Perampanel for tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in patients with drug-resistant, primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE).

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01393743; funded by Eisai Inc.), patients 12 years or older with PGTC seizures and IGE were randomized to placebo or perampanel during a 4-week titration period (perampanel up titrated from 2 to 8 mg/d, or highest tolerated dose) and 13-week maintenance period. The primary endpoint was percent change in PGTC seizure frequency per 28 days (titration plus maintenance vs baseline). The key secondary endpoint (primary endpoint for European Union registration) was 50% PGTC seizure responder rate (patients achieving $50% reduction in PGTC seizure frequency; maintenance vs baseline). Treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

Of 164 randomized patients, 162 comprised the full analysis set (placebo, 81; perampanel, 81). Compared with placebo, perampanel conferred a greater median percent change in PGTC seizure frequency per 28 days (238.4%vs 276.5%; p , 0.0001) and greater 50%PGTC seizure responder rate (39.5% vs 64.2%; p 5 0.0019). During maintenance, 12.3% of placebo treated patients and 30.9%of perampanel-treated patients achieved PGTC seizure freedom. For the safety analysis (placebo, 82; perampanel, 81), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events with perampanel were dizziness (32.1%) and fatigue (14.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive perampanel was well tolerated and improved control of drug-resistant PGTC seizures in patients with IGE.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class I evidence that adjunctive perampanel reduces PGTC seizure frequency, compared with placebo, in patients with drug-resistant PGTC seizures in IGE.

Analysis of pooled phase III trials of adjunctive perampanel for epilepsy: Impact of mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics on clinical outcomes

AIM

To further explore the impact of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for focal epilepsy.

METHODS

Data were pooled from three phase III trials of adjunctive perampanel in patients (≥12 years of age) with refractory partial-onset seizures. Concomitant AEDs were categorized according to whether or not they were enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs; known to reduce perampanel plasma concentrations) or sodium channel blockers (SCBs). Post hoc analyses assessed the impact of co-administration of non-EIAED SCBs and the overall number of concomitant AEDs on changes in seizure frequency, 50% responder rates, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs, in patients randomized to receive daily placebo or perampanel 2, 4, 8, or 12mg.

RESULTS

Amongst 1480 randomized and treated patients, most were receiving two or more concomitant AEDs (n=1273, 86.0%), one or more EIAEDs (n=1083, 73.2%), and/or one or more SCBs (n=1203, 81.3%) at Baseline. The magnitude of seizure reduction appeared unaffected by the presence of non-EIAED SCBs, but lower in the presence of multiple AEDs. Frequency of TEAEs did not appear to be affected by the presence of non-EIAED SCBs or multiple AEDs.

CONCLUSION

Beyond the known interactions between perampanel and EIAEDs, perampanel efficacy appears to be unaffected by the use of concomitant non-EIAED SCBs, but may be reduced in the presence of multiple concomitant AEDs (possibly indicative of the presence of more refractory epilepsy). Nonetheless, with careful titration to balance efficacy and tolerability, perampanel may be combined with a range of AEDs, facilitating integration into treatment plans.

Psychiatric and behavioral adverse events in randomized clinical studies of the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist perampanel

Objective

Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive α‐amino‐3‐hydroxy‐5‐methyl‐4‐isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) glutamate receptor antagonist, is indicated for adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in patients ≥12 years based on three phase III clinical studies. The perampanel U.S. Prescribing Information includes a boxed warning for serious psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions. To provide context for this warning, detail on psychiatric and behavioral safety data from perampanel clinical studies is presented.

Methods

An analysis of pooled safety data from three phase III studies in patients with partial seizures is presented. Data from phase I and phase II studies in patients with and without epilepsy were also analyzed. Psychiatric and behavioral treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms, using “narrow” and “narrow‐and‐broad” standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) for TEAEs suggestive of hostility/aggression.

Results

From the three phase III partial‐seizure studies, the overall rate of psychiatric TEAEs was higher in the 8 mg (17.2%) and 12 mg (22.4%) perampanel groups versus placebo (12.4%). In the “narrow” SMQ, hostility/aggression TEAEs were observed in 2.8% for 8 mg and 6.3% for 12 mg perampanel groups, versus 0.7% of placebo patients. “Narrow‐and‐broad” SMQs for hostility/aggression TEAE rates were 12.3% for 8 mg and 20.4% for 12 mg perampanel groups, versus 5.7% for placebo; rates for events resulting in discontinuation were perampanel = 1.6% versus placebo = 0.7%. For events reported as serious AEs (SAEs), rates were perampanel = 0.7% versus placebo = 0.2%. In nonepilepsy patients, psychiatric TEAEs were similar between patients receiving perampanel and placebo. In phase I subjects/volunteers, all psychiatric TEAEs were mild or moderate. These analyses suggest that psychiatric adverse effects are associated with use of perampanel.

Significance

Patients and caregivers should be counseled regarding the potential risk of psychiatric and behavioral events with perampanel in patients with partial seizures; patients should be monitored for these events during treatment, especially during titration and at higher doses.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel in adolescent patients with drug-resistant partial seizures in three double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical studies and a combined extension study

OBJECTIVE

Assess perampanel's efficacy and safety as adjunctive therapy in adolescents (ages 12-17) with drug-resistant partial seizures.

METHODS

Adolescent patients enrolled in multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III core studies (studies 304, 305, or 306) completed 19-week, double-blind phase (6-week titration/13-week maintenance) with once-daily perampanel or placebo. Upon completion, patients were eligible for the extension (study 307), beginning with 16-week, blinded conversion, during which placebo patients switched to perampanel. Patients then entered the open-label treatment.

RESULTS

Of 1480 patients from the core studies, 143 were adolescents. Pooled adolescent data from these core studies demonstrated median percent decreases in seizure frequency for perampanel 8 mg (34.8%) and 12 mg (35.6%) were approximately twice that of placebo (18.0%). Responder rates increased with perampanel 8 mg (40.9%) and 12 mg (45.0%) versus placebo (22.2%). Adolescents receiving concomitant enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) had smaller reductions in seizure frequency (8 mg:31.6%; 12 mg:26.8%) than those taking non-inducing AEDs (8 mg:54.6%; 12 mg:52.7%). Relative to pre-perampanel baseline, seizure frequency and responder rates during the extension (Weeks 1-52) improved with perampanel. Most commonly reported adverse events in adolescents during the core studies were dizziness (20.4%), somnolence (15.3%), aggression (8.2%), decreased appetite (6.1%), and rhinitis (5.1%). Dizziness (13.2%), somnolence (11.6%), and aggression (6.6%) most often led to perampanel interruption/dose adjustment during the extension.

SIGNIFICANCE

Data demonstrated adjunctive perampanel treatment in adolescents with drug-resistant partial seizures produced better seizure control versus placebo, sustained seizure frequency improvements, and a generally favorable safety profile. Results were comparable to the overall study population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: Study 304: NCT00699972; 305: NCT00699582; 306: NCT00700310; Study 307: NCT00735397.

Perampanel in the treatment of partial seizures: Time to onset and duration of most common adverse events from pooled Phase III and extension studies

Perampanel (PER) is a novel noncompetitive AMPA-receptor antagonist approved in over 40 countries for treatment of partial seizures. The safety and tolerability of PER have been well-documented in three double-blind, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase III studies and an open-label extension (OLE). This post hoc analysis evaluated the occurrence and characteristics of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with PER. Results from the Phase III studies were pooled; post hoc analyses on the double-blind phase and up to 1 year of the OLE were performed on the four most common TEAEs for which incidence was higher for PER than PBO. The four most common TEAEs were dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and irritability. For most subjects in the Phase III double-blind studies, these TEAEs were observed during 6-week titration and were mild or moderate in severity. For severe AEs, no dose-response relationship was observed. Patients in the PBO group during Phase III (who therefore received their first PER treatment during OLE) experienced these TEAEs with incidence and timing similar to that of PER-treated patients in Phase III. The first onset of these TEAEs occurred during the early weeks of PER conversion in the OLE. After 6months and up to 1 year of PER treatment, low to no incidence of the first onset of the four TEAEs was observed. Post hoc analyses of data from pooled Phase III studies provide greater insight into occurrence/duration of TEAEs. Phase III double-blind and OLE data showed that dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and irritability were the most common TEAEs reported by patients taking PER. Additionally, these results suggest consistency between studies in patient responses to onset of these TEAEs. Although concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) might be predicted to affect development of TEAEs in patients taking PER, an effect was not observed in this analysis. The low incidence of TEAEs in these studies provides additional support for long-term PER treatment.

Perampanel efficacy and safety by gender: Subanalysis of phase III randomized clinical studies in subjects with partial seizures

The antiepileptic drug (AED) perampanel is approved in ≥40 countries as adjunctive therapy for drug‐resistant partial seizures in patients with epilepsy. This post hoc analysis of pooled data from three phase III, double‐blind, randomized studies of perampanel examines between‐gender differences in perampanel efficacy and safety. Of the 1,478 subjects in the pooled analysis (719 male, 759 female), 1,109 were included in the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. Perampanel oral clearance was 17% lower in female than in male patients not receiving enzyme‐inducing AEDs. Pooled efficacy analysis revealed that seizure frequency was reduced with perampanel treatment regardless of gender; a greater numerical reduction in seizure frequency and increased responder rates occurred in female participants at perampanel doses of 4, 8, and 12 mg. Tolerability was similar between groups, although common adverse events such as dizziness and headache occurred more frequently in female subjects. Modest elevations in perampanel exposure in female patients may result in meaningful between‐gender differences in efficacy and safety; therefore, dosing should be individualized and clinical response monitored.

Lack of effect of perampanel on QT interval duration: Results from a thorough QT analysis and pooled partial seizure Phase III clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Perampanel is a selective, noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist approved as adjunctive treatment for partial seizures. To assess potential for delayed cardiac repolarization, a Phase I thorough QT study was performed, supplemented by plasma concentration-QT data modeled from 3 pooled Phase III studies.

METHODS

The Phase I thorough QT study (double-blind, combined fixed-sequence, parallel-group) quantified the effect of perampanel (6 mg once daily for 7 days, followed by dose escalation to a single 8-mg dose, a single 10-mg dose, then 12 mg once daily for 7 days), moxifloxacin positive control (single 400-mg dose on Day 16), and placebo on QT interval duration in healthy subjects (N = 261). Electrocardiograms were recorded at baseline, Day 7 (post 6 mg dose), and Day 16 (post 12 mg dose). Statistical comparisons were between the highest approved perampanel dose (12 mg) versus placebo, a "mid-therapeutic" dose (6 mg) versus placebo, and moxifloxacin versus placebo. Acknowledging that the Phase I thorough QT study could not incorporate a true "supratherapeutic" dose due to length of titration and tolerability concerns in healthy subjects, Phase III studies of perampanel included expanded electrocardiogram safety evaluations specifically intended to support concentration-QT response modeling. The lack of effect of perampanel on the QT interval is shown from pooled analysis of 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 19-week, Phase III studies with perampanel doses ≤ 12 mg (N = 1038, total perampanel; and N=442, placebo) in patients with partial seizures. QT measures were corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's (QTcF; the primary endpoint) and Bazett's (QTcB) formulas.

RESULTS

In the Phase I thorough QT study, the positive control moxifloxacin caused peak time-matched, baseline-adjusted, placebo-corrected (ΔΔ) QTcF of 12.15 ms at 4h postdose, confirming a drug effect on QTc interval and study assessment sensitivity. Mean baseline-adjusted (Δ) QTcF versus nominal time curves were comparable between perampanel 12 mg and placebo, with most ΔQTcF values being slightly negative. Healthy subjects receiving perampanel 6 and 12 mg doses for 7 days showed no evidence of effects on cardiac repolarization. Peak ΔΔQTcF was 2.34 ms at 1.5h postdose for perampanel 6 mg and 3.92 ms at 0.5h postdose for perampanel 12 mg. At every time point, the upper 95% confidence limit of ΔΔQTcF for perampanel 6 and 12 mg was <10 ms. Phase III studies revealed no clinically significant difference between patients with partial seizures treated with perampanel or placebo in QTcF and QTcB values >450 ms, with no dose-dependent increases or large incremental changes from baseline of >60 ms. Regression analysis of individual plasma perampanel concentrations versus corresponding QTc interval values in Phase I thorough QT and Phase III studies demonstrated no relationship between perampanel concentrations and QT interval duration.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with perampanel 6 mg and 12 mg for 7 days did not delay cardiac repolarization in healthy volunteers. In a population analysis of 1480 patients with partial seizures treated with perampanel doses ≤ 12 mg or placebo, no clinically significant trends in QT interval data were noted. Based on the thorough QT study and evaluations from pooled Phase III studies, there is no evidence of prolonged QT interval duration with perampanel treatment.

Perampanel efficacy and tolerability with enzyme-inducing AEDs in patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of concomitant enzyme (CYP3A4)-inducer antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) on the efficacy and safety of perampanel in patients from the 3 phase-III clinical trials.

METHODS

Patients with pharmacoresistant partial-onset seizures in the 3 phase-III clinical studies were aged 12 years and older and receiving 1 to 3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Following 6-week baseline, patients were randomized to once-daily, double-blind treatment with placebo or perampanel 8 or 12 mg (studies 304 and 305) or placebo or perampanel 2, 4, or 8 mg (study 306).

RESULTS

Treatment response assessed by median percent reduction in seizure frequency and responder rates improved with perampanel compared with placebo. However, at 8 and 12 mg, the treatment response was significantly greater in patients receiving non-EIAEDs. The treatment effect (perampanel-placebo) also demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in all patients. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar regardless of the presence of EIAEDs. Occurrence of some adverse events, such as fatigue, somnolence, dizziness, irritability, was greater in patients receiving non-EIAEDs, as was discontinuation because of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel shows efficacy and safety in the presence and absence of EIAEDs. As systemic exposure to perampanel increases, so does efficacy. Given the extensive metabolism of perampanel, systemic exposure is clearly reduced with concomitant administration of CYP3A4 inducers. This supports the strategy of dosing perampanel to clinical effect. Recognition of these pharmacokinetic interactions will be important in the optimization of this novel medication.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class II evidence that 2 to 12 mg/d doses of perampanel reduced seizure frequency and improved responder rate in the presence and absence of EIAEDs.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel in the subgroup of elderly patients included in the phase III epilepsy clinical trials

Clinical data regarding use of antiepileptic drugs in the elderly are generally scarce. Therefore, a subanalysis of subjects aged ≥ 65 years who participated in the 3 phase III perampanel studies was undertaken to determine efficacy and safety in these patients. Efficacy (change in seizure frequency/28 days and 50% responder rate) in the elderly subgroup was found to be consistent with the adult population. Adverse event rates were also largely similar, with some exceptions. Because risks of falls, dizziness, and fatigue were greater in the elderly, careful titration of perampanel in patients aged ≥ 65 years is suggested, especially at higher doses, where balancing tolerability and clinical response is necessary.

The practical impact of altered dosing on perampanel plasma concentrations: pharmacokinetic modeling from clinical studies

RATIONALE

Perampanel is a selective AMPA receptor antagonist approved for adjunctive therapy in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. Perampanel is metabolized primarily via CYP3A4, yet it has a relatively long half-life of 105h; it is, therefore, recommended that perampanel be given once daily (preferably at bedtime). Many patients occasionally have less-than-perfect adherence to their drug regimen, and given the known pharmacokinetic interactions of perampanel with commonly used enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs), we explored the effects of a missed dose on steady-state perampanel plasma concentrations and the ramifications of "make up" doses in these patients. Although perampanel is approved for once-daily dosing, some clinicians may elect to give perampanel as a divided dose (i.e., twice daily), so we also sought to examine the pharmacokinetic impact of twice- versus once-daily dosing.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetic simulations were performed using validated perampanel pharmacokinetic parameters, derived from 19 phase I studies in 606 subjects, to investigate the effect on perampanel plasma concentration of (1) missing a dose of perampanel followed by delayed replacement of the missed dose, (2) missing a dose followed by resumption of scheduled therapy, and (3) missing a dose in the presence/absence of carbamazepine. Simulations were done for a typical patient receiving an 8-mg once-daily or a 4-mg twice-daily dose using the nonlinear mixed effects program, NONMEM v7.2, in conjunction with PDx-pop v5.

RESULTS

Our results corroborate that given the pharmacokinetic characteristics of perampanel, a missed dose is unlikely to cause as much fluctuation in plasma concentration as would be expected for a drug with a short half-life. Importantly, simulations suggest that supplementing a missed dose 6-12h later, followed by continuation of the regular schedule, may not result in any significant "spikes" in perampanel plasma concentrations. Simulations demonstrated that twice-daily dosing offered little advantage in further flattening the concentration-time profile of perampanel in the adherent patient. However, fluctuations in plasma concentrations are minimized by twice-daily dosing in patients receiving concomitant EIAEDs.

CONCLUSIONS

These pharmacokinetic simulations suggest that the long half-life of perampanel may be advantageous in conferring a relatively smooth concentration-time profile with a once-daily or twice-daily dosing, even in the presence of concomitant EIAEDs. However, the results of the present study suggest that perampanel replacement is recommended for patients taking an EIAED to mitigate the potential risks associated with reduced exposure. Confirmation of the ultimate clinical impact of these findings will require further study.

Perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures: a pooled dose-response analysis of phase III studies

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the relationship between efficacy and perampanel dose, integrated actual (last) dose data from three phase III trials and an extension study (blinded Conversion Period; open-label Maintenance Period) were analyzed.

METHODS

Seizure frequency data were analyzed in patients who were randomized to and completed the 13-week Maintenance Period of the phase III studies on perampanel 8 mg, and who received an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during (1) the extension 16-week blinded Conversion Period or (2) weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period. Due to a treatment-by-region interaction (p = 0.042), analyses excluded patients from the Latin America region (n = 162/1,480; 10.9% of the treated cohort).

RESULTS

Of 372 patients randomized to 8 mg in the phase III studies, 273 completed the Maintenance Period at 8 mg and 267 entered the extension study. In patients who then had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during the extension blinded Conversion Period (n = 217), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -32.4% (8 mg, phase III Maintenance Period) to -44.2% (12 mg, extension blinded Conversion Period); 50% responder rates increased slightly from 37.3% to 42.9%. In patients who completed the phase III studies on 8 mg and had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period (n = 181), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -34.1% (phase III Maintenance Period) to -46.0% (weeks 1-13 extension Maintenance Period); 50% responder rates were 39.2% and 46.4%. Seizure control remained substantially unchanged in patients who completed the phase III studies at 12 mg and continued on that dose during the extension.

SIGNIFICANCE

Increasing perampanel dose from 8 to 12 mg can produce additional benefits in seizure control in at least some patients who tolerate the higher dose.

Development of perampanel in epilepsy

Alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA)-type glutamate receptors play a key role in mediating glutamatergic transmission in the cortex. Perampanel (2-[2-oxo-1-phenyl-5-pyridin-2-yl-1,2-dihydropyridin-3-yl] benzonitrile) is a potent, orally active, highly selective, non-competitive AMPA-type glutamate receptor antagonist, identified via a focused discovery program at Eisai Research Laboratories. Development of perampanel as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures was planned in keeping with regulatory guidance and guidelines on antiepileptic drug (AED) development. This is the first AED with a specific action on glutamate-mediated excitatory neurotransmission to show evidence of efficacy and tolerability in reducing treatment-refractory partial-onset seizures in Phase III clinical trials. Perampanel (Fycompa(®)) has been approved in the EU and the United States for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures.

Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial-onset seizures: interim results from phase III, extension study 307

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety, tolerability, and seizure outcome data during long-term treatment with once-daily adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/day) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures.

METHODS

Study 307 was an extension study for patients completing the double-blind phase of three pivotal phase III trials (studies 304, 305, and 306). The study consisted of two phases: an open-label treatment phase (including a 16-week blinded conversion period and a planned 256-week maintenance period) and a 4-week follow-up phase. Patients were blindly titrated during the conversion period to their individual maximum tolerated dose (maximum 12 mg/day). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study and seizure frequency recorded. The interim data cutoff date for analyses was December 1, 2010.

KEY FINDINGS

In total, 1,218 patients were enrolled in the study. At the interim cutoff date, 1,186 patients were in the safety analysis set; 1,089 (91.8%) patients had >16 weeks of exposure to perampanel, 580 (48.9%) patients had >1 year of exposure, and 19 (1.6%) patients had >2 years of exposure. At the interim analysis, 840 (70.8%) patients remained on perampanel treatment. The large majority of patients (n = 1,084 [91%]) were titrated to 10 mg or 12 mg/day. Median (range) duration of exposure was 51.4 (1.1-128.1) weeks. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 87.4% of patients. The most frequent were dizziness (43.9%), somnolence (20.2%), headache (16.7%), and fatigue (12.1%). Serious AEs were reported in 13.2% of patients. In the intent-to-treat analysis set (n = 1,207), the frequency of all seizures decreased over the first 26 weeks of perampanel treatment in patients with at least 26 weeks of exposure to perampanel (n = 1,006 [83.3%]); this reduction was maintained in patients with at least 1 year of exposure (n = 588 [48.7%]). The overall median percent changes in seizure frequency in patients included in each 13-week interval of perampanel treatment were -39.2% for weeks 14-26 (n = 1,114), -46.5% for weeks 40-52 (n = 731), and -58.1% for weeks 92-104 (n = 59). Overall responder rates in patients included in each 13-week interval of perampanel treatment were 41.4% for weeks 14-26 (n = 1,114), 46.9% for weeks 40-52 (n = 731), and 62.7% for weeks 92-104 (n = 59). During the blinded conversion period, the reduction in seizure frequency in patients previously randomized to placebo (-42.4%, n = 369) was similar to that in patients previously randomized to perampanel (-41.5%, n = 817).

SIGNIFICANCE

Consistent with pivotal phase III trials, these interim results demonstrated that perampanel had a favorable tolerability profile in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures over the longer term. The decrease in seizure frequency was consistent and maintained in those patients over at least 1 year of perampanel exposure.

Adjunctive perampanel for refractory partial-onset seizures: randomized phase III study 304

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and safety of once-daily 8 or 12 mg perampanel, a noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, when added to concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of drug-resistant partial-onset seizures.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00699972). Patients (≥12 years, with ongoing seizures despite 1-3 AEDs) were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily perampanel 8 mg, 12 mg, or placebo. Following baseline (6 weeks), patients entered a 19-week double-blind phase: 6-week titration (2 mg/week increments to target dose) followed by a 13-week maintenance period. Percent change in seizure frequency was the primary endpoint; 50% responder rate was the primary endpoint for EU registration.

RESULTS

Of 388 patients randomized and treated, 387 provided seizure frequency data. Using this intent-to-treat population over the double-blind phase, the median percent change in seizure frequency was -21.0%, -26.3%, and -34.5% for placebo and perampanel 8 and 12 mg, respectively (p = 0.0261 and p = 0.0158 for 8 and 12 mg vs placebo, respectively). Fifty percent responder rates during the maintenance period were 26.4%, 37.6%, and 36.1%, respectively, for placebo, perampanel 8 mg, and perampanel 12 mg; these differences were not statistically significant for 8 mg (p = 0.0760) or 12 mg (p = 0.0914). Sixty-eight (17.5%) patients discontinued, including 40 (10.3%) for adverse events. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, irritability, headache, fall, and ataxia.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrated that once-daily, adjunctive perampanel at doses of 8 or 12 mg improved seizure control in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures. Doses of perampanel 8 and 12 mg were safe, and tolerability was acceptable.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class I evidence that once-daily 8 and 12 mg doses of adjunctive perampanel are effective in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.

GW320659 for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of GW320659, a chemically novel inhibitor of norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake, in pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHOD

This was a multicenter, open-label, dose-titration study of seven daily dose levels of GW320659: 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7.5,10,12.5, and 15 mg. Treatment began with the lowest dose of GW320659 and increased weekly until subjects (mean age 9.1 years) achieved a maximum acceptable dose. Subjects remained at their maximum acceptable dose for a 4-week treatment period. The key efficacy end-point was clinical response (Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement score of 1 or 2 and an improvement of 5 or more points on at least one of the Conners Parent or Teacher Rating Scales Tscore). Other end-points included assessments of safety and of quality of life using the Child Health Questionnaire Parent Form 28 (CHQ-PF28).

RESULTS

Fifty-one subjects entered the titration phase and 46 subjects completed the study. During the treatment phase, these 46 subjects received a mean dose of 14.2 mg/day and the maximum exposure to GW320659 was 11 weeks. At the end of the treatment period, 76% of subjects showed improvement with GW320659 and there were significant improvements in 7 of the 12 subscales of the CHQ-PF28 compared with baseline (p < .05). Adverse events were generally mild; only five subjects required downward titration because of adverse events (three psychiatric, one neurological and urological, one cardiovascular), and no subject withdrew because of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

GW320659 may have clinically relevant efficacy in pediatric ADHD and was well tolerated in this short-term initial study in children.