Human abuse potential of brivaracetam in healthy recreational central nervous system depressant users

Assessment of the Safety Signal for the Abuse Potential of Pregabalin and Gabapentin Using the FAERS Database and Big Data Search Analytics

Introduction: The latest decade, an emerging issue has been the abuse potential of the gabapentinoids pregabalin and gabapentin. The aim of our study was to assess this safety signal combining two different methods of surveillance: search analytics big data and the FDA spontaneous reporting system database. Methods: Analysis of big data and the FAERS was used to detect pregabalin's and gabapentin's abuse potential in comparison with two controls, clonazepam and levetiracetam, and further, the correlation between these domains was investigated. Data from the United States between 2007 and 2020Q2 were analyzed. Results: The FAERS analysis revealed the following pattern of signals: clonazepam > pregabalin ≥ gabapentin > levetiracetam, for both the primary term "drug abuse and dependence" and the secondary terms (withdrawal, tolerance, overdose). The Google domain pattern was slightly different: clonazepam ≥ gabapentin ≥ pregabalin≥ levetiracetam. A monotonic correlation was found between FAERS and Google searches for gabapentin (r = 0.558; p < 0.001), pregabalin (r = 0.587; p < 0.001), and clonazepam (r = 0.295; p = 0.030). Conclusion: Our results revealed that there is preliminary evidence of a safety signal for the abuse potential of pregabalin and gabapentin. Analysis of the FAERS database, supplemented by big data search analytics, suggests that there is potential of using these methods as a supplementary tool to detect drug abuse-related safety signals in pharmacovigilance.

Safety and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam in epilepsy: In-depth pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of safety data for adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV), an antiepileptic drug (AED) of the racetam class, for treatment of focal seizures in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging trials (N01114 [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175929], N01193 [NCT00175825]) and three phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials (N01252 [NCT00490035], N01253 [NCT00464269], and N01358 [NCT01261325]) in patients aged ≥16 years with focal seizures, as well as a phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 16-week trial in patients aged ≥16 years with focal or generalized epilepsy (N01254 [NCT00504881]). Data are presented for the approved therapeutic dose range of 50-200 mg/day. Data for BRV administered intravenously (25-150 mg doses) were pooled separately from one phase III trial (N01258 NCT01405508]) and two clinical pharmacology trials (N01256 [Part B] [UCB Pharma, data on file]; EP0007 [NCT01796899]). Adverse events (AEs) of interest were summarized in relevant categories.

RESULTS

The safety pool comprised 1957 patients: 1271 receiving adjunctive BRV and 686 receiving placebo. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 66.9% with BRV versus 62.8% with placebo. The most frequently reported TEAEs with BRV (≥5% of patients) versus placebo were somnolence (13.3% vs. 7.9%), headache (10.5% vs. 11.5%), dizziness (10.0% vs. 7.0%), and fatigue (8.2% vs. 4.2%). Incidence of psychiatric disorder-related TEAEs was 11.3% with BRV versus 8.2% with placebo. Behavioral disorder-related TEAE incidence was low (4.0% with BRV vs. 2.5% with placebo). Irritability was reported in 2.7% of BRV-treated patients vs. 1.5% of patients receiving placebo; anger, aggression, and agitation were each reported by ≤1% of patients receiving BRV. Treatment-emergent adverse events potentially associated with psychosis were psychotic disorder (three patients on BRV vs. two patients on placebo), auditory hallucination, illusion, visual hallucination (one patient each on BRV), epileptic psychosis, and hallucination (one patient each on placebo). No additional safety concerns were identified in patients with intravenous (IV) BRV administration (n = 104).

CONCLUSIONS

These safety data for adjunctive BRV support its acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

Abuse potential assessment of cannabidiol (CBD) in recreational polydrug users: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

RATIONALE

Treatment with a highly purified oral solution of cannabidiol (CBD), derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L., demonstrated some evidence of central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse events in patients enrolled in phase 3 trials for treatment of childhood-onset epilepsy. Cannabidiol was categorized as a Schedule 1 substance by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration; therefore, it was important to test CBD for human abuse potential.

METHODS

This was a single-dose, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled crossover trial. The abuse potential of single oral doses of plant-derived pharmaceutical formulations of highly purified CBD (Epidiolex®; 750 mg, 1500 mg, and 4500 mg) was compared with that of single oral doses of alprazolam (2 mg), dronabinol (10 mg and 30 mg), and placebo in healthy recreational polydrug users. The primary endpoint to assess abuse potential was the maximum effect (E_max) on Drug-Liking visual analog scale (VAS). Other measurements included E_max on Overall Drug-Liking VAS, Take Drug Again VAS, positive and negative effects, other subjective effects, and Drug Similarity VAS. Cognitive and psychomotor functions were assessed using the Divided Attention Test, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, and the Digit-Symbol Substitution Task. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for CBD and its major metabolites. Standard safety measures and adverse events were assessed.

PRINCIPAL RESULTS

Of 95 eligible subjects, 43 qualified for the treatment phase, received at least 1 dose of investigational medicinal product, and were included in safety assessments; 35 subjects were included in the pharmacodynamic analysis. Subjects receiving alprazolam and dronabinol had significantly higher Drug-Liking E_max (P < 0.0001) compared with those receiving placebo, confirming study validity. Compared with placebo, Drug-Liking was not significantly different for subjects taking 750-mg CBD (P = 0.51). Drug-Liking E_max values for 1500-mg and 4500-mg CBD were significantly different from placebo (P = 0.04 and 0.002, respectively); however, the mean differences were <10 points on VAS compared with >18-point differences between positive controls and placebo. Alprazolam and dronabinol had significantly higher Drug-Liking, Overall-Liking, and Take Drug Again VAS E_max values compared with all doses of CBD (P ≤ 0.004). In contrast to alprazolam, CBD administration had no observable effect on cognitive/psychomotor tests. Pharmacokinetic parameters for CBD in this trial were consistent with previous studies. The majority of adverse events reported during the trial were of mild or moderate severity; no serious adverse events or deaths were reported.

CONCLUSION

Administration of a therapeutic dose of CBD (750 mg) showed significantly low abuse potential in a highly sensitive population of polydrug users. Although high and supratherapeutic doses of CBD (1500 mg and 4500 mg, respectively) had detectable subjective effects compared with placebo; the effects were significantly lower than those observed with alprazolam and dronabinol.