Abstracts

Rationale: Seizure clusters occur in many patients with epilepsy, despite treatment with antiepileptic medications. With the recent advancement of the Diazepam buccal film (DBF), patients have more hope and freedom through increased autonomy for managing their seizure clusters.

Methods: This third-party survey consisted of a 20-minute online survey of 101 qualified patients of 18 years of age and older who experience cluster seizures. Patients were asked a series of questions about their cluster seizure treatment before introducing treatment options. These questions centered around the patients’ experiences, concerns, and aspirations for improved therapies. Patients were also shown a brief video of packaging similar to DBF and packaging identical to diazepam nasal spray (DNS). After watching the video, patients were then asked an additional set of questions focused on their preference between the two treatment options.

Results: In total, 101 patients responded to the questionnaire. 60% of the participants were female, and 40% were male. In addition, 76% of patients were between 26-60 years of age, while 17% and 8% were between 18-25 and 61-85 years of age, respectively. Of the 101 patients, 83% reported having a medium or high level of concern about the possibility of having cluster seizures in a public place, and 58% responded that they had had cluster seizures in a public place. Moreover, despite the high level of concern over cluster seizures in public areas and the potential need for self-administration, only 10% of responders carry their current medication. This is despite 76% of respondents being “somewhat concerned” or “highly concerned” about not having their medication at arm’s length when not at home. In the second part of the survey, patients were asked a series of questions after being shown a brief video of packaging similar to the DBF and the DNS.

The findings clearly show a patient preference for DBF. First, 80% of respondents indicated they would usually or always have the film product within arm’s length. In comparison, only 38% told they would usually or always have the nasal spray product within arm’s length. Second, 89% of respondents believe a buccal film would fit in their pocket, while 80% indicated they would need an additional carrying case to carry the nasal spray. Third, 72% of respondents indicated they prefer or strongly prefer the buccal film when asked about the “likelihood of having the medicine with me when I need it.” In contrast, only 11% of respondents indicated they prefer or strongly prefer a nasal spray. When given the statement “my feeling a greater sense of independence,” 67% of respondents preferred or strongly preferred the buccal film, while 7% preferred or strongly preferred the nasal spray.

Conclusions: This survey results strongly confirm the need for highly portable rescue medications, in proximity, with the potential for self-administration where and when they are needed. These survey results substantiate the significant contribution to patient care that DBF offers.

Funding: Please list any funding that was received in support of this abstract.: Aquestive Therapeutics.