Perampanel as first add-on choice on the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: an observational real-life study

Perampanel in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice data from the PERampanel as Only Concomitant antiseizure medication (PEROC) study

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is one of the most common causes of acquired epilepsy. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence regarding the clinical profile of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in PSE. This study aims to evaluate the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on treatment in patients with PSE in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of PSE patients included in a previous retrospective, longitudinal, multicentre observational study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency and adverse events were collected at 3, 6 and 12 months. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 56 individuals with PSE, characterized by varying initial treatment modalities and timeframes relative to disease onset. We found notable retention rates (92.8%, 83.7%, and 69% at 3, 6, and 12 months), with treatment withdrawal mainly due to poor tolerability. One year after PER introduction, seizure frequency significantly reduced, with a responder rate (≥50% reduction) of 83.9% and a seizure-free rate of 51.6%. Adverse events occurred in 25 (46.3%) patients, mainly dizziness, irritability, and behavioural disorders. No major statistical differences were found between early (30 patients, 53.6%) and late add-on groups, except for a higher 6-month responder rate in the early add-on group.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated in patients with PSE in a real-world setting. Perampanel demonstrated good efficacy and safety as both early and late add-on treatment, making it a compelling option for this unique patient population.

PERPRISE: A prospective non-interventional study of PERampanel as only adjunctive treatment in patients with PRImary or SEcondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures: First interim analysis

OBJECTIVE

To report the interim results of the PERPRISE study (Study 509; NCT04202159), which is evaluating perampanel as the only adjunctive anti-seizure medication (ASM) in adults with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

PERPRISE is an ongoing 12-month multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional study of perampanel in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients are aged ≥18 years with FBTCS or GTCS due to focal or idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Perampanel, as an adjunctive therapy to ASM monotherapy ('add-on therapy') or as a substitute for one ASM in dual therapy ('substitution therapy'), is prescribed in line with its SmPC. The Interim Analysis Set comprises the first 100 patients who received ≥1 dose of perampanel and attended or discontinued prior to the ~6-month visit. Interim endpoints include retention rate, measures of effects on seizure frequency, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included in the Interim Analysis Set (add-on, n = 43 [43.0%]; substitution, n = 55 [55.0%]; unknown, n = 2). The 6-month retention rate was 78.0% (add-on, 83.7%; substitution, 72.7%). For the overall population with GTCS and/or FBTCS, seizure-freedom rate at 6 months was 58.8% (add-on, 72.2%; substitution, 47.9%) and 50% responder rate at 6 months was 82.6% (add-on, 89.2%; substitution, 76.6%). Retention rates and seizure outcomes were better with perampanel as an early-line treatment than as a late-line treatment. TEAEs were reported by 48 patients (48.0%), most commonly dizziness (n = 9), fatigue (n = 7), and irritability (n = 7). Sixteen patients (16.0%) withdrew from perampanel treatment due to TEAEs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The interim analysis of PERPRISE offers insight into the real-world use of perampanel in Germany, including for the first time, clinical practice data from patients with GTCS and switching ASMs within a dual therapy. Further data from PERPRISE will be of value to inform clinical decision-making in this patient cohort.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Patients with epilepsy often take more than one medication for seizure control. This 12month study looked at patients in Germany receiving perampanel as only add-on medication. The interim analysis shows, that at 6 months, over 70% of the 100 patients continued to use perampanel; 59% experienced no seizures during treatment with perampanel, and in 83%, seizure frequency was reduced by half. Side effects occurred in 48% of patients (most commonly dizziness, fatigue, and irritability) and caused 16% to withdraw from the study. Overall, perampanel was a suitable as only add-on medication for patients with epilepsy.

Effectiveness analysis of three-drug combination therapies for refractory focal epilepsy

Selecting appropriate antiseizure medications (ASMs) for combination therapy in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is a complex task that requires an empirical approach, especially in patients receiving polytherapy. We aimed to analyze the effectiveness of various three-drug combinations in a group of patients with DRE under real-world conditions. This single-center, longitudinal observational study investigated patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who received three-drug regimens in the outpatient clinic of Tongji Hospital from September 2019 to December 2022. The effectiveness of each triple regimen was evaluated by the seizure-free rate and within-patient ratio of the seizure frequency (a seizure frequency ratio [SFR]<1 indicated superior efficacy). The independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used for effectiveness analysis, and P values were adjusted by the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple comparisons. A total of 511 triple trials comprising 76 different regimens were conducted among 323 enrolled patients. Among these triple regimens, lamotrigine (LTG)/valproic acid (VPA)/topiramate (TPM) was the most frequently prescribed (29.4%, n ​= ​95). At the last clinical visit, 14.9% (n ​= ​48) of patients achieved seizure freedom after receiving triple therapy. LTG/VPA/TPM and LTG/VPA/levetiracetam (LEV) exhibited the highest seizure-free rates at 17.9% and 12.8%, respectively. These two regimens also had significantly lower median SFRs of 0.48 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.17-0.85; adjusted P ​< ​0.001) and 0.63 (IQR, 0.21-1.04; adjusted P ​< ​0.01), respectively. LTG/VPA/perampanel (PER) was another promising regimen that showed marginal effectiveness (median SFR ​= ​0.67; adjusted P ​= ​0.053). LTG/VPA/phenobarbital had the highest incidence of regimen-specific side effects (40.0%, 4/10), while the incidence of side effects from LTG/VPA/LEV was minimal (5.1%, 2/39). In conclusion, LTG/VPA/TPM and LTG/VPA/LEV exhibited superior efficacy and good tolerability in treating patients with DRE. Our results provide preliminary insights into the selection of ASMs for three-drug combination therapies in this clinically challenging population.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel: a Chinese real-world observational study in epilepsy

Purpose

To investigate whether there exists a statistically significant distinction between the effectiveness and tolerance of perampanel (PER) and the number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) that were tried prior to administering PER.

Method

A prospective, observational study was performed at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The study included patients diagnosed with epilepsy who were prescribed PER and were monitored for a minimum of 6 months. The efficacy of PER was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month intervals by examining the retention rate and the 50% response rate. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York).

Results

A total of 1,025 patients were identified, of which 836 were included in the analysis. Seven hundred and eighty-nine patients (94.4%) were followed up for a year. The median age of the patients was 29.32 ± 14.06 years, with 45.81% of the patients being male and 17.0% being adolescents. The average duration of epilepsy was 11.22 ± 8.93 years. Overall, PER was discontinued in 49.5% of patients, with the most common reasons being inadequate therapeutic effect and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At the 6-month follow-up, the retention rate was 54.2% (454/836), and 39.6% of patients had a 50% response. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rate was 49.4% (340/789), and 44.5% of patients had a 50% response. Patients who received PER as monotherapy had the highest retention rates (P = 0.034) and 50% response rates (P < 0.001) at any follow-up point. TEAEs were reported in 32.0% of patients, and these led to discontinuation in 15.4% of patients. The most common TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence. There was no significant difference between subgroups (P = 0.57), but there was a significant difference between the dosage of PER and TEAEs (P < 0.001).

Main findings

The study concludes that PER is effective in treating both focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients who had fewer previous exposures to ASMs exhibited higher response rates to PER. TEAEs related to PER dosage were more prevalent during the first 3 months of treatment and tended to improve with continued use, ultimately demonstrating favorable long-term tolerability.

Perampanel as only add-on epilepsy treatment in elderly: A subgroup analysis of real-world data from retrospective, multicenter, observational study

INTRODUCTION

Drug management of epilepsy in the elderly presents unique but data on this population are scarce. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on to a background anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the elderly in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years included in a previous 12-month multicenter study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

The sample included 65 subjects (mean age: 75.7 ± 7.2 years), with mainly focal (73.8%) epilepsy. The mean PER daily dose was ≈4 mg during all follow-up. Retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 90.5%, 89.6%, and 79.4%ly. The baseline median normalized per 28-day seizure number significantly decreased at 3-, 6- and 12-month visits. One year after PER introduction, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency) was 89.7%, with a seizure freedom rate of 72.4%. Adverse events occurred in 22 (34.9%) patients with dizziness and irritability being the most frequent. No major differences between early (41 patients, 63.1%), and late add-on groups were observed.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated when used as only add-on treatment in elderly people with epilepsy in clinical practice, thus representing a suitable therapeutic option in this age category.

Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of perampanel by age group when used to treat people with focal and generalized epilepsy in clinical practice: The PERMIT Extension study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated in everyday clinical practice for focal and generalized seizures, both in the total cohort and by age group.

METHODS

The PERMIT Extension study was a pooled analysis of data from PWE included in two large previous clinical practice studies (PERMIT and PROVE). Retention was assessed over 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed based on total seizures and by seizure type (focal and generalized) after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment and at final follow-up (last observation carried forward; "last visit"); assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout PER treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs). All assessments were conducted for the total population and by age category (<12, ≥12 to <18, ≥18 to <65, and ≥65 years at baseline).

RESULTS

Full Analysis Set included 6,822 PWE (51.1% female; mean age, 36.9 years; mean duration of epilepsy 21.4 years) with 6,433, 4,648, and 6,233 PWE assessed for retention, effectiveness, and safety/tolerability, respectively. The majority of PWE (81.1%) were aged 18-64 at baseline, with 4.5% aged <12 years, 8.4% aged 12-17 years, and 5.9% aged ≥65 years. In the overall population, retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 88.0%, 77.6%, and 61.4%, respectively; responder rates at 12 months were 58.5% for total seizures, 54.6% for focal seizures, and 77.7% for generalized seizures, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.6%, 19.0%, and 51.3%, respectively. PER was effective regardless of age category, although effectiveness was greatest in PWE aged ≥65 years, for both focal and generalized seizures. In the overall population, the incidence of AEs was 49.2% and the most frequent AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (13.4%), somnolence (8.8%), irritability (7.3%), and behavioral disorders (5.3%); AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 18.3% of PWE over 12 months. The incidence of AEs and the discontinuation rate due to AEs increased with increasing age (55.0% and 23.9%, respectively, in PWE aged ≥65 years).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the largest pooled analysis of PER clinical practice data conducted to date, PER was shown to be effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, regardless of age category. No new or unexpected side effects emerged following long-term use in the real-world setting.

The broad-spectrum activity of perampanel: state of the art and future perspective of AMPA antagonism beyond epilepsy

Glutamate is the brain's main excitatory neurotransmitter. Glutamatergic neurons primarily compose basic neuronal networks, especially in the cortex. An imbalance of excitatory and inhibitory activities may result in epilepsy or other neurological and psychiatric conditions. Among glutamate receptors, AMPA receptors are the predominant mediator of glutamate-induced excitatory neurotransmission and dictate synaptic efficiency and plasticity by their numbers and/or properties. Therefore, they appear to be a major drug target for modulating several brain functions. Perampanel (PER) is a highly selective, noncompetitive AMPA antagonist approved in several countries worldwide for treating different types of seizures in various epileptic conditions. However, recent data show that PER can potentially address many other conditions within epilepsy and beyond. From this perspective, this review aims to examine the new preclinical and clinical studies-especially those produced from 2017 onwards-on AMPA antagonism and PER in conditions such as mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, idiopathic and genetic generalized epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy, status epilepticus, rare epileptic syndromes, stroke, sleep, epilepsy-related migraine, cognitive impairment, autism, dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases, as well as provide suggestions on future research agenda aimed at probing the possibility of treating these conditions with PER and/or other AMPA receptor antagonists.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

Introduction

The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

Results

The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p &lt; 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p &lt; 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p &lt; 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p &lt; 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p &lt; 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p &lt; 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p &lt; 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031).

Discussion

This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in patients with seizures in real-world clinical practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as add-on treatment or monotherapy in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older in routine clinical practice.

Methods: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for observational studies of PER published up to 1 March 2022. The outcomes of interest were responder rates, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential factors that might affect the efficacy and safety of PER usage.

Results: A total of 56 studies, which included 10,688 patients, were enrolled. The results showed that after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, the pooled 50% responder rates in patients with epilepsy were 50.0% (95% CI: 0.41–0.60), 44.0% (95% CI: 0.38–0.50), and 39.0% (95% CI: 0.31–0.48), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 24.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.32), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.25), and 20.0% (95% CI: 0.16–0.24), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy of PER could be affected by the way in which PER is administrated. Patients in the groups where PER was used as the first add-on, primary monotherapy, or combined with non–enzyme-inducing AEDs (non-EIAEDs) displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate when compared with those in the late add-on, conversion therapy, or combined with the EIAEDs groups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment were 46% (95% CI: 0.38–0.55), 52.0% (95% CI: 0.43–0.60), and 46.0% (95% CI: 0.40–0.52), respectively. The withdrawal rates due to AEs were 8.0% (95% CI: 0.06–0.11), 16.0% (95% CI: 0.13–0.20), and 16% (95% CI: 0.11–0.21) at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed a higher withdrawal rate in the rapid (30%, 95% CI: 0.22–0.38) than in the slow (12%, 95% CI: 0.06–0.18) titration group.

Conclusion: Altogether, PER was effective and could be fairly tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage in patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, PER appeared to be more effective when PER was used as the first add-on, monotherapy, or concomitant with non-EIAEDs.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022384532.

Comparison of the retention rate, safety, and efficacy of two different titration protocols for lamotrigine in newly diagnosed epilepsy patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the retention rate, safety, and efficacy of two different lamotrigine (LTG) titration protocols for newly diagnosed epilepsy patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated newly diagnosed epilepsy patients taking LTG from January 2012 to December 2021. In one titration protocol, LTG was taken once daily; in the other, LTG was taken twice daily. Clinical characteristics, seizure outcomes, adverse effects and patient retention rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients were included. There was no significant difference in seizure outcomes or adverse effects between patients treated with LTG once daily and twice daily. However, the retention rates were significantly higher in the once-daily group than in the twice-daily group (73.03% and 55.77%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of LTG were not significantly different between the two different LTG titration protocols groups. However, the retention rate of the patients treated with LTG once daily was higher than that of the patients treated with LTG twice daily.

Psychiatric and Behavioural Side Effects Associated With Perampanel in Patients With Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. A Real-World Experience

Psychiatric and behavioural side effects are common, undesirable effects associated with antiseizure medication use. Temporal lobe epilepsy is the most common focal epilepsy in adults and it is frequently associated with drug resistance. Patients with intractable epilepsy are more likely to have psychiatric and behavioural side effects when taking antiseizure medications and seem to be at higher risk for psychiatric comorbidities. Perampanel is a novel anti-seizure medication approved for focal and generalised epilepsies as add-on therapy. This is a 12-week short-term observational prospective study on people with focal epilepsy consecutively recruited from an Italian tertiary epilepsy centre, aimed to compare incidence and severity of psychiatric and behavioural side effects associated with perampanel use in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy as compared to other focal epilepsies. All patients received add-on perampanel according to indication and clinical judgement. Incidence and severity of psychiatric and behavioural side effects were rated by Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire. All patients enrolled answered the questionnaire before starting perampanel and after 12 weeks of treatment. We found no significant difference in terms of incidence and severity of psychiatric and behavioural side effects associated with perampanel in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy as compared to other focal epilepsies. In line with the literature, the most common adverse effects were “irritability” for both groups and “aggression” for patients with other focal epilepsies.

Long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy: Three-year extension study

PURPOSE

We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This retrospective study represented the 3-year extension phase of a multicenter, open-label, phase 4, prospective study of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy. Seizure and safety outcomes were assessed annually from the start of the extension study, and the retention rate was calculated from the start of perampanel exposure in the original study.

RESULTS

The 50% responder and seizure freedom rates were 84.8% and 58.7%, respectively, during the third year and 71.7% and 32.6%, respectively, during the entire 3-year period of the extension study. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year retention rates were 62.5%, 53.1%, and 52.1%, respectively. Efficacies were higher in patients that were aged >55 years, male, and receiving ≤4 mg of perampanel. Perampanel was generally well tolerated; 47.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event during the 3 years of extension (46 adverse events (AEs) in 35 patients). The most common AEs were dizziness (33.8%), somnolence (5.4%), anger (4.1%), and irritability (4.1%). AEs were resolved with perampanel dose reduction or discontinuation in 10 (13.5%) and 12 (16.2%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment with perampanel as a first add-on therapy did not raise new safety signals in patients with focal epilepsy. Especially at low perampanel doses (≤4 mg/day), sustained improvement in seizure control was achieved, which could potentially avoid adverse drug reactions.

Perampanel effectiveness and tolerability in patients with epilepsy at long-term follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The main of the present study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in association with 1 or 2 concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy throughout a follow-up period of 24 months or longer in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, multi-center study collected data from both underage (<18 years old) and adult patients who had started PER in association with 1 or 2 ASMs. Only patients who had started PER and were followed up for at least 24 months were included. Response to treatment was analyzed at the 24-, 36-, and 48-month visits by considering the last visit undergone by patients. Subgroup analyses were performed according to age, gender, and epilepsy type and patients were categorized following PER treatment in concomitance with 1 or 2 ASMs to evaluate the factors affecting the achievement of seizure freedom (SF) at the 24-month FU.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included (mean age 36.89 years; 51.1% female). At the 24-month follow-up visit, 90 (95.74%) patients were still receiving PER concomitantly with 1 or 2 ASMs. The mean PER dose was 6.02 mg/day and SF was achieved by 33 (35.1%) patients. A significantly higher SF rate was found in patients who had started PER with only 1 ASM when compared to those who had started PER with 2 concomitant ASMs. Effectiveness was maintained also in the subgroups of patients with a 36- or 48-month follow-up visit. Adult patients had a higher final daily dosage of PER than underage patients. Logistic regression found that the lowest number of previously failed ASMs was associated with a higher SF rate (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Perampanel demonstrated a good effectiveness in association with 1 or 2 ASMs in both pediatric and adult patients, without having to use a high dose of the drug. The possibility to present SF was higher when PER was added early. Finally, the maintenance of effectiveness was observed also in the subgroups of patients with a follow-up of 36 and 48 months.