Clinical experience with adjunctive perampanel in adult patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: A UK and Ireland multicentre study

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.

A gain-of-function GRIA2 variant associated with neurodevelopmental delay and seizures: Functional characterization and targeted treatment

α-Amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid-type glutamate receptors (AMPARs) are ligand-gated cationic channels formed from combinations of GluA1-4 subunits. Pathogenic variants of GRIA1-4 have been described in patients with developmental delay, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and seizures, with GRIA2 variants typically causing AMPAR loss of function. Here, we identify a novel, heterozygous de novo pathogenic missense mutation in GRIA2 (c.1928 C>T, p.A643V, NM_001083619.1) in a 1-year-old boy with epilepsy, developmental delay, and failure to thrive. We made patch-clamp recordings to compare the functional and pharmacological properties of variant and wild-type receptors expressed in HEK293 cells, with and without the transmembrane AMPAR regulatory protein γ2. This showed GluA2 A643V-containing AMPARs to exhibit a novel gain of function, with greatly slowed deactivation, markedly reduced desensitization, and increased glutamate sensitivity. Perampanel, an antiseizure AMPAR negative allosteric modulator, was able to fully block GluA2 A643V/γ2 currents, suggesting potential therapeutic efficacy. The subsequent introduction of perampanel to the patient's treatment regimen was associated with a marked reduction in seizure burden, a resolution of failure to thrive, and clear developmental gains. Our study reveals that GRIA2 disorder can be caused by a gain-of-function variant, and both predicts and suggests the therapeutic efficacy of perampanel. Perampanel may prove beneficial for patients with other gain-of-function GRIA variants.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as adjunctive therapy among Chinese patients with focal-onset epilepsy: A real-world prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel (PER) has previously been shown to be effective and tolerable when used as an adjunctive therapy for patients with focal-onset seizures (FOS). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of PER as adjunctive therapy for patients with FOS in the Chinese population under real-world conditions for 1 year.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, 1-year observational study was conducted at Huashan Hospital, enrolling both under age (≥4 years old) and adult patients with FOS. Response to PER was assessed at 3-, 6-, and 12-month checkpoints by analyzing the 50 % responder rate, the seizure-free rate, and reduction in seizure frequency.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight patients (mean age: 26.6 years, 56.5 % males) with FOS were included, with seventy-six patients finishing the 1-year follow-up (retention rate: 70.4 %, mean PER dose: 4.3 mg/day). The seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 3, 6, and 12 months relative to baseline (p < 0.001 for each seizure type). At 12 months, the responder rate was 65.8 %, and the seizure-free rate was 39.5 %. A significantly higher responder rate was found in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (p = 0.024), among which the percentage of patients with sleep-related epilepsy was significantly high (p = 0.045). Responders had a lower number of concomitant anti-seizure medications (ASMs) than the non-responders (p = 0.009). Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 37 % of patients, mostly mild or moderate, and the patients who experienced AEs had a higher daily dose of PER than those who did not (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Perampanel, an add-on therapy for focal-onset seizures, was found to be effective and tolerable in Chinese patients at 12 months.

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.

A post-approval observational study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perampanel as an add-on therapy in adolescent, adult, and elderly patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication for focal-onset seizures, with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Study 402 (NCT02033902) collected safety information on clinically important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from real-world clinical practice in patients aged ≥12 years with refractory epilepsy who were receiving perampanel as an add-on therapy.

METHODS

Study 402 was a multicenter, observational, 52-week cohort study conducted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Safety data were gathered prospectively from patients at clinic visits. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically important TEAEs defined as dizziness; blurred vision; somnolence; aggression; balance disorders (including ataxia and falls); weight gain; suicidality; drug abuse, misuse, dependence, and withdrawal; skin photosensitivity; and unintended pregnancy while taking levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives. Off-label use of perampanel and outcomes associated with any suspected drug-drug interaction were also monitored and recorded. Secondary endpoints included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Clinical Global Impression of Change.

RESULTS

Of 483 patients in the Safety Analysis Set, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 38.3 (15.1) years, 48.4% were female, mean (SD) time since diagnosis was 23 (14.8) years, 56.5% had focal impaired awareness seizures, and 48.7% had FBTCS. Overall, 243 (49.3%) patients treated with perampanel completed the study and 227 (46.0%) patients discontinued. The most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n = 130 [26.4%]). A total of 301 (62.3%) patients reported at least one TEAE, of which 45 (15.0%) patients had severe TEAEs and 256 (85.0%) patients had TEAEs judged as mild to moderate in severity. Overall, 51 (10.6%) patients had serious TEAEs, including two deaths that were judged as not related to perampanel, and 136 (28.2%) patients experienced a TEAE that led to treatment discontinuation. Clinically important TEAEs were reported by 153 (31.7%) patients, with the most common being dizziness (13.9%), balance disorders (5.6%), aggression (5.4%), and weight gain (5.4%). In general, the frequencies of clinically important TEAEs were lower in this study compared with previous interventional clinical studies, except for the incidence of suicidality (2.1% vs 1.0%) and aggression (5.4% vs 5.1%). Mean total HADS scores were similar at the end of the study compared with baseline; at the end of treatment, most (>60%) patients had no shift in HADS score category; ∼15% of patients moved to a worse category vs baseline and ∼20% of patients moved to an improved category vs baseline for both anxiety and depression. Based on investigator assessment, disease severity was improved in 185/415 (44.6%) patients. A subanalysis in elderly patients aged ≥65 years showed similar results to the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

The data from this observational study are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel derived from previous interventional phase II and III clinical studies. No unusual or unexpected TEAEs were observed in this real-world clinical practice setting.

PERMIT study: a global pooled analysis study of the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in routine clinical practice

The PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study was a pooled analysis of data from 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with epilepsy (PWE; focal and generalized) were treated with perampanel (PER). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included 50% responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit); in PWE with status epilepticus, response was defined as seizures under control. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. The Full Analysis Set included 5193 PWE. Retention, effectiveness and safety/tolerability were assessed in 4721, 4392 and 4617, respectively. Retention on PER treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months was 90.5%, 79.8%, and 64.2%, respectively. Mean retention time on PER treatment was 10.8 months. The 50% responder rate was 58.3% at 12 months and 50.0% at the last visit, and the corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively; 52.7% of PWE with status epilepticus responded to PER treatment. Overall, 49.9% of PWE reported AEs and the most frequently reported AEs (≥ 5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (15.2%), somnolence (10.6%), irritability (8.4%), and behavioral disorders (5.4%). At 12 months, 17.6% of PWEs had discontinued due to AEs. PERMIT demonstrated that PER is effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal and/or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

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.

Optimal Use of Perampanel in Asian Patients with Epilepsy: Expert Opinion

Perampanel is a once-daily, first-in-class AMPA receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of epilepsy and exhibits broad-spectrum efficacy in a range of seizure types when used as both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Clinical studies and real-world evidence have demonstrated the advantages of initiating perampanel at low doses and utilizing a slow titration strategy. Initiating perampanel at an early stage has also been shown to be associated with better patient outcomes. However, the optimal use and place of perampanel in clinical practice has not yet been clearly defined for the Asian patient population. Use of perampanel in clinical practice varies markedly across the Asia region because of variation in knowledge, attitudes, and practice. There is currently no specific guidance on best practices for prescribing perampanel in Asian patients or how to optimize treatment strategies to maximize adherence. A group of epilepsy experts attended a virtual meeting in September 2020 to discuss their experience with using perampanel in the Asian practice setting, including their views regarding appropriate patient populations, optimal starting and maintenance doses, optimal titration regimens, key barriers to adherence, and prevention and management of adverse events. This article summarizes key clinical and real-world evidence for perampanel and consolidates the experts’ opinions on optimization of perampanel prescribing and adherence in real-world practice, providing practical strategies for clinicians to implement to improve outcomes for people with epilepsy in Asia.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant perampanel: an Australian multicenter real-world observational study in refractory focal and generalized epilepsy syndromes

PURPOSE

To explore the efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant perampanel (PER) and their associated risk factors in late add-on drug-resistant epilepsy.

METHOD

Retrospective multicenter 'real-world' observational study. Consecutively identified patients commenced on PER, with mixed epilepsy syndromes, from nine Australian epilepsy centers. Primary efficacy endpoints were at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders), seizure freedom, and retention at 6 and 12 months, following a 3-month titration period. Tolerability endpoints were cessation of PER for any reason, cessation of PER due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), or cessation due to inefficacy. Outcomes were assessed for a-priori risk factors associated with efficacy and tolerability.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and eighty seven adults were identified and followed up for a median of 12.1 months (IQR 7.0-25.2). Focal epilepsy accounted for 79.6% (FE), idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE), 10.3% and developmental epileptic encephalopathy (DEE) 10.1%, of the cohort. All patients had drug-resistant epilepsy, 71.6% had never experienced six months of seizure freedom, and the mean number of antiepileptic medications (AEDs) prior to starting PER was six. At 12 months, with missing cases classified as treatment failure, retention was 40.0%, responder 21.7%, and seizure freedom 9.0%, whereas, using last outcome carried forward (LOCF), responder and seizure freedom rates were 41.3% and 14.7%, respectively. Older age of epilepsy onset was associated with a marginal increase in the likelihood of seizure freedom at 12-month maintenance (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02, 1.06). Male sex (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.06 95% CI 1.33, 3.19), lower number of prior AEDs (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74, 0.96) and no previous seizure-free period of at least 6-month duration (aOR 2.04 95% CI 1.21, 3.47) were associated with retention. Perampanel combined with a GABA receptor AED was associated with a lower responder rate at 12 months but reduced cessation of PER. The most common TEAEs were neuropsychiatric (18.86%), followed by dizziness (13.70%), and sleepiness (5.68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant PER treatment, even in late-add on drug-resistant epilepsy is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy.

Effect and tolerability of perampanel in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is one of the most recently approved antiseizure medications. The aim of the present study was to assess clinical efficacy and tolerability, in combination with pharmacokinetic variability, of perampanel treatment in patients at a tertiary referral center for epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of patients given perampanel as adjunctive treatment in the period January 2013 - February 2019 at the National Center for Epilepsy at Oslo University Hospital, Norway.

RESULTS

Clinical data were available for 175 mainly adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy with mean treatment duration of 16.1 months. We found that 23% (40 patients) were responders (i.e., achieving more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency), four of whom became seizure free, 29% (51 patients) experienced a modest effect, whereas for 29% (50 patients) perampanel had no seizure-reducing effect. A paradoxical effect, with seizure aggravation, was reported in 9% (15 patients). The responder rate was significantly higher in those with slow vs. fast dosage titration. Logistic regression analysis showed better efficacy among those with generalized vs. those with focal epilepsy. Adverse effects were reported by 135 patients (77%), ranging from mild (34%), to moderate (41%) and severe (2%). In 55 patients (41%), these adverse effects resulted in discontinuation of treatment with perampanel. The most frequent adverse effects were psychiatric symptoms (34%), dizziness (31%), and sleepiness (26%). Of the 31 patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available, the mean daily perampanel dose was 6.3 mg (SD 3.0), with a mean serum concentration at steady state of 1.03 μmol/L (range: 0.15-3.59 μmol/L). There were pronounced differences between patients, as demonstrated by a 12-fold variability in the range of concentration/dose (C/D)-ratios (0.06 to 0.69 μmol/L/mg), where enzyme inducers contributed.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that perampanel had a modest seizure-reducing effect in this very treatment-resistant patient group. Predictors of treatment success were generalized epilepsy and slow dosage titration. In patients without a history of psychiatric problems, clinicians could consider increasing dose of perampanel beyond 6 mg daily, taking co-medication and serum concentrations into account.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of perampanel in people with epilepsy who have previously undergone resective surgery and/or implantation of a vagal nerve stimulator

About 30% of people with epilepsy (PWE) are drug-resistant. Those with focal seizures may be suitable for epilepsy surgery. Those not amenable to resective surgery can be considered for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). However, after operative procedures, around 50% of patients continue to experience seizures. A multi-center retrospective study assessing perampanel effectiveness and tolerability for PWE who have undergone surgical resection and/or VNS implantation was performed. The primary outcome was ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency while secondary outcomes included side effects (SEs), dose-related effectiveness, and toxicity. The median perampanel dose was 6 mg. Only one PWE became seizure free. A ≥50% decrease in seizure frequency was observed in 52.8% of the post-resection group and 16.9% of the VNS group (p < 0.001), while SEs were seen in 44.8% and 41.1%, respectively. Perampanel doses greater than 8 mg led to better response in both groups, especially in the post-VNS cohort. SEs were not dose-related and the safety profile was similar to previous observational studies. Perampanel can be beneficial in these two super-refractory epilepsy groups, particularly in PWE with seizures after surgical resection. Doses of more than 8 mg appear to be well tolerated and may be more effective than lower doses in PWE after surgical interventions.

Perampanel effectiveness and safety as early add-on treatment for focal-onset seizures: PEREAGAL study

BACKGROUND

Perampanel (PER) is an effective adjunctive therapy for controlling focal-onset seizures (FOS), but few studies have examined its effects as an early add-on for the treatment of FOS in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

Our retrospective, multicenter, observational study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of PER as an early add-on in 77 patients with FOS, with and without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) after 3, 6 and 12 months in a real-world setting.

RESULTS

After 12 months of treatment (median dose 6 [4,8] mg/day), the retention rate was 79.2 % and 60 % of patients (39/65) experienced a ≥50 % reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline. The seizure-free rate was 38.5 % for all seizures (25/65) and 60 % for FBTCS (12/20). The responder rate at 12 months was significantly higher when PER was given with one concomitant AED (72.2 %) compared to when PER was given with two concomitant AEDs (44.8 %). Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 40.3 % of patients, most of them being mild (64.2 %). Twelve patients (15.6 %) discontinued treatment because of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

PER is an effective and safe early add-on for patients with refractory FOS, especially for those with FBTCS.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel as a first add-on therapy with different anti-seizure drugs

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when administered as a first add-on therapy to patients with focal epilepsy or idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) taking one other antiseizure drug (ASD).

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective, one-year observational study collected data from patients (≥12 years) who initiated treatment with PER as first add-on therapy. Patients had to be experiencing inadequate seizure control on ASD monotherapy and tried ≤3 ASD monotherapies before initiating PER. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusted for the number and type of previous seizures, duration and aetiology of epilepsy.

RESULTS

Of the 149 patients included in the study (mean age 41 years; 54.4 % male), 118 (79.2 %) were still receiving PER as first add-on treatment after 12 months. Mean PER dose was 6.2 mg/day. At 12 months, 45.6 % were seizure-free and 84.6 % responders. A significant difference in seizure freedom rate was found between patients with IGE and patients with focal epilepsy, but not in responders. Reduced seizure control was observed when PER was administered with strong enzyme-inducing ASDs; conversely, increased seizure control was seen when the same dose of PER was combined with enzyme-inhibiting ASDs. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (15.4 %), irritability (14.1 %) and drowsiness (14.1 %); no differences in tolerance were observed among different combinations.

CONCLUSION

PER demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used as a first add-on therapy in patients who did not respond to monotherapy. PER dose adjustments may optimize seizure control when combined with strong enzyme-inducing or enzyme-inhibiting ASDs.

European perspective of perampanel response in people with Intellectual Disability

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy prevalence is over 20% for those with ID. It is difficult to diagnose and treat and more likely to be treatment resistant. The evidence informing prescribing is sparse, particularly for new drugs such as perampanel (PMP).

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence regarding PMP for people with ID by pooling information from two isolated and separately conducted studies: the UK-based Epilepsy Database Register (Ep-ID) and the data from the Kempenhaeghe clinic in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A single data set of comparable data was created and analysed under agreement and supervision of a UK statistician.

RESULTS

Seizure reduction within twelve months was evident in 62% of Dutch and 47% of UK patients. Retention rates were higher for those in the UK (P = .01) and for patients with moderate to profound ID, whilst side effects were more prominent in the Dutch cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable rates of seizure reduction are in line with estimates for non-ID patients, adding to the evidence suggesting that PMP has a similar impact on those with ID. Taking a European perspective and sharing data across centres can help strengthen the evidence for prescribing antiepileptic drugs in the ID population.

Retention Rate and Efficacy of Perampanel with a Slow Titration Schedule in Adults

RATIONALE

The manufacturer of perampanel (PER) suggests an initial adult dose of 2-4 mg/day and an upward dose titration of 2 mg at no more frequently than 1- or 2-week intervals when used with enzyme-enhancing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) or nonenzyme-enhancing AEDs, respectively. The general practice in our clinic is an initial dose of PER 2 mg/day and titrated by 2 mg/4 weeks to an initial target of 6 mg/day.

METHODS

Retrospective chart audit of patients starting PER in an adult epilepsy clinic between September 2013 and November 2016 with at least one 6-month follow-up visit was reviewed. Data collection included patient demographics, seizure characteristics, past and concurrent therapy, monthly seizure frequency before PER and at 6-month visit, and characteristics of PER discontinuation. Efficacy of treatment was assessed with the Engel classification and 50% responder rate.

RESULTS

N = 102 patients; mean age = 40 years and 54% females. Focal onset seizures 85%, generalized 13%, and unknown 2%. Median prior AED exposure = 6 (range 3-20); median concomitant AED use = 2 (range 1-5). Follow-up range was 6-37 months. The median seizure frequency/month prePER treatment was 6 (range 0-30) for focal onset seizures and 1 (range 0-6) for generalized seizures. The retention rate amongst all patients at 6 months was 78.4%. At 6-month follow-up, 36% of all patients achieved Engel class I (seizure freedom) (30.7% of patients with focal onset seizures and 63.6% with generalized epilepsy). The 50% responder rate was 52% and 82% for focal and generalized epilepsy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PER has a good retention rate when titrated slowly and thus encouraging seizure freedom results in an otherwise medically refractory epilepsy population.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel monotherapy for focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Experience from a national multicenter registry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients aged ≥12 years treated with PER as primary monotherapy or converted to PER monotherapy by progressive reduction of background antiepileptic drugs. Outcomes included retention, responder, and seizure-free rate after 3, 6, and 12 months and tolerability throughout the follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 21.7 years, 51% female) with focal seizures and/or GTCS were treated with PER monotherapy for a median exposure of 14 months (range = 1-57) with a median dose of 4 mg (range = 2-10). The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months and last follow-up were 93.8%, 89.3%, 80.9%, and 71.4%, respectively. The retention rates according to the type of monotherapy (primary vs conversion) did not differ (log-rank P value = .57). Among the 98 patients, 61.2% patients had seizures throughout the baseline period, with a median seizure frequency of 0.6 seizures per month (range = 0.3-26). Responder rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 79.6%, 70.1%, and 52.8%, respectively, and seizure freedom rates at the same points were 62.7%, 56.1%, and 41.5%. Regarding the 33 patients who had GTCS in the baseline period, 87.8% were seizure-free at 3 months, 78.1% at 6 months, and 55.1% at 12 months. Over the entire follow-up, PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated, and only 16% of patients discontinued PER due to adverse events (AEs). Female patients were found to be at a higher risk of psychiatric AEs (female vs male odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 1-8.33, P = .046).

SIGNIFICANCE

PER demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile when used as primary therapy or conversion to monotherapy at relatively low doses, in a clinical setting with patients with focal seizures and GTCS.

Improved irritability, mood, and quality of life following introduction of perampanel as late adjunctive treatment for epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in late adjunctive treatment of focal epilepsy. We assessed outcomes 1) according to patients' clinical profiles and the broad mechanism of action (MoA) of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and 2) the effects of PER on adverse events, irritability, mood, and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Consecutive patients commenced on PER at two epilepsy centers in Melbourne, Australia were identified. A nested cohort underwent detailed prospective assessment, while the remainder were retrospectively analyzed. Six- and 12-month efficacy endpoints were at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders) and complete seizure freedom. The prospective cohort underwent standardized validated questionnaires at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the modified semi-structured seizure interview (SSI), Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP), Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Patient-Weighted (QOLIE-10-P), Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory Epilepsy (NDDI-E), and an Irritability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty patients were followed for a median of 6 months: the mean number of prior AEDs was 6, 99% had drug-resistant epilepsy, and 72% had never experienced a prior seizure-free period of at least 6 months (=continuously refractory epilepsy). Perampanel was associated with responder and seizure freedom rates of 30.6% and 9.4% at 6 months and 19.4% and 4.4% (5.6% adjusted for the titration period) at 12 months. Having "continuously refractory epilepsy" was associated with a reduced likelihood of seizure freedom at 6 months (5% vs. 30%; p = 0.001) and 12 months (3% vs. 13%; p = 0.058). Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Patient-Weighted, irritability, and NDDI-E showed mean improvement at 6 months from baseline.

SIGNIFICANCE

Even when used as late add-on adjunctive therapy in patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy, PER can result in 12-month seizure freedom of 5.6%. The likelihood of seizure freedom was associated with prior "continuous medication refractoriness". Six months after introduction of PER patients reported improved mood, QOL, and decreased irritability.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as early add-on treatment in patients with epilepsy and focal seizures in the routine clinical practice: Spain prospective study (PERADON)

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel (PER) has been shown to be effective as an adjunctive therapy for controlling refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS). However, the information as early add-on for the treatment of FOS in the clinical practice is still scarce and must be further assessed.

METHODS

An observational prospective study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of early add-on PER, assessed as 50% responders (seizure frequency reduced by at least 50% during the last 3 months as compared with baseline) rate at 6 and 12 months, in patients with FOS in the routine clinical practice of Spain.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen patients (mean age: 40.3 years, 51.3% male) with FOS received PER as early add-on (1st add-on: 37.2% and 2nd: 62.8%) for a mean exposure of 11 months (mean PER dose: 6.3 mg/day at month 12). At 6 months, 50.4% and 20.4% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively) relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation), and at 12 months, 68.1% and 26.5% of the patients were responders and seizure-free (respectively), relative to baseline (3 months prior to PER initiation). The retention rate at 6 and 12 months was 83.2% and 80.5%, respectively. The percentage of seizure-free patients at 12 months was significantly (p = 0.033) higher when PER was added as first vs. second add-on. The number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 and 12 months (p = 0.001). Treatment was simplified in 23.9% of patients at the end of the observation period. Drug-related adverse events (AEs), most mild or moderate, were reported in 30.1% of patients, with irritability (8%) and dizziness (7.1%) as the most frequent ones.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first observational, prospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of early adjunctive treatment with PER in patients with focal epilepsy at 12 months. Perampanel demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used at a median dose of 6 mg/day, regardless of the combination with other AEDs. Adverse events were mild or moderate, with dizziness being the most frequent one.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel in adults with mesial temporal epilepsy: A single-center postmarketing study in Taiwan

Mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) is a common epilepsy syndrome often refractory to antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as add-on treatment for patients of MTLE.We pooled retrospective data from adult patients with MTLE, from a tertiary center in Taiwan, who were prescribed PER between March 2016 and December 2016. The retention, responder, and seizure-free rate as well as the treatment emergent adverse events were assessed after 6 months of PER adjunctive treatment in this single-center postmarketing study.Review of medical records revealed that adequate data were available for 44 patients who were being administered PER (mean age: 42.0 ± 13.3 years, 24 females; baseline mean seizure frequency: 5.4 per 28 days). Twelve patients exhibited hippocampal sclerosis (HS). Open-label PER was added to ongoing medications. Twelve patients withdrew because of ineffectiveness (n = 6) or adverse effects (n = 6). The retention rate was 72.7% at 6 months. On final evaluation, with a mean PER dose of 5.7 mg/day for 6 months, a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency was observed in 46.9% of the patients, and 5 patients became seizure-free. The effectiveness was similar for patients with or without HS. Twenty-three patients (52.3%) experienced adverse effects. The most common adverse effects were dizziness, ataxia, and irritability.Our results suggest that PER, at doses of 2 to 12 mg/day, reduces seizure frequency effectively with acceptable safety profiles for adults with MTLE.

Efficacy and impact on cognitive functions and quality of life of perampanel as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy: A retrospective study

Cognitive dysfunctions are frequent in patients with epilepsy. This comorbidity significantly alters their quality of life and plays an important role in their therapeutic management. Perampanel is a noncompetitive antagonist of AMPA (α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid) receptors and is considered a new generation AED (antiepileptic drug) with limited impact on cognitive functions.The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of perampanel as first add-on therapy and its impact on cognitive functions and quality of life in patients with epilepsy followed for 6 months at the Neurology Division of "A. Cardarelli" Hospital in Naples (Italy).

Preliminary evidence about irritability in patients with epilepsy treated by perampanel as first add-on therapy compared to levetiracetam and valproic acid

Aims

Irritability has been described as a frequent adverse event in patients affected by epilepsy and treated with perampanel (PER), levetiracetam (LEV), and less frequently with valproic acid (VPA). Since the questionnaire for irritability (I‐EPI) is a validated instrument to measure this psychiatric manifestation in patients affected by epilepsy, in this study we aimed at investigating the effect of PER as first add‐on therapy on I‐EPI. Moreover, we compared the effectiveness and I‐EPI scores obtained at 12‐month follow‐up visits in patients treated by PER, LEV, or VPA in order to measure irritability as a consequence of these treatments.

Methods

We collected data from 17 patients treated by PER, 16 patients treated by LEV, and 16 patients under VPA treatment followed for 12 months.

Results

We did not document significant changes of I‐EPI questionnaire between baseline and follow‐up in the PER group. As concerning the comparison of I‐EPI among PER, LEV, and VPA groups, we documented lower global scores in PER than both LEV (P < 0.05) and VPA (P < 0.05) groups. Moreover, patients under PER treatment showed lower scores than LEV and VPA (P < 0.05) in I‐EPI items measuring the gentle personality, anxiety of having epileptic seizures in front of others, and irritability in thinking that they can have an epileptic seizure.

Conclusions

This retrospective study described a stable and possibly lower degree of irritability in patients starting PER than LEV and VPA treatments, although we documented the comparable effectiveness of PER, LEV, and VPA as first add‐on treatments in patients affected by uncontrolled epileptic seizures. However, the small sample of patients included in this study and the absence of I‐EPI scores obtained at baseline visits in LEV and VPA groups require further investigations to confirm this preliminary evidence.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for the clinical efficacy of perampanel in focal onset seizures

INTRODUCTION

Medical therapy is the mainstay of management of epilepsy. Despite the increasing number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), approximately one-third of epileptic patients do not have adequate control of seizures. There is still a need for the development of new AEDs with enhanced effectiveness and tolerability. Areas covered: The present manuscript is based on an Internet and PubMed search (January 2005 to August 2018). It is focused on pharmacokinetic and clinical data of perampanel (PER) for the treatment of epilepsy. Expert opinion: PER has a novel mechanism of action, which opens up new options for a rational combination therapy. Phase III trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of PER as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS) and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients aged ≥12 years. PER is also approved by FDA as monotherapy for the treatment of POS. A clinical trial is ongoing to verify the efficacy and safety of PER monotherapy in untreated patients with POS. In the future, head-to-head comparisons are needed to determine the exact position of PER relative to other AEDs. Moreover, further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PER in patients aged <12 years.

ABBREVIATIONS

4βOHC: 4β-hydroxycholesterol; AUC: area under the curve; CBZ: Carbamazepine; CLCr: creatinine clearance; Cmax: maximum plasma concentration; CYP: cytochrome P; EIAED: enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drug; EMA: European Medicines Agency; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; GI: gastrointestinal; OXC: oxcarbazepine; PER: perampanel; PGTC: primary generalized tonic-clonic; PHT: phenytoin; POS: partial-onset seizures; QD: once-daily; TEAE: treatment-emergent adverse event; Tmax: median time to reach peak concentration; UGT: uridine diphosphoglucose-glucuronosyltransferase; VPA: valproic acid.

Perampanel in routine clinical use in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: The 12-month GENERAL study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel across different seizure types in routine clinical care of patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, 1-year observational study collected data from patient records at 21 specialist epilepsy units in Spain. All patients who were aged ≥12 years, prescribed perampanel before December 2016, and had a confirmed diagnosis of IGE were included.

RESULTS

The population comprised 149 patients with IGE (60 with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, 51 generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS] only, 21 juvenile absence epilepsy, 10 childhood absence epilepsy, 6 adulthood absence epilepsy, and one Jeavons syndrome). Mean age was 36 years. The retention rate at 12 months was 83% (124/149), and 4 mg was the most common dose. At 12 months, the seizure-free rate was 59% for all seizures (88/149); 63% for GTCS (72/115), 65% for myoclonic seizures (31/48), and 51% for absence seizures (24/47). Seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 12 months relative to baseline for GTCS (78%), myoclonic (65%), and absence seizures (48%). Increase from baseline seizure frequency was seen in 5.2% of patients with GTCS seizures, 6.3% with myoclonic, and 4.3% with absence seizures. Perampanel was effective regardless of epilepsy syndrome, concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and prior AEDs, but retention and seizure freedom were significantly higher when used as early add-on (after ≤2 prior AEDs) than late (≥3 prior AEDs). Adverse events were reported in 50% of patients over 12 months, mostly mild or moderate, and irritability (23%), somnolence (15%), and dizziness (14%) were most frequent.

SIGNIFICANCE

In routine clinical care of patients with IGE, perampanel improved seizure outcomes for GTCS, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. This is the first real-world evidence with perampanel across different seizure types in IGE.

Perampanel, an AMPA receptor antagonist: From clinical research to practice in clinical settings

Epileptic seizures are refractory to treatment in approximately one-third of patients despite the recent introduction of many newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Development of novel AEDs therefore remains a high priority. Perampanel is a first-in-class non-competitive selective AMPA receptor antagonist with a unique mechanism of action. Clinical efficacy and safety of perampanel as adjunctive treatment for focal seizures with/without secondary generalization (±SG) and primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures have been established in five phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a long-term extension study, and perampanel is approved as monotherapy for focal seizures ±SG in the USA. In patients with focal seizures ±SG, add-on perampanel resulted in median percent reduction in seizure frequency 23.3%-34.5% and ≥50% responder rate 28.5%-37.6%; in PGTC seizures, these results were 76.5% and 64.2%, respectively. Efficacy among adolescents (reduction in seizure frequency 34.8%-35.6%; ≥50% responder rate 40.9%-45.0%) and elderly people (reduction in seizure frequency 12.5%-16.9%; ≥50% responder rate 22.2%-42.9%) is similar to those in adults, and results remain comparable between Asian (reduction in seizure frequency 17.3%-38.0%) and global populations. Perampanel has been extensively studied in real-world clinical practice, with similar efficacy and safety results to the RCTs (≥50% responder rate 12.8%-75.0%; adverse events of somnolence/sedation, dizziness, ataxia, and behavioral changes). Real-world observational studies suggest that perampanel tolerability can be improved by slow titration (2 mg every 2-4 weeks), and bedtime administration can mitigate somnolence and dizziness. Counseling about the potential for behavioral changes and close monitoring are recommended.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel and levetiracetam as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy: A retrospective single center study

Perampanel (PER) is a third generation antiepileptic drug (AED), recently approved as add-on therapy in both focal and generalized seizures. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second generation AED, widely used in patients with epilepsy because of its favorable safety and efficacy profiles. Perampanel and LEV treatments have been associated with the occurrence of similar adverse events (AEs) (sleepiness, irritability, depression, anxiety, aggressiveness). The aim of the present retrospective single center study was to verify the efficacy and tolerability of PER and LEV used as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy affected by secondarily generalized seizures. We collected data from 15 patients treated with PER and 26 patients treated with LEV and followed at our site with follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12months. This retrospective study documented the comparable efficacy of PER and LEV as first add-on treatments in patients affected by uncontrolled secondarily generalized seizures. However, more patients withdrawn LEV because of AEs compared with PER at the 3- and 12-month follow-up visits. The better tolerability of PER observed in this study could be related to the low therapeutic dose of PER prescribed when it is used as first adjunctive treatment for better controlling secondarily generalized seizures.

Preliminary Asian experience of using perampanel in clinical practice

Background

To analyze the efficacy and safety of perampanel over a 3-month period in a sample of Asian people with epilepsy.

Methods

The efficacy and safety of perampanel as an adjunctive therapy for patients with epilepsy were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Patients were categorized according to seizure type, concomitant antiepileptic drug usage, and perampanel dosage.

Results

A total of 210 patients were included in the study and 131 patients completed 3 months of perampanel treatment. The average dosage of perampanel was 5.31 mg/day, and the 50% responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction) in all patients was 45.8%, with a 27.5% seizure-free rate. For focal seizures, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and primary generalized seizures, the 50% responder rates were respectively 29.4%, 49.5%, and 36.4%. In total, 39.5% of patients experienced adverse events within 3 months of observation period, and the rate of drug withdrawal due to adverse events was 8.6%. Dizziness, ataxia, irritability/aggression were the most common adverse events.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of perampanel in a real-world setting with Asian patients is comparable to that in clinical trials that have included fewer Asian patients.

Adverse Events During Perampanel Adjunctive Therapy in Intractable Epilepsy

Background and Purpose

Perampanel is the first α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA)-receptor antagonist developed to treat epilepsy. The effects of either rapid or slow dose titration on adverse events remain to be elucidated.

Methods

Eighty-five patients received perampanel between March 2016 and August 2016. Patients were divided into two groups according to their dosing schedule: rapid dose titration (2-mg increments at intervals of 1 to 2 weeks) and slow dose titration (2-mg increments at intervals of at least 3 weeks). Seizure frequency and adverse events were analyzed over 3 months.

Results

Adverse events were reported by 47 (58%) of the 81 patients analyzed, with 12 (15%) patients discontinuing perampanel due to adverse events. Common adverse events included dizziness (n=30, 37%), aggressive mood and behavior (n=19, 24%), gait disturbance (n=16, 20%), and sleep problems (n=10, 12.4%). The overall adverse events were similar in the slow-titration group (38 of 61 patients) and the rapid-titration group (8 of 20 patients, p=0.081). However, none of the 20 patients in the slow-titration group experienced gait disturbance, compared with 16 of the 61 patients in the rapid-titration group (p=0.009), while appetite change was experienced by 4 patients in the slow-titration group but only 1 in the rapid-titration group (p=0.003). No relationship was noted between adverse events and the maximum dose of perampanel (p=0.116). Sex differences were observed, with the response to perampanel being better and the rate of adverse events being higher in females (p=0.015 and p=0.046, respectively).

Conclusions

Slow titration of perampanel may reduce perampanel-related adverse events.

One-Year Retention Study of Adjunctive Perampanel Treatment in Epilepsy Patients

OBJECTIVES

Perampanel is a recently introduced antiepileptic drug (AED) with a unique action mechanism of noncompetitive and selective α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid antagonist. Because of delayed approval of perampanel in most Asian countries, there is limited information on the clinical usefulness of perampanel in the Asian population. We performed a retrospective analysis of retention rate, seizure outcome, and adverse events for perampanel treatment in South Korea.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center, 1-year observational study. A total of 137 epilepsy patients (86 men, 51 women; age, 17-86 years) who were treated with perampanel as an adjunctive treatment were included. Perampanel was administered at a starting dose of 2 mg/d, and optimal-dose adjustments were made according to individual clinical responses. Efficacy and tolerability were analyzed during a 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The overall retention rate was 71.3% at the 6-month follow-up and 61.0% at the 1-year follow-up. Retention rates were similar between patients with 1 concomitant AED and those taking 2 or more concomitant AEDs. The most common adverse event was somnolence, followed by dullness and psychiatric reactions, and the presence of psychiatric comorbidity was significantly associated with the development of psychiatric adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that the retention rate and adverse events for adjunctive perampanel treatment in the Korean population were comparable with those in Western countries. Our study also suggests that adjuvant perampanel treatment may be effective in patients taking a higher number of concomitant AEDs and that psychiatric comorbidity may be a risk factor for perampanel-induced psychiatric reactions.

Efficacy of perampanel in a patient with epilepsia partialis continua

Perampanel is the first-in-class selective and noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist. It is authorized in the U.S. and Europe as an add-on antiepileptic drug for partial-onset seizures, and for primary generalized tonic–clonic seizures. Single reports have also indicated a potential efficacy for myoclonic jerks. Here, we report a patient whose drug-resistant epilepsia partialis continua completely resolved after adding perampanel. She has remained seizure-free in an eighteen-month follow-up period. Epilepsia partialis continua reemerged transiently after perampanel was temporarily discontinued, with no recurrence after its reintroduction. Therefore, this effect was reproducible, and suggests that it might be worth trying perampanel in similar settings.

AMPA receptors and perampanel behind selected epilepsies: current evidence and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

The alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptors are the major mediators of glutamate-mediated excitatory neurotransmission, and are critical for synchronization and spread of epileptic activity. Areas covered: AMPA receptor antagonists have been also developed as antiepileptic drugs and perampanel (PER) is the first highly selective, non-competitive AMPA-type glutamate receptor antagonist that is available on the market. It is approved as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, and for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy, in patients aged ≥ 12 years. This article reviews the role of AMPA receptors in the neuronal hyperexcitability underlying epilepsy, the mechanism of action and clinical experience on the anti-seizure activity of PER. Moreover, the rationale for targeting AMPA receptor in specific epileptic disorders, including brain tumor-related epilepsy, mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with/without hippocampal sclerosis, and status epilepticus is evaluated. Finally, the pharmacological rationale for the development of AMPA receptor antagonists in other neurological disorders beyond epilepsy is considered. Expert opinion: Further research aimed at better understanding the pharmacology and blocking mechanism of PER and other AMPA receptor antagonists will drive future development of therapeutic agents that target epilepsy and other neurological diseases.

Use of perampanel in children and adolescents with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome

AIM

Report the use of perampanel treatment in children with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS).

METHOD

We conducted a prospective study of 13 LGS patients (seven male; mean age, 12.8years) treated with adjunctive perampanel therapy. Perampanel was initiated at 2mg/day and titrated to a median maximum dose of 6mg/day.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up duration of 10.8months (range, 1-24months), nine patients (69.2%) were responders (≥50% reduction in total seizure frequency) and nine (69.2%) were rated by their physician as "much improved" or "very much improved". Four patients (30.8%) discontinued perampanel due to the lack of efficacy (n=2) and seizure aggravation (n=2). No patients discontinued due to other adverse events (AEs). AEs were reported for six patients (46.2%) and comprised decreased activity/social interaction (n=3), behavior disturbance with agitation (n=2), and/or fatigue (n=2). All AEs became manageable after perampanel dosing was decreased. Improvements in cognitive function and/or behavior were reported for seven patients (53.8%). Introduction of perampanel allowed the dose reduction and/or discontinuation of other treatments in seven patients (53.8%).

INTERPRETATION

Perampanel was efficacious and generally well tolerated as an adjunctive treatment for seizures associated with LGS, supporting further research in this area.

Budget impact of perampanel as adjunctive treatment of uncontrolled partial-onset and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States

PURPOSE

To evaluate the budget impact (BI) of adopting perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS), with or without secondarily generalized seizures, and the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in patients 12years or older in the United States.

METHODS

A BI model was developed to estimate the potential BI of adopting adjunctive perampanel from a US payer (direct costs only) and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspective over a 5-year period. Efficacy data for perampanel and antiepileptic drug (AED) maintenance therapy were obtained from perampanel phase III clinical trials. Drug, direct medical (healthcare provider, emergency room, and hospitalizations), and indirect (productivity loss) costs were obtained from appropriate sources (e.g., AnalySource® Online [wholesale acquisition costs], 2013 Optum Insight Clinformatics Database [market share percentages, direct medical costs per unit], and 2011-2013 National Health and Wellness Survey [NHWS; healthcare resource utilization, overall work impairment, and baseline distribution of patients across the 4 health states]). Mapping of seizure frequency to medical resource utilization and work impairment was obtained from Kantar Health's NHWS.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 660 (0.066%) members ≥12years old had uncontrolled POS (395 [59.8%]) or PGTCS (265 [40.2%]). During the first 5years of adoption of perampanel, absolute BI (including drug, direct medical, and indirect costs) was $852, $2124, $3855, $5318, and $6397, respectively, for a cumulative absolute BI of $18,545. Drug cost was estimated to increase by $13,888, $34,646, $62,863, $86,728, and $104,326, respectively; however, this cost would be mostly offset by decreases in direct medical ($5041, $12,576, $22,818, $31,481, and $37,869, respectively) and indirect ($7995, $19,946, $36,190, $49,929, and $60,060, respectively) costs. Total per-member-per-month cost (drug and direct medical costs) was estimated to increase by $0.0007, $0.0018, $0.0033, $0.0046, and $0.0055 from years 1 to 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on results of this BI model, increased cost of adopting perampanel in a health plan of 1 million members would be minimal for payers, and societal costs would be close to neutral.

A two-year retrospective evaluation of perampanel in patients with highly drug-resistant epilepsy and cognitive impairment

PURPOSE

The objective of this work was to review systematically the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in residential patients of an epilepsy center.

METHOD

We adopted an industry-independent noninterventional retrospective evaluation on the basis of the paper and electronic records complemented by personal information on the part of the treating neurologists. All patients (N=26, 15 females, mean age: 30, range 21-55years) started on PER from its introduction to the market in September 2012 until December 15th 2013 were included. Evaluation was carried out after 6, 12, and 24months of PER treatment. Changes in seizure frequency were calculated as the number of seizures during three months on PER compared to a three-month baseline period. The Clinical Global Impression Scale served as an instrument to record changes in seizure intensity beyond numerical values. Adverse effects were documented by means of the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile.

RESULTS

Most patients had structural or metabolic epilepsy, 2 patients suffered from Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, 2 from other symptomatic generalized epilepsy. All patients had grade III drug-resistant epilepsy. All patients had additional cognitive deficits of different degree. The retention rates were 61.5% after 6months, 46.2% after 12months, and 42.3% after 24months. The responder rates were 11.5% after 6months, 23.1% after 12months, and 7.7% after 24months. Partial responders (positive CGI and/or seizure reduction <50%) included, the respective values were 26.9%, 38.5%, and 23.1%. Only 1 patient was seizure free at 12months (but not at 24months). A loss of efficacy in the second year of treatment was suspected but the decrease of the responder rate could also be ascribed to a number of different circumstances. Adverse effects in the psychiatric field like irritability, aggression, increased sensitivity, and suicidal ideation/behavior occurred in 50% of the patients. They were the main reason to discontinue PER.

CONCLUSIONS

After one year of treatment PER showed reasonable efficacy in a particularly difficult-to-treat population. Psychiatric adverse effects forced discontinuation in many cases.

Evaluation of perampanel in patients with intellectual disability and epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Initial registration studies of perampanel (PMP), an AMPA receptor antagonist, have now been followed up by 'clinical' studies that confirmed its efficacy and safety in patients with refractory epilepsy. Publications on the use of PMP among patients with intellectual disability (ID) are still limited. This study extends our knowledge with respect to the relevance of PMP for patients with both ID and epilepsy, and furthermore specifies the behavioral side effects of PMP in this specific population.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of medical records at 3, 6 and 12months of follow-up after the initial start of PMP.

RESULTS

62 patients were included. 21 patients (33.9%) were female. All patients had complete data of 6months follow-up and we were able to review 42 patients with a 1-year follow-up. Level of ID varied from borderline to profound, and mild ID was most common (43.5%). The mean maximum daily dosage of PMP was 5.6mg (range 1-12mg). Retention rates for PMP were 87.1% and 67.7% after three and six months. A trend indicated a longer mean retention time in patients with a more severe ID (borderline-mild-moderate ID: 205days, severe-profound ID: 275days). Seizure reduction was achieved in 53.2%. 36 patients (58.1%) experienced adverse effects, 80.6% of those within 3months. 45.2% of the patients experienced somatic adverse effects. Most common were fatigue & sleep problems, motor problems & unsteadiness, and gastrointestinal problems. Behavioral adverse effects were present in 40.3%. Most common were aggression, agitated behavior, disruptive behavior, and mood symptoms. Reasons for discontinuation of PMP were lack of efficacy in 14.8%, intolerable adverse effects in 44.4%, and a combination of both in 40.7%. Altogether, 24.2% (15/62) of the patients achieved seizure reduction without experiencing adverse effects, though none reached seizure freedom.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PMP might lead to an effective seizure reduction without adverse effects in a minority of patients with both epilepsy and ID. Pre-existing behavioral problems or polypharmacy do not predict the occurrence of additional behavioral adverse effects, implying that these patients need not be excluded from the introduction of PMP when clinically indicated. Patients should, ideally, be monitored at a multidisciplinary clinic.

Adjunctive perampanel in refractory epilepsy: Experience at tertiary epilepsy care center in Tours

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PER as add-on treatment in patients with severe refractory epilepsy with a particular focus on patients with learning disability and/or psychiatric comorbidity.

METHOD

We pooled retrospective data from adult patients with refractory epilepsy prescribed perampanel from a tertiary center in France between 1st May 2014 and 3rd June 2015. Data collection was done on February 2016.

RESULTS

One hundred and one patients were included (mean age: 41.2years, 37.6% with learning disability and 49.5% with psychiatric comorbidity). Mean retention was 8.1months (range: 14days to 17months). On final evaluation, a >50% reduction in seizure frequency was reached in 41.6% of patients, and 7 patients (6.9%) became seizure-free. Sixty-three patients (62.4%) experienced adverse effects. The most common adverse effects were irritability, asthenia, aggression, and sedation. Efficacy, retention of treatment, and safety were equally similar in patients with learning disability or psychiatric comorbidity as for those without. The only significant difference was in percentage of seizure-free patients: 11.1% in the group without learning disability compared with 0% in the group with (p=0.043).

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER can achieve clinically meaningful improvement, or even seizure freedom, in more than one-third of patients suffering from severe refractory epilepsies. It seems similarly safe and effective in the subgroup of these patients with learning disability or with psychiatric comorbidity. However, the rate of psychiatric side effects is high,; of note, we asked both patient and caregivers at each visit especially focusing on psychiatric side effects. Patients, caregivers, and families should be informed of potential psychiatric/behavioral risks associated with taking perampanel especially during the initial titration period.

Clinical efficacy of perampanel for partial-onset and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Perampanel, a selective noncompetitive antagonist at the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor, is highly effective in a wide range of experimental models. Although initially licensed as adjunctive therapy for partial seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients aged 12 years or older, the US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved its use in the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). This paper reviews the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of perampanel as an antiepileptic drug.

RESULTS

After oral ingestion, perampanel is rapidly absorbed (T max, 0.5-2.5 hours), has a bioavailability of ~100%, and is highly protein bound (~95%) in plasma. It undergoes extensive (>90%) hepatic metabolism, primarily via cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), with a half-life of 48 hours. Carbamazepine and other antiepileptic drugs can enhance its metabolism via induction of CYP3A4. Efficacy of perampanel in focal seizures has been extensively evaluated in Phase II and randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III trials. The efficacy in PGTCS has been reported in one class I study. In the treatment of focal seizures, perampanel showed significant dose-dependent median seizure reductions: 4 mg/d, 23%; 8 mg/d, 26%-31%; 12 mg/d, 18%-35%; and placebo, 10%-21%. The 50% responder rates were 15%-26%, 29%, 33%-38%, and 34%-36% for placebo, 4 mg/d, 8 mg/d, and 12 mg/d perampanel, respectively. Freedom from seizures was recorded in 0%-1.7% of the placebo group, 1.9% of the 2 mg group, 2.6%-4.4% of the 8 mg group, and 2.6%-6.5% of the 12 mg group. For PGTCS, the median seizure reduction was 76.5% for perampanel and 38.4% for placebo. The 50% responder rate was 64.2% for perampanel and 39.5% for placebo. Seizure freedom during maintenance phase was 30.9% for perampanel and 12.3% for placebo. Adverse effects included dose-dependent increases in the frequency of dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, irritability, falls, and probably nausea.

CONCLUSION

Perampanel is effective in treating both partial-onset seizures and PGTCS.