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

Perampanel in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice data from the PERampanel as Only Concomitant antiseizure medication (PEROC) study

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is one of the most common causes of acquired epilepsy. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence regarding the clinical profile of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in PSE. This study aims to evaluate the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on treatment in patients with PSE in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of PSE patients included in a previous retrospective, longitudinal, multicentre observational study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency and adverse events were collected at 3, 6 and 12 months. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 56 individuals with PSE, characterized by varying initial treatment modalities and timeframes relative to disease onset. We found notable retention rates (92.8%, 83.7%, and 69% at 3, 6, and 12 months), with treatment withdrawal mainly due to poor tolerability. One year after PER introduction, seizure frequency significantly reduced, with a responder rate (≥50% reduction) of 83.9% and a seizure-free rate of 51.6%. Adverse events occurred in 25 (46.3%) patients, mainly dizziness, irritability, and behavioural disorders. No major statistical differences were found between early (30 patients, 53.6%) and late add-on groups, except for a higher 6-month responder rate in the early add-on group.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated in patients with PSE in a real-world setting. Perampanel demonstrated good efficacy and safety as both early and late add-on treatment, making it a compelling option for this unique patient population.

Efficacy and Safety of adjunctive Perampanel in a prospective, real-world, Phase IV study in Indian patients aged ≥12 years for Treatment of focal-onset Epilepsy: Study 508

OBJECTIVE

ESPRITE (Study 508; NCT03836924) evaluated the real-world safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in India.

METHODS

ESPRITE was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational, Phase IV study with a 6-month Treatment Period. Patients were aged ≥12 years and had been prescribed perampanel for adjunctive treatment of FOS, with or without FBTCS. Assessments included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; primary endpoint), median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, 50% responder rates, and seizure-freedom rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (199 patients in the Safety Analysis Set and 174 patients who completed all visits in the main efficacy analyses). TEAEs (all mild or moderate in severity) were reported in 18.1% (n = 36/199) of patients (the most common were dizziness [3.0%] and irritability [2.0%]). TEAEs leading to discontinuation of perampanel were reported in 2.0% of patients; no deaths or serious TEAEs occurred. At 6 months, median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 100.0%, 50% responder rate was 83.3%, and seizure-freedom rate was 49.4%.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjunctive perampanel (at a mean daily dose of 4 mg/day) was shown to be well tolerated and effective in patients aged ≥12 years with FOS, with or without FBTCS, from India.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Many patients do not receive adequate treatment for epilepsy and need effective seizure control medications. In this 6-month clinical study, 199 patients from India, aged 12 years or older, added perampanel to the anti-seizure medications they were already taking. At 6 months, 49% of patients experienced no seizures since starting perampanel and seizure frequency was reduced by half in 83% of patients. Side effects occurred in 18% of patients (most commonly dizziness and irritability) and caused 2% to stop perampanel; no deaths were reported. Perampanel was an effective and generally safe added medication for patients with epilepsy from India.

PERPRISE: A prospective non-interventional study of PERampanel as only adjunctive treatment in patients with PRImary or SEcondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures: First interim analysis

OBJECTIVE

To report the interim results of the PERPRISE study (Study 509; NCT04202159), which is evaluating perampanel as the only adjunctive anti-seizure medication (ASM) in adults with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

PERPRISE is an ongoing 12-month multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional study of perampanel in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients are aged ≥18 years with FBTCS or GTCS due to focal or idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Perampanel, as an adjunctive therapy to ASM monotherapy ('add-on therapy') or as a substitute for one ASM in dual therapy ('substitution therapy'), is prescribed in line with its SmPC. The Interim Analysis Set comprises the first 100 patients who received ≥1 dose of perampanel and attended or discontinued prior to the ~6-month visit. Interim endpoints include retention rate, measures of effects on seizure frequency, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included in the Interim Analysis Set (add-on, n = 43 [43.0%]; substitution, n = 55 [55.0%]; unknown, n = 2). The 6-month retention rate was 78.0% (add-on, 83.7%; substitution, 72.7%). For the overall population with GTCS and/or FBTCS, seizure-freedom rate at 6 months was 58.8% (add-on, 72.2%; substitution, 47.9%) and 50% responder rate at 6 months was 82.6% (add-on, 89.2%; substitution, 76.6%). Retention rates and seizure outcomes were better with perampanel as an early-line treatment than as a late-line treatment. TEAEs were reported by 48 patients (48.0%), most commonly dizziness (n = 9), fatigue (n = 7), and irritability (n = 7). Sixteen patients (16.0%) withdrew from perampanel treatment due to TEAEs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The interim analysis of PERPRISE offers insight into the real-world use of perampanel in Germany, including for the first time, clinical practice data from patients with GTCS and switching ASMs within a dual therapy. Further data from PERPRISE will be of value to inform clinical decision-making in this patient cohort.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Patients with epilepsy often take more than one medication for seizure control. This 12month study looked at patients in Germany receiving perampanel as only add-on medication. The interim analysis shows, that at 6 months, over 70% of the 100 patients continued to use perampanel; 59% experienced no seizures during treatment with perampanel, and in 83%, seizure frequency was reduced by half. Side effects occurred in 48% of patients (most commonly dizziness, fatigue, and irritability) and caused 16% to withdraw from the study. Overall, perampanel was a suitable as only add-on medication for patients with epilepsy.

Long-term treatment with Perampanel of Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures, especially in sleep-related epilepsy: a prospective real-world observational study

Background

There is currently a lack of studies examining the long-term therapeutic effectiveness of the third-generation anti-sezure medication, perampanel (PER), for focal-onset seizures (FOS), particularly in Chinese patients with sleep-related epilepsy (SRE). Additionally, the appropriate dosage, plasma concentration, and the relationship between dose and plasma concentration of PER in Chinese patients are still uncertain.

Methods

A prospective, single-center, 24-month observational study was conducted in patients diagnosed with FOS, with a focus on patients with SRE. Changes in seizure frequency from baseline, adverse events, and retention rates were analyzed at 12 and 24 months following the start of the treatment. Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events and discontinuation profiles. PER plasma concentrations were used to assess dose-concentration-response relationships.

Results

A total of 175 patients were included (median age: 25 years; range: 4-72 years; 53. 1% males and 46.9% females), with the SRE population accounting for 49. 1% (n = 86). The patients diagnosed with SRE showed considerably higher response rates than those who did not have this diagnosis (p = 0.025, odds ratio = 3.8). Additionally, the SRE group adhered better to PER treatment (r = 0.0009). Patients with a shorter duration of epilepsy (median: 3 years; range:2-7 years) demonstrated a more favorable therapeutic response to PER (p = 0.032). Throughout the administration of maintenance doses, among the entire FOS population, the concentration of PER (C0) ranged between 101.5 and 917.4 ng/mL (median, 232.0 ng/mL), and the mean plasma concentration of PER in the responders was 292.8 ng/mL. We revealed a linear relationship between PER dose and plasma concentration, regardless of whether PER was used as monotherapy or add-on therapy. The retention rates were 77.7% and 65. 1% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients and were mostly manageable.

Conclusion

PER effectively reduced seizure frequency in Chinese patients with FOS, particularly in those with SRE, over a 24-month period. The treatment was well-tolerated and had a clear linear dose-plasma concentration relationship.

Perampanel as only add-on epilepsy treatment in elderly: A subgroup analysis of real-world data from retrospective, multicenter, observational study

INTRODUCTION

Drug management of epilepsy in the elderly presents unique but data on this population are scarce. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on to a background anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the elderly in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years included in a previous 12-month multicenter study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

The sample included 65 subjects (mean age: 75.7 ± 7.2 years), with mainly focal (73.8%) epilepsy. The mean PER daily dose was ≈4 mg during all follow-up. Retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 90.5%, 89.6%, and 79.4%ly. The baseline median normalized per 28-day seizure number significantly decreased at 3-, 6- and 12-month visits. One year after PER introduction, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency) was 89.7%, with a seizure freedom rate of 72.4%. Adverse events occurred in 22 (34.9%) patients with dizziness and irritability being the most frequent. No major differences between early (41 patients, 63.1%), and late add-on groups were observed.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated when used as only add-on treatment in elderly people with epilepsy in clinical practice, thus representing a suitable therapeutic option in this age category.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

Introduction

The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

Results

The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031).

Discussion

This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

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.

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.

Safety evaluation of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) that are well tolerated and effective as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy to reduce the need for adjunctive ASMs to treat newly diagnosed epilepsy, and to reduce the number of concomitant ASMs in patients with refractory epilepsy. Although the pivotal trials of perampanel evaluated its adjunctive use in patients with refractory seizures, open-label/real-world studies support its use in first/second-line settings.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety/tolerability of perampanel, focusing on its use as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy. The safety of perampanel in special populations and its safety/tolerability compared with that of other ASMs is also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Perampanel is a favorable candidate for initial or first adjunctive therapy due to its favorable efficacy and safety/tolerability as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, its long half-life and ease of use, and its limited drug-drug interactions. The proposed mitigation strategies for managing the risk of serious psychiatric adverse events are appropriate patient selection, use of low doses, and slow titration. The growing body of evidence might shift current treatment strategies towards the early use of perampanel and its use at a low dose (4 mg/day).

Effectiveness of Perampanel as the Only Add-on: Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Real Life Study on epilepsy patients

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel (PER) is indicated as adjunctive antiseizure medication (ASM) in adolescents and adults with epilepsy. Data from clinical trials show good efficacy and tolerability, while limited information is available on the routine clinical use of PER, especially when used as only add-on treatment.

METHODS

we performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study on people with focal or generalized epilepsy aged >12 years, consecutively recruited from 52 Italian epilepsy centers. All patients received PER as the only add-on treatment to a background ASM according to standard clinical practice. Retention rate, seizure frequency and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early or late use of PER and by concomitant ASM were also conducted.

RESULTS

503 patients were included (age 36.5±19.9 years). Eighty-one per cent had focal epilepsy. Overall, the retention rate was very high in the whole group (89% at 12 months) according with efficacy measures. No major differences were observed in the sub-analyses, although patients who used PER as early add-on, as compared with late add-on, more often reached early seizure freedom at 3 months follow-up (66% vs. 53%, p=0.05). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 25%, far less commonly than in PER randomized trials.

SIGNIFICANCE

this study confirms the good efficacy and safety of PER for focal or generalized epilepsy in real-life conditions. We provide robust data about its effectiveness as only add-on treatment even in patients with a long-standing history of epilepsy and previously treated with many ASMs.

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy: Three-year extension study

PURPOSE

We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This retrospective study represented the 3-year extension phase of a multicenter, open-label, phase 4, prospective study of perampanel as a first add-on therapy in patients with focal epilepsy. Seizure and safety outcomes were assessed annually from the start of the extension study, and the retention rate was calculated from the start of perampanel exposure in the original study.

RESULTS

The 50% responder and seizure freedom rates were 84.8% and 58.7%, respectively, during the third year and 71.7% and 32.6%, respectively, during the entire 3-year period of the extension study. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year retention rates were 62.5%, 53.1%, and 52.1%, respectively. Efficacies were higher in patients that were aged >55 years, male, and receiving ≤4 mg of perampanel. Perampanel was generally well tolerated; 47.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event during the 3 years of extension (46 adverse events (AEs) in 35 patients). The most common AEs were dizziness (33.8%), somnolence (5.4%), anger (4.1%), and irritability (4.1%). AEs were resolved with perampanel dose reduction or discontinuation in 10 (13.5%) and 12 (16.2%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment with perampanel as a first add-on therapy did not raise new safety signals in patients with focal epilepsy. Especially at low perampanel doses (≤4 mg/day), sustained improvement in seizure control was achieved, which could potentially avoid adverse drug reactions.

A retrospective, real-world experience of perampanel monotherapy in patient with first new onset focal seizure: A Thailand experience

Objective

Real‐world data on efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in treatment‐naïve patients with focal onset seizures (FOS) and/or focal‐to‐bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS) to assess efficacy effectiveness and tolerability.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of study patients with new FOS with or without FBTCS, aged ≥15 years, who had been prescribed PER as monotherapy. Treatment outcome included retention rate, responder, and seizure‐free rate at observational point 3, 6, and 12 months (OP3, OP6, and OP12). Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions were recorded.

Results

A total of 41 patients enrolled in the study (male:female; 17:22, mean age =46.1 ± 21.8 years), with new FOS and/or FBTCS. The proportions of individuals remaining on PER monotherapy at 3, 6, and 12 months were evaluated. The median PER dosage was 4 mg (range 2‐8 mg). The retention rates at OP3, OP6, and OP12 were 88%, 73%, and 61%, respectively. The seizure freedom rates at OP3, OP6, and OP12 were 78%, 80%, and 76%, respectively. About 14% had discontinued the PER monotherapy because of lack of efficacy. Sixteen individuals (41%) had TEAEs; common AEs were dizziness, somnolence, and ataxia; and only one case had depression. The AEs with somnolence and ataxia were found higher in elderly (15% and 30%) than adult patients (7% and 3%), respectively. Only 14% had intolerant adverse events, and it was found higher in elderly (23%).

Significance

Real‐world data of PER monotherapy in treatment‐naïve patients with focal onset seizures demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile at relatively low doses. By starting with low dosage and slow titration of PER help to minimize the impact of adverse effects, maximize adherence, and increase patient retention. PER has a once‐daily dosing schedule that supports patient adherence contributes to achieving seizure freedom.