Adjunctive perampanel and myoclonic and absence seizures: Post hoc analysis of data from study 332 in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel treatment in pediatric patients with epilepsy aged 4-12 years: a real-world study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of perampanel (PER) as an adjunctive therapy in children aged 4-12 years with epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a non-randomized, open-label, placebo-uncontrolled, real-world self-controlled study that included 216 young children (aged 4-12 years) with epilepsy who received PER as adjunctive therapy at the children's hospital affiliated with Chongqing Medical University from July 4, 2020, to September 20, 2023.

RESULTS

(1) The efficacy rates of adjunctive PER therapy at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 62.8%, 67.8%, 65.3%, and 61.2%, respectively. PER showed efficacy in alleviating focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures. The efficacy rates for variants of self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS) and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) were 89.5% and 66.7%, respectively. (2) Focal non-motor onset seizures with or without impaired awareness, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), LGS, variants of SeLECTS, the number of concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs), a family history of epilepsy, and focal lesions on cranial magnetic resonance imaging were independent factors affecting efficacy. The order of PER addition did not affect efficacy. The retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 90.7%, 84.7%, 74.7%, 64.9%, respectively. (3) Adverse reactions occurred in 45 patients (45/216, 20.8%), with irritability/aggressive behavior (18/216, 8.3%) and somnolence (14/216, 6.5%) being the most common. Twelve patients (12/216, 5.6%) withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

In young Chinese children with epilepsy, PER is effective, safe, and well-tolerated as an adjunctive therapy, making it a viable option for use with broad-spectrum ASMs.

Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy: Misunderstandings, Challenges, and Opportunities

The idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGE) make up a fifth of all epilepsies, but <1% of epilepsy research. This skew reflects misperceptions: diagnosis is straightforward, pathophysiology is understood, seizures are easily controlled, epilepsy is outgrown, morbidity and mortality are low, and surgical interventions are impossible. Emerging evidence reveals that patients with IGE may go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed with focal epilepsy if EEG or semiology have asymmetric or focal features. Genetic, electrophysiologic, and neuroimaging studies provide insights into pathophysiology, including overlaps and differences from focal epilepsies. IGE can begin in adulthood and patients have chronic and drug-resistant seizures. Neuromodulatory interventions for drug-resistant IGE are emerging. Rates of psychiatric and other comorbidities, including sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, parallel those in focal epilepsy. IGE is an understudied spectrum for which our diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, scientific understanding, and therapies remain inadequate.

Antiseizure medications for idiopathic generalized epilepsies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs), both as monotherapies and adjunctive therapies, for idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) and related entities.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials from December 2022 to February 2023. Studies on the efficacy and safety of ASM monotherapies or adjunctive therapies for IGEs and related entities-including juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), juvenile absence epilepsy, or generalized tonic-clonic seizures alone (GTCA)-were included. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining seizure free for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; safety outcomes were the proportions of any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Network meta-analyses were performed in a random-effects model to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Rankings of ASMs were based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study is registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022372358).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials containing 4282 patients were included. As monotherapies, all ASMs were more effective than placebo, and valproate and ethosuximide were significantly better than lamotrigine. According to the SUCRA for efficacy, ethosuximide ranked first for CAE, whereas valproate ranked first for other types of IGEs. As adjunctive therapies, topiramate ranked best for GTCA as well as overall for IGEs, while levetiracetam ranked best for myoclonic seizures. For safety, perampanel ranked best (measured by any TEAE).

CONCLUSIONS

All of the studied ASMs were more effective than placebo. Valproate monotherapy ranked best overall for IGEs, whereas ethosuximide ranked best for CAE. Adjunctive topiramate and levetiracetam were most effective for GTCA and myoclonic seizures, respectively. Furthermore, perampanel had the best tolerability.

Perampanel for the treatment of people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate perampanel (PER) when used under real-world conditions to treat people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) included in the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study.

METHODS

The multinational, retrospective, pooled analysis PERMIT explored the use of PER in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice across 17 countries. This subgroup analysis included PERMIT participants with IGE. Time points for retention and effectiveness measurements were 3, 6, and 12 months (last observation carried forward, defined as "last visit," was also applied to effectiveness). Effectiveness was evaluated by seizure type (total seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS], myoclonic seizures, absence seizures) and included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (defined as no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was monitored throughout PER treatment and evaluated by documenting the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including psychiatric AEs and those leading to treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

The Full Analysis Set included 544 people with IGE (51.9% women, mean age = 33.3 years, mean epilepsy duration = 18.1 years). At 3, 6, and 12 months, 92.4%, 85.5%, and 77.3% of participants were retained on PER treatment, respectively (Retention Population, n = 497). At the last visit, responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 74.2% and 54.6% (total seizures), 81.2% and 61.5% (GTCS), 85.7% and 66.0% (myoclonic seizures), and 90.5% and 81.0% (absence seizures) (Effectiveness Population, n = 467). AEs occurred in 42.9% of patients and included irritability (9.6%), dizziness/vertigo (9.2%), and somnolence (6.3%) (Tolerability Population, n = 520). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was 12.4% over 12 months.

SIGNIFICANCE

This subgroup analysis of the PERMIT study demonstrated the effectiveness and good tolerability of PER in people with IGE when administered under everyday clinical practice conditions. These findings are in line with clinical trial evidence, supporting PER's use as broad-spectrum antiseizure medication for the treatment of IGE.

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

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

Minimum effective sodium valproate dose in genetic generalized epilepsies

INTRODUCTION

Sodium valproate (VPA) is the most effective antiseizure medication (ASM) in genetic generalized epilepsies (GGEs). However, the frequent adverse effects and the high risk inflicted on the exposed offspring make it imperative to search for the lowest daily VPA dose able to control seizures for most patients. In the current published series, the VPA value of <1000 mg was the most adopted.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide a cutoff VPA value below which a given daily dose can be considered a low dose in patients with GGEs.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study included patients with clinical and electroencephalographic diagnoses of GGEs based on the ILAE criteria. Patients were followed up for at least two years using VPA in mono- or polytherapy. Clinical data, VPA dose, and associated ASMs were analyzed. Adverse effects were also evaluated. We related seizure control to VPA doses through uni- and multivariate statistical analyses.

RESULTS

From 225 patients, 169 (75%) had good seizure control, with most (60%) receiving monotherapy. The cutoff daily VPA dose capable of distinguishing these patients from those without seizure control was up to 1000 mg (p = 0.006) in univariate analyses and up to 700 mg in multivariate analyses. For patients in polytherapy, the cutoff was up to 1750 mg and 1800 mg in uni- and multivariate analyses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The lowest daily VPA dose in monotherapy able to control seizures for most GGE patients was up to 700 mg, a value that can be used as a low dose criterion in studies assessing the therapeutic VPA ranges. Patients using higher VPA doses or in polytherapy present a lower probability of seizure control.

Perampanel monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy: Clinical trial and real-world evidence

Perampanel, a selective, non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication (ASM) for focal-onset seizures (FOS) and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). In the US, perampanel is approved for the treatment of FOS (adjunctive and monotherapy), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in patients aged ≥4 years, and as adjunctive treatment of GTCS in patients aged ≥12 years. The monotherapy approvals in the US were based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) policy allowing extrapolation of adjunctive data to the monotherapy setting in the absence of randomized controlled monotherapy trials; since then, perampanel monotherapy has received approvals in approximately 48 countries. As there are key differences in clinical evidence of perampanel as adjunctive therapy vs monotherapy, we review the clinical outcomes of perampanel when administered as primary or secondary monotherapy. Eight publications reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of perampanel monotherapy in clinical trial and real-world settings were selected during our literature search and are included; these comprise three Eisai-sponsored studies in patients with epilepsy: one prospective, open-label, Phase III clinical trial of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy (Study 342 [FREEDOM]) and two retrospective, real-world Phase IV studies of patients with epilepsy who received perampanel during routine clinical care (Studies 504 and 506 [PROVE]); and five retrospective, real-world studies in patients with epilepsy who were prescribed perampanel during routine clinical care. Results from these studies demonstrated that seizure freedom may be achieved following treatment with perampanel monotherapy (either primary or secondary), with favorable retention rates and safety profiles. Overall, the clinical evidence supports the use of perampanel monotherapy both in newly diagnosed patients and in those who have been unable to control their seizures with other ASMs.

Perampanel and childhood absence epilepsy: A real life experience

Objectives

The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as first add-on and as second line monotherapy in subjects with childhood absence epilepsy.

Methods

Our sample consisted of 20 patients with childhood absence epilepsy, aged between 8 and 10, already in therapy with a first antiseizure medication with incomplete seizure control. PER was added as first add-on in a dose ranging from 3 to 8 mg/die with 1- 2 mg/week increments. The patients that were seizure-free were shifted to a PER monotherapy. All patients underwent a standardized neuropsychological evaluation in order to assess non-verbal intelligence and executive functions before adding PER and after 6 months of drug therapy. All parents completed two questionnaires, in order to assess the emotional-behavioral problems and parental stress.

Results

15/20 patients responded to add-on PER and were seizure-free, in 3/20 patients we observed a reduction of seizure frequency <50%, and in the 2 remaining patients the add-on therapy with PER did not lead to a reduction in seizures frequency from baseline. The patients who were seizure-free were switched to PER monotherapy. 9/15 patients remained seizure-free in monotherapy with PER. In the first month of therapy with PER 2/20 patients (10%) reported mild, transient side effects of irritability, headache and dizziness, which did not lead to discontinuation of therapy. Adjunctive treatment with PER did not negatively affect non-verbal intelligence, executive functions, emotional/behavioral symptoms of children and parental stress levels.

Significance

Our clinical experience in real life showed that PER appears to be effective in the control of absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy, with a favorable tolerability profile. PER would seem effective on absence seizures even in monotherapy. Further studies with larger samples, longer follow-up and controlled vs. placebo (or other first choice antiseizure medications) are needed to confirm our data.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-term open-label perampanel: generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy

Objective

Assess the longer‐term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/day) in patients aged ≥12 years with generalized tonic–clonic (GTC) seizures from the Open‐label Extension (OLEx) Phase of Study 332 to determine whether responses obtained during the Core Study are maintained during long‐term treatment.

Methods

Patients with GTC seizures previously enrolled in a randomized placebo‐controlled trial of perampanel could enter an OLEx Phase comprising 6‐week blinded conversion (during which patients previously randomized to placebo‐switched to perampanel) and up to 136‐week maintenance periods (maximum perampanel dose of 12 mg/day). A 4‐week follow‐up period was completed by all patients after the last on‐treatment visit during the OLEx. We assessed seizure frequency outcomes from preperampanel baseline and the Core Study Pre‐randomization Phase, retention rates, doses selected, and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

Overall, 138 patients entered the OLEx. Median percent reductions in GTC seizures per 28 days from preperampanel were 77% (Weeks 1‐13) and 90% (Weeks 40‐52). Retention rates were 88% (6 months) and 75% (12 months). Seizure‐freedom rates were maintained for at least 2 years regardless of prior treatment received during the Core Study. Most common modal daily dose was >4‐8 mg/day (n = 93). Across the Core and OLEx Phases, 120 (87%) patients experienced TEAEs; the most common was dizziness.

Significance

Perampanel was generally well‐tolerated, and the TEAEs reported here are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel. Perampanel offers a long‐term treatment option for patients (aged ≥12 years) with GTC seizures.

Sustained seizure freedom with adjunctive perampanel in patients with convulsive seizures: Post hoc analysis of open-label extension studies 307 and 332

OBJECTIVE

Since increased mortality rates have been associated with convulsive seizures, it is important to achieve seizure control in these patients. Here, we report post hoc analyses to assess long-term seizure-freedom rates with adjunctive perampanel in patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with refractory focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) who participated in open-label extension (OLEx) studies.

METHODS

Patients with focal-onset seizures, with/without FBTCS, who completed double-blind, Phase III Studies 304, 305, or 306 could enter OLEx Study 307 (16-week blinded Conversion; 256-week Maintenance). Patients with GTCS who completed the double-blind phase of Study 332 could enter the OLEx Phase (6-week blinded Conversion; 136-week Maintenance). Maximum perampanel dose: 12 mg/day. Seizure-freedom rates for up to 24 months were assessed in perampanel-treated patients who achieved seizure freedom during the double-blind studies to determine if their seizure-free status was maintained during the OLEx. In addition, to ensure any patients who only achieved seizure freedom during the OLEx were captured, seizure-freedom rates were also assessed in all patients who achieved and maintained a seizure-free status for a period of at least six consecutive months at any time during the double-blind and/or OLEx studies; some of these patients may have received placebo during the double-blind study but only their time on perampanel is included in the seizure-free analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictive factors for achieving seizure freedom for at least 6 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 53.8% (n = 42/78) of patients who received perampanel and were FBTCS free during the double-blind studies remained seizure free for up to 24 months during Study 307, and 31.6% (n = 6/19) of patients who were GTCS free during the double-blind phase of Study 332 remained seizure free for up to 24 months during the OLEx Phase. Over 40% (FBTCS, 41.5% [n = 197/475]; GTCS, 52.9% [n = 73/138]) of patients were seizure free for a period of at least six consecutive months. Multivariate analysis showed that the best predictors of achieving seizure freedom from FBTCS for at least 6 months were lower baseline seizure frequency (p = 0.0014) and absence of enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications at baseline (p = 0.0056); multivariate analysis was not conducted for GTCS since only one variable was identified as a significant predictor of seizure freedom in the univariate analysis (lower baseline seizure frequency). Perampanel was generally well tolerated with no new safety signals identified. The most common TEAE was dizziness. For both seizure types, 10% or fewer seizure-free patients discontinued perampanel due to TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that adjunctive perampanel may be a suitable long-term treatment option for patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with convulsive seizures to achieve and maintain seizure freedom.

PROVE-Phase IV Study of Perampanel in Real-World Clinical Care of Patients with Epilepsy: Interim Analysis in Pediatric Patients

PROVE is a retrospective, phase IV study assessing retention, dosing, efficacy, and safety of perampanel when administered to patients during routine clinical care. We report an interim analysis of preadolescent (1 to <12 years) and adolescent (12 to <18 years) patients. Data were obtained from medical records of patients with epilepsy initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014; cut-off date for this analysis was October 10, 2018. Overall, 151 preadolescent and 183 adolescent patients were included. Retention rates following 24 months on perampanel were 42.5% (preadolescent subgroup; n = 31/73) and 55.7% (adolescent subgroup; n = 54/97). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 53 (35.1%) preadolescent (most common: aggression, irritability, and somnolence) and 78 (42.6%) adolescent patients (most common: somnolence, aggression, and dizziness). These data indicate that daily oral doses of perampanel are generally well tolerated during routine clinical care, with favorable retention rates for ≤2 years, in patients aged 1 to <18 years.

Perampanel as first add-on antiseizure medication: Italian consensus clinical practice statements

Background

When use of a single antiseizure medication (ASM) fails to induce seizure remission, add-on therapy is justified. Perampanel (PER) is approved in Europe as adjunctive therapy for focal, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Aim of the study was to establish whether PER is suitable for first add-on use.

Methods

A Delphi methodology was adopted to assess consensus on a list of 39 statements produced by an Expert Board of 5 epileptologists. Using an iterative process, statements were finalized by a Delphi Panel of 84 Italian pediatric and adult neurologists. Each statement was rated anonymously to determine level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was established as agreement by at least 80% of the panelists. The relevance of each statement was also assessed on a 3-point scale.

Results

Consensus was achieved for 37 statements. Characteristics of PER considered to justify its use as first add-on include evidence of a positive impact on quality of life based on long term retention data, efficacy, tolerability, and ease of use; no worsening of cognitive functions and sleep quality; a low potential for drug interactions; a unique mechanism of action. Potential unfavorable factors are the need for a relatively slow dose titration; the potential occurrence of behavioral adverse effects; lack of information on safety when used in pregnancy; limited access to plasma PER levels.

Conclusion

Perampanel has many features which justify its use as a first add-on. Choice of an ASM as first add-on should be tailored to individual characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-021-02450-y.

Therapeutic approach to difficult-to-treat typical absences and related epilepsy syndromes

Introduction: typical absences (TAs), are brief, generalized epileptic seizures of abrupt onset and termination clinically manifesting with impairment of awareness and associated with 3 Hz spike-wave discharges on EEG. TAs may occur in different idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGE). Despite treatment with adequate anti-seizure medications (ASMs), TAs may persist in ~25% of subjects. This narrative review focuses on the therapeutic approach to difficult-to-treat TAs occurring in the setting of IGE.Areas covered: a literature search was conducted on the topic of treatment of TAs.Expert opinion: ethosuximide (ESX), valproic acid (VPA) and lamotrigine (LTG), alone or in combination, are considered the first-choice drugs. In women of childbearing potential, VPA should be avoided. Alternative therapies (benzodiazepines, levetiracetam, topiramate, or zonisamide) should be considered in subjects unresponsive to monotherapy after the exclusion of pseudo-drug resistance. Newer ASMs such as brivaracetam and perampanel seem to be promising options. Well-conducted clinical trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative monotherapy (beyond ESX, VPA or LTG) or combination of ASMs on difficult-to-treat TAs, are warranted.

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.

Perampanel Improves Cortical Myoclonus and Disability in Progressive Myoclonic Epilepsies: A Case Series and a Systematic Review of the Literature

Introduction: Progressive myoclonic epilepsies (PMEs) are a heterogenous group of genetic diseases presenting with epilepsy, cognitive impairment, and severe action myoclonus, which can severely affect daily life activities and independent walking ability. Perampanel is a recent commercially available antiseizure medication with high efficacy against generalized seizures. Some reports supported the role of perampanel in ameliorating action myoclonus in PMEs. Here, we aimed to describe a case series and provide a systematic literature review on perampanel effects on PMEs.

Methods: We report the perampanel effectiveness on myoclonus, daily life activities, and seizures on an original Italian multicenter case series of 11 individuals with PMEs. Then, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review on perampanel effect on myoclonus and disability in PMEs. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar articles on perampanel and PMEs up to June 2020. No prospective trials were found. We reviewed 11 case series manuscripts reporting 104 cases of different PMEs.

Results: Here, we are reporting the effectiveness of perampanel in five individuals affected by Unverricht–Lundborg disease, three by Lafora disease, two by sialidosis, and one by an undetermined PME. Nine out of 11 individuals improved their disability related to the action myoclonus (two with Lafora disease did not). Among the 104 persons with PMEs collected by the systematic review, we found that more than half of the patients receiving perampanel exhibited an amelioration of action myoclonus and, consequently, of their independence in daily life activities. The Unverricht–Lundborg disease seemed to show the best clinical response to perampanel, in comparison with the other more severe PMEs. A significant seizure reduction was achieved by almost all persons with active epilepsy. Only 11% of PME patients dropped out due to inefficacy.

Conclusions: Perampanel demonstrated a beneficial effect with regard to action myoclonus, disability, and seizures and was well-tolerated in people with PMEs, independently from their genetic diagnosis. Given the limited scientific evidence, broader prospective trials should be encouraged.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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