Electro-clinical analysis of epilepsy patients with generalized seizures on adjunctive perampanel treatment

Role of Perampanel in the Management of Pediatric Epilepsies in Asia: Expert Opinion

Management of pediatric epilepsies poses unique challenges around diagnosis, treatment options, comorbidities, and the potential for these factors to interact with processes in the developing brain. In pediatric patients, broad-spectrum antiseizure medications (ASMs) with minimal potential for adverse events (AEs) and limited impact on cognition and behavior are preferred. Perampanel is a first-in-class ASM with broad-spectrum efficacy, a tolerable safety profile, minimal negative impact on cognitive function, and other features that make it a viable treatment option in this patient population. However, evidence and experience of its use in pediatric patients are less extensive than in adult patients. Experts in pediatric epilepsy across the region convened at a series of meetings to discuss the use of perampanel in pediatric patients, including dose optimization, AE prevention and management, and considerations in particular groups. This article summarizes key evidence for perampanel in the pediatric population and consolidates the experts' recommendations for using the ASM in managing pediatric epilepsies.

The real-world effectiveness and safety of perampanel in Europe: A scoping review

In order to characterize the real-world effectiveness and safety of perampanel during clinical use in Europe, we conducted a structured literature search and scoping review of real-world studies conducted in Europe in adolescents (aged ≥ 12 years) or adults who were prescribed perampanel for focal epilepsy or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the context of idiopathic generalized epilepsy, published between January 2016 and July 2021. We identified 29 relevant studies (20 retrospective and 9 prospective) in 3608 patients; median study duration was 12 months. Most patients (76.1%) were receiving two or more antiseizure drugs (ASDs) when perampanel was initiated. The maintenance perampanel dose ranged from 2 to 16 mg/day (most commonly 6 mg/day). Retention rate at 12 months ranged from 46% to 90.5% (median 71.1%). The proportion of patients who were free of seizures during perampanel ranged from 1.8% to 84.6%, but were consistently below 20% in studies where patients had received an average of ≥5 prior ASDs and above 20% where patients had received an average of <5 prior ASDs. The proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction in seizures during perampanel ranged from 20.0% to 85.7%. Across all studies, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) ranged from 18.2% to 67.4% (median 37.1%) and discontinuation due to AEs from 6.2% to 56% (median 12.5%). Discontinuation rates tended to be higher in UK studies than in studies from Italy or Spain. The most commonly reported individual AEs were dizziness/vertigo (median incidence 13.7%), somnolence (median 11.9%), aggression (median 9.8%), irritability (median 9.1%), and cognitive deficits (median 7.0%). There was no relationship between the overall rate of AEs and perampanel dose, perampanel plasma levels, or number of concomitant medications. Our global overview of European observational studies with perampanel provides evidence that this agent is effective and safe in clinical practice in a range of countries, patients, and settings.

Perampanel for the treatment of patients with myoclonic seizures in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in treating myoclonic seizures in clinical practice, using data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study.

METHODS

PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which patients with focal and generalised epilepsy were treated with PER. This post-hoc analysis included patients with myoclonic seizures at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months; effectiveness was additionally assessed at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

RESULTS

156 patients had myoclonic seizures (59.0% female; mean age, 32.1 years; idiopathic generalised epilepsy, 89.1%; Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy, 63.1%; monthly median myoclonic seizure frequency [interquartile range], 1.7 [1.0-10.0]; mean [standard deviation] prior antiseizure medications, 2.9 [2.6]). Retention was assessed for 133 patients (mean time, 12.1 months), effectiveness for 142, and safety/tolerability for 156. Responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 89.5% and 68.8% at 12 months, and 85.9% and 63.4% at the last visit. Incidence of AEs was 46.8%, the most frequent being dizziness/vertigo (19.2%), irritability (18.6%) and somnolence (9.6%). AEs led to discontinuation of 14.0% of patients over 12 months.

CONCLUSION

PER was associated with reduction in myoclonic seizure frequency in patients with myoclonic seizures treated in everyday clinical practice.

Exploring the Evidence for Broad-Spectrum Effectiveness of Perampanel: A Systematic Review of Clinical Data in Generalised Seizures

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of adjunctive perampanel has not been systematically assessed in seizure types other than its approved indications of focal seizures and primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in idiopathic generalised epilepsies (IGEs).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify and review available evidence on outcomes with perampanel in generalised seizures and epilepsies to examine its potential as a broad-spectrum anti-seizure medication.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases of publications, clinical trials, and conference abstracts were searched up to August 2020 to identify studies reporting seizure or safety outcomes in patients of any age, with any type of epilepsy-associated generalised seizures treated with perampanel. Data extracted from selected records were tabulated by seizure type and syndrome, and analysed qualitatively (PROSPERO protocol CRD42020201564).

RESULTS

Ninety-one reports met inclusion criteria and were selected: 15 reports of 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), 8 reports of 4 non-randomised interventional studies, 37 reports of observational studies, 21 case reports and 10 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Extracted data included 359 patients with PGTCS of any aetiology, 251 with myoclonic seizures, 112 with absence seizures, 50 with tonic seizures and 32 children with epileptic spasms. The most commonly reported epilepsy type was IGE (N = 378) and the most common syndromes were juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (N = 92), progressive myoclonic epilepsies (N = 59) and absence epilepsies (N = 43). The RCT provided Class I evidence of the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for PGTCS in patients aged ≥ 12 years with IGE. Data from other studies provides weaker (observational) evidence of its effectiveness in multiple generalised seizure types, including myoclonic, absence and tonic seizures. There were no patterns suggesting seizure worsening or aggravation in any seizure or epilepsy type.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies suggest the potential of perampanel as a broad-spectrum antiseizure medication. Much of the available data, however, come from non-randomised, non-controlled studies and are open to high risk of bias. Further studies are warranted to provide more robust evidence.