Efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant perampanel: an Australian multicenter real-world observational study in refractory focal and generalized epilepsy syndromes

Efficacy and safety of Perampanel in the treatment of post stroke epilepsy: A multicenter, real-world study

Background

Since 2019, Perampanel (PER) has been endorsed in China as an adjunctive treatment for focal seizures, both with and without impaired awareness, and for the transition from focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Limited research exists regarding the efficacy of PER in treating post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) in China. Empirical studies are essential to guide treatment protocols. We conducted a retrospective study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of PER in 58 PSE patients treated between October 2019 and July 2023.

Method

This study encompassed 58 patients with PSE, treated with PER either as monotherapy or as part of adjunctive therapy, and underwent follow-up for a minimum duration of 6 months. The study assessed changes in seizure frequency, adverse events (AEs), drug retention rate, maintenance dose, and adverse reactions following PER treatment.

Results

The study included 58 PSE patients, with 60.3% males and 39.7% females, ranging in age from 18 to 89, mostly within the 61-70 age group. Ischemic strokes constituted 58.6% of cases, while hemorrhagic strokes accounted for 41.4%. Focal seizures, either with or without impaired awareness, were noted in 62.1% of patients, and a transition from focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures was seen in 32.8%. The retention rates for PER at 3 and 6 months stood at 94.8% and 84.5% respectively, and the most commonly administered maintenance dose was 4 mg/day (41.28%). In the adjunctive therapy group, efficacy rates were 66.7% at 3 months and 78.6% at 6 months, compared to 80.0% at 3 months and 85.7% at 6 months in the monotherapy group. In the efficacy analysis, with a criterion of ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, the overall efficacy rates at 3 and 6 months were 69.1% and 79.6%, respectively. Adverse reactions occurred in 46.6% of patients, primarily involving irritability and somnolence (both 27.6%), with no marked difference in incidence between the adjunctive and monotherapy groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

PER exhibits favorable efficacy and tolerability in Chinese PSE patients, possibly at lower doses.

WRAPPER study: Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for people with drug-resistant epilepsy in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVE

The Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) Real-world Analysis of People with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) on PERampanel (WRAPPER) study assessed effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in people with DRE attending PWH.

METHODS

This was a prospective single-center real-world observational study involving 70 people with DRE between July 2016 and June 2021. A post hoc analysis after the initial study period of 16 weeks assessed outcomes for an extended period up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks, median dose of perampanel was 2 mg (IQR 24 mg). 50% responder rates were 40.0%, 41.5%, and 48.7% at 16, 26, and 52 weeks. Seizure freedom was 12.9%, 20.7%, and 25.6% at 16, 26, and 52 weeks. Monthly seizure frequency reduced from 3.0 (IQR 3.0-6.6) at baseline to 2.0 (IQR 2.0-6.0, p = 0.005) at 16 weeks; 2.0 (IQR 2.0-5.0, p = 0.01) at 26 weeks; and 2.0 (IQR 0.0-4.0, p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. Older age predicted 50% responders (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.048). At 16 weeks, 51.4% (36/70) had treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs). Most common was seizure exacerbation at 35.7% (25/70) followed by fatigue at 15.7% (11/70). NPI-12 and ZBI scores indicated no increase in neuropsychiatric symptoms on perampanel.

SIGNIFICANCE

Low-dose 2-4 mg adjunctive perampanel for people with DRE conferred appreciable improvements in seizure reduction without significant neuropsychiatric adverse effects in the real-world setting at a tertiary center in Hong Kong and had better antiseizure effect with advancing age.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This real-world study from Hong Kong found low-dose perampanel was effective and tolerable for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Furthermore, perampanel was also potentially more effective with advancing age.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel: a Chinese real-world observational study in epilepsy

Purpose

To investigate whether there exists a statistically significant distinction between the effectiveness and tolerance of perampanel (PER) and the number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) that were tried prior to administering PER.

Method

A prospective, observational study was performed at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The study included patients diagnosed with epilepsy who were prescribed PER and were monitored for a minimum of 6 months. The efficacy of PER was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month intervals by examining the retention rate and the 50% response rate. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York).

Results

A total of 1,025 patients were identified, of which 836 were included in the analysis. Seven hundred and eighty-nine patients (94.4%) were followed up for a year. The median age of the patients was 29.32 ± 14.06 years, with 45.81% of the patients being male and 17.0% being adolescents. The average duration of epilepsy was 11.22 ± 8.93 years. Overall, PER was discontinued in 49.5% of patients, with the most common reasons being inadequate therapeutic effect and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At the 6-month follow-up, the retention rate was 54.2% (454/836), and 39.6% of patients had a 50% response. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rate was 49.4% (340/789), and 44.5% of patients had a 50% response. Patients who received PER as monotherapy had the highest retention rates (P = 0.034) and 50% response rates (P < 0.001) at any follow-up point. TEAEs were reported in 32.0% of patients, and these led to discontinuation in 15.4% of patients. The most common TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence. There was no significant difference between subgroups (P = 0.57), but there was a significant difference between the dosage of PER and TEAEs (P < 0.001).

Main findings

The study concludes that PER is effective in treating both focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients who had fewer previous exposures to ASMs exhibited higher response rates to PER. TEAEs related to PER dosage were more prevalent during the first 3 months of treatment and tended to improve with continued use, ultimately demonstrating favorable long-term 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.

Five-Year Retention of Perampanel and Polytherapy Patterns: 328 Patients From a Single Center in South Korea

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Perampanel (PER) is an α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid antagonist used to treat focal and generalized epilepsy. Comprehensive data from real-world settings with long-term follow-ups are still scarce. This study aimed to determine the factors related to PER retention and the polytherapy pattern with PER.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients with epilepsy with a history of PER prescription during 2008-2017 and over a follow-up of >3 years. PER usage patterns and associated factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,655 patients in the cohort, 328 (150 females, 178 males) were enrolled. The ages at onset and diagnosis were 21.1±14.7 years and 25.6±16.1 years (mean±standard deviation), respectively. The age at the first visit to our center was 31.8±13.8 years. Seizure types were focal, generalized, and unknown onset in 83.8%, 15.9%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively. The most common etiology was structural (n=109, 33.2%). The maintenance duration of PER was 22.6±19.2 months (range=1-66 months). The initial number of concomitant antiseizure medications was 2.4±1.4 (range=0-9). The most common regimen was PER plus levetiracetam (n=41, 12.5%). The median number of 1-year seizures before PER usage was 8 (range=0-1,400). A seizure reduction of >50% was recorded in 34.7% of patients (52.0% and 29.2% in generalized and focal seizures, respectively). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year retention rates for PER were 65.3%, 50.4%, 40.4%, 35.3%, and 21.5%, respectively. A multivariate analysis indicated that lower age at onset was associated with longer retention (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PER was safely used in patients with diverse characteristics and was maintained for a long time in a real-world setting, especially in patients with a lower age at onset.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in patients with seizures in real-world clinical practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as add-on treatment or monotherapy in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older in routine clinical practice.

Methods: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for observational studies of PER published up to 1 March 2022. The outcomes of interest were responder rates, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential factors that might affect the efficacy and safety of PER usage.

Results: A total of 56 studies, which included 10,688 patients, were enrolled. The results showed that after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, the pooled 50% responder rates in patients with epilepsy were 50.0% (95% CI: 0.41–0.60), 44.0% (95% CI: 0.38–0.50), and 39.0% (95% CI: 0.31–0.48), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 24.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.32), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.25), and 20.0% (95% CI: 0.16–0.24), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy of PER could be affected by the way in which PER is administrated. Patients in the groups where PER was used as the first add-on, primary monotherapy, or combined with non–enzyme-inducing AEDs (non-EIAEDs) displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate when compared with those in the late add-on, conversion therapy, or combined with the EIAEDs groups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment were 46% (95% CI: 0.38–0.55), 52.0% (95% CI: 0.43–0.60), and 46.0% (95% CI: 0.40–0.52), respectively. The withdrawal rates due to AEs were 8.0% (95% CI: 0.06–0.11), 16.0% (95% CI: 0.13–0.20), and 16% (95% CI: 0.11–0.21) at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed a higher withdrawal rate in the rapid (30%, 95% CI: 0.22–0.38) than in the slow (12%, 95% CI: 0.06–0.18) titration group.

Conclusion: Altogether, PER was effective and could be fairly tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage in patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, PER appeared to be more effective when PER was used as the first add-on, monotherapy, or concomitant with non-EIAEDs.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022384532.

Perampanel as adjunctive therapy in drug resistant epilepsy in adolescents and children waiting for epilepsy surgery: A multicenter observational study in Thailand

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in real-world settings in patients between 1 month and 18 years of age with drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) waiting for epilepsy surgery.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, patients between 1 month and 18 years of age with DRE treated with PER between January 2020 and June 2021 were selected. The study outcome was effectiveness of PER treatment reported as reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom rate. Effectiveness was assessed at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 days after initiation of PER. Tolerability profiles were reported as adverse events according to the observations of the patients' family members and physician.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients treated with PER were included in the study. The mean initial dose and mean maximum dose of adjunctive PER was 2 mg/day and 5.8 mg/day, respectively. The mean seizure frequency (rate/week) was 41.3, 25.4, 18.9, 14.3, 11.2, 11.1 and 8.9 seizures at baseline, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 days, respectively; the reduction in the mean seizure frequency at all timepoints was significant compared at the baseline (p<0.001). At 180 days, ≥75% seizure reduction was seen in 64.9% (37/57) of the patients and seizure freedom was achieved in 36.8% (21/57). Drowsiness, ataxia, and behavioral changes were the common adverse events observed, and these improved after the dose of PER was reduced. No discontinuation of PER was required due to side effects or intolerance.

CONCLUSION

In real-world settings, PER is well tolerated and effective in seizure control in pediatric and adolescent patients with DRE.