Perampanel in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Differing responses

Relationship between anti-seizure medication and behaviors that challenge in older persons with intellectual disability and epilepsy: a review

INTRODUCTION

There is increased focus on the negative impact of the overprescribing of medication, specifically psychotropic medication, including anti-seizure medications (ASM), in people with Intellectual Disability (ID). This is particularly important for the older adult population, where multi-morbidity and polypharmacy are more common. ASMs are associated with psychiatric and behavioral adverse effects. Furthermore, there is growing awareness of the anticholinergic burden for older adults with epilepsy and ID and the relationship with behaviors that challenge (BtC).

AREAS COVERED

This review defines the older adult population and outlines the relationship between epilepsy and ID. BtC is outlined in the context of the population and the relationship with ASMs. The evidence base to guide prescribing and de-prescribing for newer ASMs is also presented, including pragmatic data.

EXPERT OPINION

Polypharmacy, particularly psychotropics, are a mortality risk factor for older adults with epilepsy and ID. Therefore, any BtC requires a holistic assessment with a multi-disciplinary approach. This includes specific consideration of all prescribed medicines in the context of polypharmacy. There should be routine reviews, at least annually, for those aged 40 years and over particularly focused on anticholinergic burden and/or polypharmacy.

Efficacy and tolerability of Brivaracetam in people with intellectual disability compared to those without intellectual disability

INTRODUCTION

In England, nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Though 70 % of PwID have pharmaco-resistant seizures only 10 % are prescribed anti-seizure medication (ASMs) licenced for pharmaco-resistance. Brivaracetam (BRV) licenced in 2016 has had nine post-marketing studies involving PwID. These studies are limited either by lack of controls or not looking at outcomes based on differing levels of ID severity. This study looks at evidence comparing effectiveness and side-effects in PwID to those without ID prescribed Brivaracetam (BRV).

METHODS

Pooled case note data for patients prescribed BRV (2016-2022) at 12 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, side-effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed.

RESULTS

37 PwID (mild 17 M/P 20) were compared to 102 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose was lower for PwID than non-ID. Mean maximum dose reduced slightly with ID severity. No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in BRV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction or tolerability. Mental and behavioural side-effects were more prevalent for PwID (27.0 % ID, 17.6 % no ID) but not significantly higher (P = 0.441) or associated with ID severity (p = 0.255).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study on BRV, which compares ID cohorts with differing severity and non-ID. Efficacy, tolerability and side-effects reported are similar across differing ID severity to those with no ID.

Efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in people with and without intellectual disabilities: A naturalistic case control study

INTRODUCTION

People with Intellectual Disabilities (PwID) are twenty times more likely than general population to have epilepsy. Guidance for prescribing antiseizure medication (ASM) to PwID is driven by trials excluding them. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a first-line ASM in the UK. Concerns exist regarding LEV's behavioural and psychological adverse effects, particularly in PwID. There is no high-quality evidence comparing effectiveness and adverse effects in PwID to those without, prescribed LEV.

METHODS

Pooled casenote data for patients prescribed LEV (2000-2020) at 18 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Demographics, starting and maximum dose, adverse effects, dropouts and seizure frequency between ID (mild vs. moderate-profound (M/P)) and general population for a 12-month period were compared. Descriptive analysis, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact and logistic regression methods were employed.

RESULTS

173 PwID (mild 53 M/P 120) were compared to 200 without ID. Mean start and maximum dose were similar across all groups. PwID (Mild & M/P) were less likely to withdraw from treatment (P = 0.036). No difference was found between ID and non-ID or between ID groups (Mild vs M/P) in LEV's efficacy i.e. >50 % seizure reduction. Significant association emerged between ID severity and psychiatric adverse effects (P = 0.035). More irritability (14.2 %) and aggression (10.8 %) were reported in M/P PwID.

CONCLUSION

PwID and epilepsy have high rates of premature mortality, comorbidities, treatment resistance and polypharmacy but remain poorly researched for ASM use. This is the largest studied cohort of PwID trialled on LEV compared to general population controls. Findings support prescribing of LEV for PwID as a first-line ASM.

Patterns of antiseizure medications prescribing in people with intellectual disability and epilepsy: A narrative review and analysis

People with intellectual disabilities (PwID) have a bidirectional relationship with epilepsy. Nearly 25% of PwID have seizures and 30% people with epilepsy are thought to have a significant intellectual impairment. Furthermore, 70% of PwID are thought to have treatment-resistant epilepsy. In the United Kingdom, antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the second most widely prescribed psychotropic agent for PwID. However, it is unclear what the current evidence and patterns is on current prescribing of ASMs, including when and how a case is made to withdraw them. A narrative review along with an analysis of large-scale NHS Digital published data (2015-2020) on several aspects of ASM prescribing by general practices for PwID was undertaken. The review results and data analysis are consolidated and presented as 11 themes to provide a comprehensive overview of the study topic. Recent studies estimate that one-third and one-fifth of PwID are prescribed ASMs. A history of epilepsy is seen as the primary prescribing reason; however, often it is a legacy, and the indication is no longer clear. The proportion receiving ASMs continues to rise with age. This pattern of use does not correlate well with seizure onset. There are limited data on de-prescribing ASMs in PwID. The study population heterogenicity, associated polypharmacy, multimorbidity and higher sudden unexpected death in epilepsy risks are outlined. Suggestions are made from available evidence for improving prescribing practices for PwID and seizures, and key areas for further research in this complex clinical area are outlined.

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.

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 review of the pharmacotherapeutic considerations for managing epilepsy in people with autism

INTRODUCTION

Autism, like other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), has a strong association with epilepsy. There are known common genetic pathways in both autism and epilepsy. There are also specific genetic syndromes associated with both complex epilepsy and the autism phenotype.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the evidence for common genetic etiologies and pathophysiological pathways in relation to both epilepsy and autism. Autism with comorbid epilepsy are associated with a high prevalence of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. This paper discusses how this influences assessment, treatment, and outcomes. The evidence for the treatment of specific seizure types in the context of NDDs is also examined alongside clinical commentary.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the strong association, there is a limited evidence base to support the efficacy and tolerability of anti-seizure medications specifically in autism, with no Level 1 evidence or National Guidance available. Autism and epilepsy should be approached under a NDD model with cautious introduction and titration of anti-seizure medication. Alongside this, there is evidence to support a move toward precision medicine in specific genetic syndromes such as Tuberous Sclerosis Complex and other genetic seizure disorders. The first-line treatments that should be considered for focal seizures include carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and levetiracetam.

Effectiveness and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for focal seizures in adults with developmental disability treated in clinical practice

•

92.9% (26/28 patients) continued cenobamate through 6 months, showing high retention.

•

High responder rates/substantial focal seizure reduction occurred with cenobamate.

•

100% seizure reduction occurred in 48.2% of patients at 6 months.

•

Adverse effects were often mitigated by concomitant antiseizure medication reduction.

Effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate for uncontrolled focal seizures in adults living with a developmental disability are not defined. Retrospective medical record review included adults ≥18 years old living with a developmental disability, either in a group home or with parents, and experiencing uncontrolled focal seizures despite stable doses of ≥1 antiseizure medication (ASM). Effectiveness was examined as percentage change in focal seizure frequency per month from the 2-month average before cenobamate to the average of months 5 and 6 while receiving cenobamate. Percentages of patients achieving responder rates in focal seizure frequency at 6 months of cenobamate treatment were examined. Adverse effects and concomitant ASM dosage adjustments were assessed. Of the 28 included patients, 26 (92.9%) continued cenobamate beyond 6 months. The responder rate of 100% seizure reduction (seizure-free) occurred in 48.2% of the patients who continued cenobamate for 6 months. Ten adverse effects were reported in 9 patients (32.1%), and 80% (8/10) were resolved by reducing concomitant ASM dosages. Two patients (7.1%) discontinued cenobamate due to adverse effects. Cenobamate resulted in substantial reduction in focal seizure frequency and was well tolerated.

Perampanel treatment in highly drug-resistant epilepsies including nonsurgical candidates and failed surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) treatment for patients with highly drug-resistant epilepsies (HDRE) including nonsurgical candidates and failed surgery in real-world setting.

METHODS

All patients who were treated with PER during June 2015 to August 2019 were selected. Primary outcomes were percentage of seizure reduction, responder rate, and seizure freedom rate. Seizure frequency after taking PER at 3 and 12 months were compared with baseline seizure frequency within the same time period prior to starting PER. Secondary outcomes were retention rate, side effects, and predictors for a response to PER. Descriptive statistics and the Kernel regression model were employed.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients received PER treatment during the study period. Six patients who had no baseline seizure frequency recordings were excluded, for a total of 35 patients included for analysis. Mean age was 40.06 years (SD 12.34). All were highly resistant to several antiseizure drugs (ASDs) with a median number of previously failed ASDs of 8 items. Eleven, 16, 5, and 3 patients were lesional, nonlesional focal epilepsy, nonsurgical candidate, and failed surgery, respectively. At 3 months after PER treatment, the median percentage of seizure reduction was 20 % (-35.71, 100), the responder rate was 22.86 % (8/35), and the seizure freedom rate was 17.14% (6/35). At 12 months after PER treatment, the corresponding outcomes were 25% (-20.57, 91.60), 22.58% (7/31), and 9.68% (3/31), respectively. Retention rates at 3 and 12 months were 100% and 91.43% (32/35), respectively. Nineteen patients (54.29%) experienced side effects from PER. Side effects were somnolence (6/35), dizziness (3/35), irritability (2/35), and ataxia (2/35), and one each for weight loss, nausea, headache, insomnia, verbal aggressivity, and depression. Median duration for 2-mg dose increment was 2.2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world practice, slow-titration PER regimen is well-tolerable and shows benefit in helping control seizures in patients with very difficult-to-treat HDRE.

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.

Eslicarbazepine acetate response in intellectual disability population versus general population

BACKGROUND

A quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy, compared to approximately one in a hundred across the general population. Evidence for the safe and effective prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for those with ID is, however, limited.

AIMS OF STUDY

This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence around Eslicarbazepine Acetate (ESL), a new AED, by comparing response of individuals with ID to those from the general population who do not have ID.

METHODS

A single data set was created through retrospective data collection from English and Welsh NHS Trusts. The UK-based Epilepsy Database Research Register (Ep-ID) data collection and analysis method were used.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 93 people (36 ID and 57 'no ID'). Seizure improvement of '>50%' was higher at 12 months for 'no ID' participants (56%), compared to ID participants (35%). Retention rates were slightly higher for those with ID (56% compared to 53%). Neither difference was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerance and Efficacy for ID and 'no ID' people in our data set were similar. Seizure improvement and retention rates were slightly lower than that found in other European data sets, but findings strengthen the evidence for the use of ESL in the ID population.

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.

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.

Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses?

PURPOSE

Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register).

METHODS

Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies.

Quality improvement in the management of people with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the development of clinical guidance

Introduction: This clinical guidance looks at the specific concerns of delivery of medical treatment for people with epilepsy and intellectual disability (ID). People with ID have not been included in licensing drug trials of AEDs. However, this population has an over-representation of seizure comorbidity, treatment resistance, and polypharmacy while also being vulnerable to not having their views considered.Areas covered: This review summarizes the current most robust evidence available for the use of licensed AEDs in people with epilepsy and ID. The article provides practical evidence-based clinical information to help prescribers choose the most appropriate AED from the drugs discussed. The article highlights other important individualized factors to consider before initiating or changing antiepileptic medication.Expert opinion: A 'traffic light' coding system is applied to commonly used AEDs based on the level of evidence and expert clinical experience. Managing epilepsy in the ID population requires specialist care. Treatment plans need to be holistic and tailored to accommodate an individual's comorbidities, concurrent medications, general health, social and environmental status. There is a need for large quality trial data to assess the most suitable AEDs on seizure control and quality of life in this population with complex needs.

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 as adjunctive therapy in highly refractory epilepsies: Real-world data from an Italian tertiary care epilepsy centre

Perampanel (PER) is a selective non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, licensed as adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (pGTCSs). We performed a retrospective study on highly refractory adult patients taking PER, with 1-year follow-up. Retention rate represented the primary outcome of our work; seizure frequency reduction (≥50%), "switch rate" and proportion of adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as secondary endpoints. Eighty-nine subjects (47 females, age range: 19-78 years) were included. Seventy-three had focal epilepsy (FE), 9 generalized epilepsy and 7 epileptic encephalopathy. All patients were highly drug-resistant (medication failures: 5-17). Retention rate was 87.6%, 63% and 51.7% at 3, 6 and 12 months. Responders were 27/89 (30.3%), with 8/27 seizure-free. The number of previous treatment failures and the concomitant use of enzyme inducers negatively influenced clinical response, whereas no correlation was documented between PER dose and outcome. Responder proportion was more satisfying in structural FE than in FE of unknown etiology (33% versus 20%), and in secondarily GTCSs than focal seizures (54% vs 28%), whereas pGTCSs showed a lower reponse rate (25%). Mild-to-moderate AEs (mainly dizziness, gait disturbances and psychiatric effects) were reported by 40% of patients; serious psychiatric AEs usually occurred in subjects with psychiatric comorbidities. Our study confirms the tolerability and effectiveness of PER in highly drug-resistant patients with different epilepsy syndromes and aetiologies.