertise affords earlier triage and directed patient management. However, objective data regarding the reliability of using standardized coma scales, traditionally employed at the bedside for remote assessment, are largely lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Bedside and remote assessments of patients with decreased LOC, using either the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or Full scale Of UnResponsiveness (FOUR), score are equivalent. METHODS: Prospective trial comparing the reliability of bedside and remote coma assessments using GCS or FOUR score clinical evaluation tools utilizing robotic telepresence technology. Total scores of the GCS and FOUR score were compared between bedside and remote physician assessors by paired t-test and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). RESULTS: One hundred subjects were enrolled. Mean age was 70.8 (±15.9) years and the average examination time took 5.16 (±2.04) minutes. Mean GCS total score at bedside was 7.5 (±3.67) versus examination conducted remotely 7.23 (±3.85); difference in scores was 0.25 (±0.10); p = 0.01. Mean FOUR total score at bedside was 9.63 (±4.76) versus remote 9.21 (±4.74); difference in scores was 0.40 (±2.00); p = 0.05. PCC for GCS was 0.966; p < 0.001, and for FOUR score 0.912; p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent of remote providers rated GCS and 89% rated FOUR score as good (4/5) regarding overall satisfaction and ease of use. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between total bedside and remote GCS and FOUR scores were small. Furthermore, PCCs between remote and bedside assessments were excellent: 0.97 (GCS) and 0.91 (FOUR). These results suggest that LOC can be reliably assessed using existing robotic telemedicine technology. Telemedicine could be adopted to help evaluate critically ill patients in neurologically underserved areas.

Zonisamide add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (12 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 February 2013), SCOPUS (13 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (13 February 2013). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing/unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of zonisamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes were: (1) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (2) treatment withdrawal; (3) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. All studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and presented in a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials (949 participants) were included. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 2.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.54). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 to 500 mg per day) was 1.92 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.42). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 6 for this outcome. Two trials provide evidence of a dose response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.64 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.25) and for 100 to 500 mg per day was 1.47 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.01). NNT for this outcome was 21. The CIs of the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia 3.77 (99% CI 1.28 to 11.11); somnolence 1.83 (99% CI 1.08 to 3.11); agitation 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27) and anorexia 2.71 (99% CI 1.29 to 5.69). Across the 5 studies, risk of bias domains were rated as low is bias or unclear. None of the evidence for outcomes was downgraded for quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Zonisamide has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. In this review minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses cannot be identified. The trials reviewed were of a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks in duration and results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of effectiveness in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.