Retention of perampanel in adults with pharmacoresistant epilepsy at a single tertiary care center

Tolerability of perampanel: A retrospective study at the department of psychiatry

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify factors that contribute to the discontinuation of perampanel.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with epilepsy at the Department of Psychiatry, Hokkaido University Hospital. We evaluated the factors contributing to perampanel discontinuation as primary outcomes using Cox proportional hazards regression. Then, we explored the components contributing to the primary outcomes using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included, 44.9% of whom discontinued participation, 22.0% had intellectual disability, and 23.7% had a psychiatric disorder other than intellectual disability. Adverse effects occurred in 65% of the patients, 23.7% had psychiatric adverse effects (PAE), and 49.2% had common adverse effects (CAE). The effect of PER to suppress seizures was confirmed in 65.3% of them. Discontinuation was influenced by non-response (Hazard Ratio (HR) 6.70, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.42-13.1), the occurrence of PAE (HR 3.68, 95% CI 1.89-7.16), CAE (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.06-3.41), and comorbid psychiatric disorders (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.21-4.59). Moreover, comorbid intellectual disability correlated with a low risk of PAE (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The discontinuation of perampanel is influenced by poor efficacy and the occurrence of common/psychiatric adverse effects. The discontinuation of perampanel is influenced by poor efficacy and the occurrence of common/psychiatric adverse effects. Consideration of factors contributing to perampanel discontinuation may assist in determining the indication for perampanel treatment.

Adjunctive brivaracetam and sustained seizure frequency reduction in very active focal epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV) according to baseline seizure frequency and past treatment history in subjects with focal epilepsy who were included in the Brivaracetam Add-On First Italian Network Study (BRIVAFIRST).

METHODS

BRIVAFIRST was a 12-month retrospective, multicenter study including adults prescribed adjunctive BRV. Study outcomes included sustained seizure response (SSR), sustained seizure freedom (SSF), and the rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events (AEs). Baseline seizure frequency was stratified as <5, 5-20, and >20 seizures per month, and the number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) as <5 and ≥6.

RESULTS

A total of 994 participants were included. During the 1-year study period, SSR was reached by 45.8%, 39.3%, and 22.6% of subjects with a baseline frequency of <5, 5-20, and >20 seizures per month (p < .001); the corresponding figures for the SSF were 23.4%, 9.8%, and 2.8% (p < .001). SSR was reached by 51.2% and 26.5% participants with a history of 1-5 and ≥6 ASMs (p < .001); the corresponding rates of SSF were 24.7% and 4.5% (p < .001). Treatment discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was more common in participants with >20 seizures compared to those with <5 seizures per month (25.8% vs. 9.3%, p < .001), and in participants with history of ≥6 prior ASMs compared to those with history of 1-5 ASMs (19.6% vs. 12.2%, p = .002). There were no differences in the rates of BRV withdrawal due to AEs and the rates of AEs across the groups of participants defined according to the number of seizures at baseline and the number of prior ASMs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The baseline seizure frequency and the number of previous ASMs were predictors of sustained seizure frequency reduction with adjunctive BRV in subjects with focal epilepsy.

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.

Adherence to and persistence with lacosamide, perampanel, lamotrigine, and levetiracetam in adult patients with focal epilepsy in Japan: A descriptive cohort study using a claims database

Objective

We evaluated adherence to and 1-year persistence of two third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), lacosamide and perampanel, in adult patients with focal epilepsy, compared with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.

Methods

A cohort study was conducted using a Japanese health insurance claims database (JMDC Inc.). We identified patients with adult-onset focal epilepsy who initiated any of the four ASMs between August 31, 2016, and October 31, 2019. Patients were further classified into ASM-naïve patients initiating any of the four ASMs as first-line treatment, and ASM-experienced patients initiating any of the four ASMs as second- or later-line treatment. Outcomes included adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC], defined as the total number of days covered by ASMs divided by the total number of days in the follow-up period) and 1-year persistence for the four ASMs.

Results

We identified 141 lacosamide, 75 perampanel, 80 lamotrigine, and 530 levetiracetam initiators. Among these, the proportion of ASM-naïve patients was highest in the levetiracetam group (60.8%), followed by the lamotrigine (25.0%), lacosamide (20.6%), and perampanel groups (1.3%). Mean PDC (standard deviation) was similar across the four groups, at 0.95 (0.08) for lacosamide, 0.93 (0.12) for perampanel, 0.92 (0.10) for lamotrigine and 0.94 (0.11) for levetiracetam. The proportion of patients persisting with treatment for 1 year was highest in the lacosamide group (73.0%), followed by the levetiracetam (58.3%), lamotrigine (57.5%), and perampanel groups (54.7%). In ASM-naïve patients, adherence and 1-year persistence were almost identical in the lacosamide, lamotrigine, and levetiracetam groups. Results for ASM-experienced patients did not significantly differ from those of all patients.

Significance

With regard to adherence and 1-year persistence, lacosamide may be equal to or better than lamotrigine and levetiracetam, especially in patients with experienced ASM, while perampanel may be comparable to lamotrigine and levetiracetam in patients with experienced ASM.

Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate for focal seizures in people with drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of add-on cenobamate in the UK when used to treat drug-resistant focal seizures in adults who are not adequately controlled with at least two prior antiseizure medications, including at least one used adjunctively.

METHODS

We estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for cenobamate compared to brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel in the UK National Health Service over a lifetime time horizon. We used a Markov cohort structure to determine response to treatment, using pooled data from three long-term studies of cenobamate. A network meta-analysis informed the likelihood of response to therapy with brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel relative to cenobamate. Once individuals discontinued treatment, they transitioned to subsequent treatment health states, including other antiseizure medicines, surgery, and vagus nerve stimulation. Costs included treatment, administration, routine monitoring, event management, and adverse events. Published evidence and expert opinion informed the likelihood of response to subsequent treatments, associated adverse events, and costs. Utility data were based on Short-Form six-dimension form utility. Discounting was applied at 3.5% per annum as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, cenobamate led to cost savings of £51 967 (compared to brivaracetam), £21 080 (compared to eslicarbazepine), £33 619 (compared to lacosamide), and £28 296 (compared to perampanel) and increased QALYs of 1.047 (compared to brivaracetam), 0.598 (compared to eslicarbazepine), 0.776 (compared to lacosamide), and 0.703 (compared to perampanel) per individual over a lifetime time horizon. Cenobamate also dominated the four drugs across most sensitivity analyses. Differences were due to reduced seizure frequency with cenobamate relative to comparators.

SIGNIFICANCE

Cenobamate improved QALYs and was less costly than brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel. Therefore, cenobamate may be considered as a cost-effective adjunctive antiseizure medication for people with drug-resistant focal seizures.

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.

Retention of brivaracetam in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy at a single tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

Brivaracetam (BRV) is licensed as an adjunctive treatment for focal epilepsy. We describe our clinical experience with BRV at a large UK tertiary center.

METHODS

Adults initiated on BRV between July 2015 and July 2020 were followed up until they discontinued BRV or September 2021. Data on epilepsy syndrome, duration, seizure types, concomitant and previous antiseizure medication (ASM) use, BRV dosing, efficacy, and side effects were recorded. Efficacy was categorized as temporary (minimum three months) or ongoing (at last follow-up) seizure freedom, ≥50% seizure reduction, or other benefits (e.g., no convulsions or daytime seizures). Brivaracetam retention was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Two-hundred people were treated with BRV, of whom 81% had focal epilepsy. The mean (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up time was 707 (688) days, and the dose range was 50-600 mg daily. The mean (IQR) of the previous number of used ASMs was 6.9 (6.0), and concomitant use was 2.2 (1.0). One-hundred and eighty-eight people (94%) had previously discontinued levetiracetam (LEV), mainly due to side effects. 13/200 (6.5%) were seizure free for a minimum of six months during treatment, and 46/200 (23%) had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency for six months or more. Retention rates were 83% at six months, 71% at 12 months, and 57% at 36 months. Brivaracetam was mostly discontinued due to side effects (38/75, 51%) or lack of efficacy (28/75, 37%). Concomitant use of carbamazepine significantly increased the hazard ratio of discontinuing BRV due to side effects (p = 0.006). The most commonly reported side effects were low mood (20.5%), fatigue (18%) and aggressive behavior (8.5%). These side effects were less prevalent than when the same individuals took LEV (low mood, 59%; aggressive behavior, 43%). Intellectual disability was a risk factor for behavioral side effects (p = 0.004), and a pre-existing mood disorder significantly increased the likelihood of further episodes of low mood (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Brivaracetam was effective at a broad range of doses in managing drug-resistant epilepsy across various phenotypes, but less effective than LEV in those who switched due to poor tolerability on LEV. There were no new tolerability issues, but 77% of the individuals experiencing side effects on BRV also experienced similar side effects on LEV.

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.

Long-term individual retention with cenobamate in adults with focal seizures: Pooled data from the clinical development program

Objective

We determined retention on open‐label cenobamate therapy in the clinical development program to assess the long‐term efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate in individuals with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Methods

Data from two randomized, controlled cenobamate studies and one open‐label safety and pharmacokinetic study were pooled. Based on the percentage of participants remaining on treatment, retention rates were estimated using Kaplan‐Meier survival analyses. We performed two additional analyses to assess factors contributing to retention, stratifying a robust data set (through 2 years) by cenobamate modal dose and frequently used concomitant anti‐seizure medications. Cenobamate discontinuations and treatment‐emergent adverse events were summarized.

Results

Data from 1844 participants were pooled: 149 from a single‐dose randomized trial, 355 from a multi‐dose randomized trial, and 1340 from an open‐label safety and pharmacokinetic study. Most participants from randomized trials continued in open‐label extensions, and pooled data represent >95% of participants exposed to cenobamate. Baseline characteristics and disease and treatment histories were similar across studies. Median duration of cenobamate exposure was 34 months, with a median modal dose of 200 mg/day. Kaplan‐Meier estimates of cumulative cenobamate retention rates were 80% at 1 year and 72% at 2 years. Once participants reached the maintenance phase, retention rates were consistently high in participants receiving ≥100 mg/day cenobamate, and concomitant anti‐seizure medications did not affect long‐term retention. By 2 years, 535 (29%) had actually discontinued cenobamate; the most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (37.6%), withdrawal of consent (21.1%), and other (16.8%).

Significance

Treatment retention rates provide a proxy measure for long‐term efficacy, safety, tolerability, and adherence. The consistently high retention rates we found suggest that cenobamate may be an effective and well‐tolerated new treatment option for people with drug‐resistant focal seizures.

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.

Long-term safety of adjunctive cenobamate in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: Open-label extension of a randomized clinical study

Objective

This study was undertaken to examine long‐term (up to 7.8 years) retention rate, safety, and tolerability of the antiseizure medication (ASM) cenobamate as adjunctive treatment in the open‐label extension (OLE) of study YKP3089C013 (C013; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01397968).

Methods

Patients who completed the 12‐week, multicenter, multinational, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled C013 study, which examined adjunctive cenobamate treatment of adults with uncontrolled focal seizures, were eligible to enroll in the OLE. During the OLE, dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Safety assessments included frequency of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs, TEAE severity, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Probability of patient continuation in the OLE was examined using a Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

One hundred forty‐nine patients entered the OLE (median duration of cenobamate treatment = 6.25 years). As of the data cutoff, 57% of patients (85/149) remained in the OLE (median treatment duration = 6.8 years, range = 6.4–7.8 years). The median modal daily cenobamate dose was 200 mg (range = 50–400 mg). The probability of treatment continuation at 1–6 years of cenobamate treatment was 73%, 67%, 63%, 61%, 60%, and 59%, respectively. Among patients who continued at 1 year (n = 107), the probability of continuing at Years 2–5 was 92%, 87%, 83%, and 82%. The most common discontinuation reasons were patient withdrawal (19.5%, 29/149), adverse event (10.1%, 15/149), and lack of efficacy (5.4%, 8/149). TEAEs leading to discontinuation in 1% or more of patients were fatigue (1.3%, 2/149), ataxia (1.3%, 2/149), and memory impairment or amnesia (1.3%, 2/149). Dizziness (32.9%, 49/149), headache (26.8%, 40/149), and somnolence (21.5%, 32/149) were the most frequently reported TEAEs and were primarily mild or moderate in severity.

Significance

Long‐term retention in the C013 OLE study demonstrated sustained safety and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate treatment up to 7.8 years in adults with treatment‐resistant focal seizures taking one to three ASMs.

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.

Adjunctive Brivaracetam in Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence from the BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy (BRIVAFIRST)

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials, add-on brivaracetam (BRV) reduced seizure frequency in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Studies performed in a naturalistic setting are a useful complement to characterize the drug profile.

OBJECTIVE

This multicentre study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive BRV in a large population of patients with focal epilepsy in the context of real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

The BRIVAFIRST (BRIVAracetam add-on First Italian netwoRk STudy) was a retrospective, multicentre study including adult patients prescribed adjunctive BRV. Patients with focal epilepsy and 12-month follow-up were considered. Main outcomes included the rates of seizure-freedom, seizure response (≥ 50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency), and treatment discontinuation. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was also considered. Analyses by levetiracetam (LEV) status and concomitant use of strong enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EiASMs) and sodium channel blockers (SCBs) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1029 patients with a median age of 45 years (33-56) was included. At 12 months, 169 (16.4%) patients were seizure-free and 383 (37.2%) were seizure responders. The rate of seizure freedom was 22.3% in LEV-naive patients, 7.1% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to insufficient efficacy, and 31.2% in patients with prior LEV use and discontinuation due to AEs (p < 0.001); the corresponding values for ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction were 47.9%, 29.7%, and 42.8% (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in seizure freedom and seizure response rates by use of strong EiASMs. The rates of seizure freedom (20.0% vs. 16.6%;  p = 0.341) and seizure response (39.7% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.006) were higher in patients receiving SCBs than those not receiving SCBs; 265 (25.8%) patients discontinued BRV. AEs were reported by 30.1% of patients, and were less common in patients treated with BRV and concomitant SCBs than those not treated with SCBs (28.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

The BRIVAFIRST provided real-world evidence on the effectiveness of BRV in patients with focal epilepsy irrespective of LEV history and concomitant ASMs, and suggested favourable therapeutic combinations.

Perampanel as add-on therapy in epilepsies with known etiology: A single center experience with long-term follow-up

•

PER showed good efficacy for the treatment of epilepsies with known etiology.

•

PER showed greater efficacy in patients with epilepsy due to a focal brain lesion .

•

PER was globally well tolerated with a good profile of safety.

•

EEG pattern , expression of a structural epilepsy, correlates with a better response.

•

EEG pattern might help in the choice of correct antiseizure medication.

We report a retrospective monocentric study performed on 63 patients affected by epilepsy with known etiology, receiving perampanel as add-on therapy with at least 12-month follow-up. The purpose of our study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in this group of epilepsies. Patients were classified into 2 groups based on the presence/absence of a single focal brain lesion on MRI, as epilepsy etiology: 48 subjects were affected by focal lesional epilepsy and 15 by non-focal lesional epilepsy. The retention rate was 76.2% and 53.9% at 12 and 24 months respectively. At 12 months, at least 40% of patients resulted responders, with a significant reduction in seizure frequency (p = 0.01), confirmed at 24 months. Considering epilepsy etiology, we found a better PER response in patients with focal lesional epilepsy. A significant correlation was observed between responder rates and EEG pattern. Only 30% of patients reported mild-moderate adverse events. Efficacy and tolerability of PER, in our study, are in line with the results reported in other real-world studies. Our data suggest the possibility of better PER response in patients with focal brain lesions, which indicates that this drug could be a therapeutic option in this population.

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

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

BRIVA-LIFE-A multicenter retrospective study of the long-term use of brivaracetam in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate long-term effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam in clinical practice in patients with focal epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients aged ≥16 years were started on brivaracetam from November 2016 to June 2017 and followed over 1 year. Data were obtained from medical records at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation for evaluation of safety- and seizure-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 575 patients were included in analyses; most had been treated with ≥4 lifetime antiepileptic drugs. Target dosage was achieved by 30.6% of patients on the first day. Analysis of primary variables at 12 months revealed that mean reduction in seizure frequency was 36.0%, 39.7% of patients were ≥50% responders and 17.5% were seizure-free. Seizure-freedom was achieved by 37.5% of patients aged ≥65 years. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and psychiatric AEs (PAEs) was 39.8% and 14.3%, respectively, and discontinuation due to these was 8.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Somnolence, irritability, and dizziness were the most frequently reported AEs. At baseline, 228 (39.7%) patients were being treated with levetiracetam; most switched to brivaracetam (dose ratio 1:10-15). Among those who switched because of PAEs (n = 53), 9 (17%) reported PAEs on brivaracetam, and 3 (5.7%) discontinued because of PAEs. Tolerability was not highly affected among patients with learning disability or psychiatric comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large population of patients with predominantly drug-resistant epilepsy, brivaracetam was effective and well-tolerated; no unexpected AEs occurred over 1 year, and the incidence of PAEs was lower compared with levetiracetam.

Mechanisms Underlying Aggressive Behavior Induced by Antiepileptic Drugs: Focus on Topiramate, Levetiracetam, and Perampanel

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are effective against seizures, but their use is often limited by adverse effects, among them psychiatric and behavioral ones including aggressive behavior (AB). Knowledge of the incidence, risk factors, and the underlying mechanisms of AB induced by AEDs may help to facilitate management and reduce the risk of such side effects. The exact incidence of AB as an adverse effect of AEDs is difficult to estimate, but frequencies up to 16% have been reported. Primarily, levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), which have diverse mechanisms of action, have been associated with AB. Currently, there is no evidence for a specific pharmacological mechanism solely explaining the increased incidence of AB with LEV, PER, and TPM. Serotonin (5-HT) and GABA, and particularly glutamate (via the AMPA receptor), seem to play key roles. Other mechanisms involve hormones, epigenetics, and “alternative psychosis” and related phenomena. Increased individual susceptibility due to an underlying neurological and/or a mental health disorder may further explain why people with epilepsy are at an increased risk of AB when using AEDs. Remarkably, AB may occur with a delay of weeks or months after start of treatment. Information to patients, relatives, and caregivers, as well as sufficient clinical follow-up, is crucial, and there is a need for further research to understand the complex relationship between AED mechanisms of action and the induction/worsening of AB.

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.

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

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