Effectiveness and safety of perampanel in adults with mesial temporal epilepsy: A single-center postmarketing study in Taiwan

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.

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 treatment in highly drug-resistant epilepsies including nonsurgical candidates and failed surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) treatment for patients with highly drug-resistant epilepsies (HDRE) including nonsurgical candidates and failed surgery in real-world setting.

METHODS

All patients who were treated with PER during June 2015 to August 2019 were selected. Primary outcomes were percentage of seizure reduction, responder rate, and seizure freedom rate. Seizure frequency after taking PER at 3 and 12 months were compared with baseline seizure frequency within the same time period prior to starting PER. Secondary outcomes were retention rate, side effects, and predictors for a response to PER. Descriptive statistics and the Kernel regression model were employed.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients received PER treatment during the study period. Six patients who had no baseline seizure frequency recordings were excluded, for a total of 35 patients included for analysis. Mean age was 40.06 years (SD 12.34). All were highly resistant to several antiseizure drugs (ASDs) with a median number of previously failed ASDs of 8 items. Eleven, 16, 5, and 3 patients were lesional, nonlesional focal epilepsy, nonsurgical candidate, and failed surgery, respectively. At 3 months after PER treatment, the median percentage of seizure reduction was 20 % (-35.71, 100), the responder rate was 22.86 % (8/35), and the seizure freedom rate was 17.14% (6/35). At 12 months after PER treatment, the corresponding outcomes were 25% (-20.57, 91.60), 22.58% (7/31), and 9.68% (3/31), respectively. Retention rates at 3 and 12 months were 100% and 91.43% (32/35), respectively. Nineteen patients (54.29%) experienced side effects from PER. Side effects were somnolence (6/35), dizziness (3/35), irritability (2/35), and ataxia (2/35), and one each for weight loss, nausea, headache, insomnia, verbal aggressivity, and depression. Median duration for 2-mg dose increment was 2.2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world practice, slow-titration PER regimen is well-tolerable and shows benefit in helping control seizures in patients with very difficult-to-treat HDRE.