Perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy; Longitudinal actuarial analysis and dose responses based on monthly outcomes

Therapeutic drug monitoring of perampanel: Clinical utility and impact of co-medication on pharmacokinetic variability

Background

Perampanel (PER) is a newly developed antiseizure medication (ASM). This study aimed to determine the utilization of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for PER in a real-world clinical setting and investigate the influence of concomitant use of ASMs on the plasma concentration profile of PER.

Method

We analyzed data from the Chang Gung Research Database, which is the largest multi-institutional electronic medical records database in Taiwan. The main outcomes were the comparisons of PER plasma concentration and the ratio of concentration to the weight-adjusted dose (C/D; [ng/mL]/[mg/kg/d]) among patients received TDM of different clinical indication and among different ASM co-medication subgroups.

Results

Overall, 88 plasma samples were collected from 66 epilepsy patients treated with PER. The majority of patients (77.3 %) underwent PER TDM owing to poorly controlled seizures. There was a trend toward a higher plasma concentration and C/D ratio in those suspected of having PER toxicity owing to adverse events than of other indications. The PER concentration exhibited dose linearity. The mean PER plasma concentrations in patients co-medicated with enzyme-inducing ASMs were significantly lower than those in the patients who were not prescribed enzyme-inducing or enzyme-inhibiting ASMs, and co-medication with carbamazepine (CBZ) resulted in a significant reduction in the PER concentration.

Conclusion

PER concentration exhibited a linear regression relationship with PER dose, and the plasma concentration of the drug was highly susceptible to the drug's interactions with enzyme-inducing ASMs. TDM with clear indication could help determine the influence of ASMs used concomitantly on PER concentrations and guide clinical adjustments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparative 12-month retention rate, effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel when used as a first add-on or a late add-on treatment in patients with focal epilepsies: The COM-PER study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the 12-month retention rate, effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as a first or late add-on treatment in adult patients with focal-onset seizures (FOS), including focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS).

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, multicenter study was carried out in patients with FOS that received PER as a late add-on (n = 60), after failure of > 3 AEDs, and a group that received PER as a first add-on treatment (n = 21).

RESULTS

At 12 months, the retention (90.5 % vs. 48.3 %; p = 0.001), seizure-freedom (71.4 % vs. 13.3 %; p < 0.001) and responder (85.7 % vs. 28.3 %; p < 0.001) rates were significantly higher in the first add-on group compared with the late add-on group. In patients with FBTCS, the 12-month retention rate did not differ significantly between the first and late add-on groups (93.8 % vs. 66.7 %); however, seizure-freedom (81.2 % vs. 27.8 %; p = 0.002) and responder rate response (93.8 % vs. 44.4 %; p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the first add-on group. There were no significant differences in tolerability between the two groups, including in patients with FBTCS. Adverse events were reported in 54.3 % of patients (44/81), most were mild or moderate, with dizziness being the most frequent one.

CONCLUSION

Overall, retention rate and effectiveness at 12 months were significantly higher in patients taking PER as a first add-on than as a late add-on, and the tolerability of PER did not differ significantly between groups. PER demonstrated high effectiveness in patients with FBTCS, even as a late add-on treatment.

Relationship between plasma concentrations and clinical effects of perampanel: A prospective observational study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the potential correlation between plasma concentration of the newer antiseizure medication (ASM) perampanel (PMP) and both tolerability and seizure control in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

The study design was multicenter, open, and prospective. Plasma samples were collected in the morning 12 h apart from once-a-day bedtime PMP dose. Perampanel tolerability was assessed on the day of drug monitoring by clinical examination and patients' interview. Response to PMP was defined as ≥50% reduction from baseline seizure frequency (pretreatment). The main outcomes were the comparisons of PMP plasma concentration-to-weight-adjusted dose ratio (C/D) [(μg/mL)/(mg/kg/day)] between patients with and without PMP-related adverse effects (AEs) and between responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients (54% men), mean ± SD age 36 ± 14 years were enrolled in the study. The mean PMP dose was 6.7 ± 2.3 mg, drug treatment averaged 46 ± 34 weeks. The mean plasma concentration was 360 ± 268 ng/mL (range: 37-1213 ng/mL). Forty patients (41%) reported at least one AE, mainly dizziness and behavioral changes. No significant difference was found in median PMP C/Ds between patients with (2.94) and without (2.76) AEs, otherwise comparable for clinical variables. Forty-four patients (45%) were responders, at a median PMP C/D of 3.10, similar to the value of 2.76 found in nonresponders. These two groups also overlapped for clinical characteristics.

CONCLUSION

This is the first prospective real-life study to evaluate the relationship between PMP plasma concentrations, seizure control, and AEs. In line with the few real-world available data, we did not find any significant correlation between PMP plasma concentrations and both tolerability and seizure control.

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

Quantifying epileptiform discharges before and after the initiation of treatment can be useful for evaluating the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in generalized epilepsy. The aim of this study was to determine if the selective α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist perampanel alters the electroencephalographic signals in patients with drug resistant generalized seizures (primary or secondary). We also assessed the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of perampanel as an adjunctive treatment for patients with refractory generalized seizures after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment to determine if there is an electro-clinical correlation. We carried out a 1-year retrospective, unicentric, observational, descriptive and non-interventional study to analyze changes in epileptiform discharges, seizure frequency and adverse effects in patients with generalized seizures taking perampanel as an add-on treatment. Perampanel significantly reduced the total number, total duration, maximal duration and average duration of epileptiform discharges in patients with primary generalized epilepsy (n = 44). In patients with focal onset epilepsy and secondary generalized seizures (n = 8) significant decreases in the maximal duration and average duration of epileptiform discharges were found. These findings correlate with the significant decrease in seizure frequency and clinical improvement observed after taking perampanel as an adjunctive therapy for 3, 6 and 12 months. To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that perampanel reduces epileptiform activity, and that this effect correlates with patients' clinical improvement. Analysing patients' electroencephalographic activity in response to perampanel could be useful for assessing the drug's efficacy and optimising adjunctive treatments.