Perampanel Study 207: long-term open-label evaluation in patients with 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.

Intravenous Perampanel as an Interchangeable Alternative to Oral Perampanel: A Randomized, Crossover, Phase I Pharmacokinetic and Safety Study

Intravenous (IV) drug administration enables treatment of epilepsy when oral administration is temporarily not feasible. Perampanel is a once‐daily antiseizure medication currently available as oral formulations. Study 050 (NCT03376997) was an open‐label, randomized, single‐dose, crossover study to evaluate the interchangeability of oral and IV perampanel in healthy subjects (N = 48). Bioequivalence of single 12‐mg doses of IV (30‐, 60‐, or 90‐minute infusion) and oral perampanel, ≥6 weeks apart, was assessed. Analyses indicated bioequivalence of area under the plasma concentration–time curve extrapolated to infinity for 30‐ and 60‐minute IV infusions and oral perampanel doses (geometric mean ratio [90% confidence interval], 0.93 [0.84–1.02] and 1.03 [0.97–1.09], respectively); however, IV maximum observed drug concentration (C_max) values were 1.35‐ to 1.61‐fold higher than C_max. Simulated plasma concentration–time profiles using pooled pharmacokinetic data further supported oral and IV perampanel interchangeability in two scenarios: 12‐mg per day IV dosing during a temporary 7‐day switch from oral steady‐state maintenance therapy, and treatment initiation with 2‐mg perampanel. Thirty‐four (70.8%) subjects experienced treatment‐related adverse events. The IV perampanel safety profile was similar to that of oral perampanel without new safety concerns. Perampanel IV infusions may be a suitable temporary alternative to oral perampanel for treatment maintenance and/or initiation.

Effects of Vagus Nerve Stimulation following Corpus Callosotomy for Patients with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Objective: The effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for residual seizures after corpus callosotomy (CC) has not yet been fully investigated. We hypothesized that seizure control would be improved by VNS after CC. The purpose of this study was to compare seizure frequency between patients with implantation of a VNS generator (post-VNS group) or without VNS (non-post-VNS group) following CC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent CC between January 2009 and May 2019 in our institution. We evaluated proportions of ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders) and seizure reduction rate 1 and 2 years after VNS. To investigate factors related to responders, uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed regarding age, number of anti-seizure medications (ASMs), addition of novel ASMs (levetiracetam, lacosamide or perampanel), and post-VNS or non-post-VNS status. Results: Thirteen post-VNS patients and 24 non-post-VNS patients were analyzed in this study. Responder rate at 1 year after VNS differed significantly between the post-VNS group (53.9%) and non-post-VNS group (12.5%, p = 0.017). Number of ASMs at the time of CC and post-VNS were significantly associated with responders in univariate analyses (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13–0.88, p = 0.025 and OR 8.2, 95%CI 1.6–41.6, p = 0.011, respectively), whereas age, sex, seizure frequency, and addition of novel ASMs were not. In multivariate analysis, the presence of VNS procedures after CC was the only factor favorably associated with responder status (OR 82.2, 95%CI 1.55–4355.7, p = 0.03). Conclusions: VNS therapy after CC may increase the proportion of responders independent of the addition of novel ASMs.

Long-term efficacy, tolerability, and retention of brivaracetam in epilepsy treatment: A longitudinal multicenter study with up to 5 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term efficacy, retention, and tolerability of add-on brivaracetam (BRV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study recruited all patients who initiated BRV between February and November 2016, with observation until February 2021.

RESULTS

Long-term data for 262 patients (mean age = 40 years, range = 5-81 years, 129 men) were analyzed, including 227 (87%) diagnosed with focal epilepsy, 19 (7%) with genetic generalized epilepsy, and 16 (6%) with other or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. Only 26 (10%) patients had never received levetiracetam (LEV), whereas 133 (50.8%) were switched from LEV. The length of BRV exposure ranged from 1 day to 5 years, with a median retention time of 1.6 years, resulting in a total BRV exposure time of 6829 months (569 years). The retention rate was 61.1% at 12 months, with a reported efficacy of 33.1% (79/239; 50% responder rate, 23 patients lost-to-follow-up), including 10.9% reported as seizure-free. The retention rate for the entire study period was 50.8%, and at last follow-up, 133 patients were receiving BRV at a mean dose of 222 ± 104 mg (median = 200, range = 25-400), including 52 (39.1%) who exceeded the recommended upper dose of 200 mg. Fewer concomitant antiseizure medications and switching from LEV to BRV correlated with better short-term responses, but no investigated parameters correlated with positive long-term outcomes. BRV was discontinued in 63 (24%) patients due to insufficient efficacy, in 29 (11%) for psychobehavioral adverse events, in 25 (10%) for other adverse events, and in 24 (9%) for other reasons.

SIGNIFICANCE

BRV showed a clinically useful 50% responder rate of 33% at 12 months and overall retention of >50%, despite 90% of included patients having previous LEV exposure. BRV was well tolerated; however, psychobehavioral adverse events occurred in one out of 10 patients. Although we identified short-term response and retention predictors, we could not identify significant predictors for long-term outcomes.

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.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in tonic-clonic seizures: Analysis of four open-label extension studies

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis evaluated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) who entered open-label extension (OLEx) studies to receive long-term adjunctive perampanel.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 years and older who completed phase II or III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter an OLEx study, each comprising a blinded conversion period followed by an open-label maintenance period (32-424 weeks; maximum perampanel dose = 12 mg/d). Exposure, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between patients with FBTCS (n = 720) and GTCS (n = 138). Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure was 102.3 (70.3) weeks (FBTCS) and 83.9 (38.4) weeks (GTCS). Retention rates were 50.0% for up to 4 years (FBTCS) and 49.2% for up to 2 years (GTCS). Across OLEx treatment durations, median reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days were 66.7% (FBTCS) and 80.6% (GTCS). Fifty percent and 75% responder and seizure-freedom rates were 59.5%, 45.3%, and 18.4%, respectively (FBTCS), and 72.5%, 51.5%, and 16.7%, respectively (GTCS). Efficacy was sustained for up to 4 years (FBTCS) and up to 3 years (GTCS), even when accounting for early dropouts. TEAE incidence was highest during Year 1 (FBTCS, 85.3%; GTCS, 86.2%); most common were dizziness and somnolence. During Year 1, serious TEAEs were reported in 81 (11.3%; FBTCS) and 10 (7.2%; GTCS) patients. TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel; no new safety signals were identified with long-term treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

This post hoc analysis suggests long-term (up to 4 years) adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/d) is efficacious and well tolerated in patients (aged 12 years and older) with FBTCS or GTCS.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes with adjunctive brivaracetam treatment at individualized doses in patients with epilepsy: An up to 11-year, open-label, follow-up trial

Objective

To evaluate long‐term safety/tolerability of brivaracetam at individualized doses ≤200 mg/d (primary) and maintenance of efficacy over time (secondary) in adults with focal seizures or primary generalized seizures (PGS) enrolled in phase 3, open‐label, long‐term follow‐up trial N01199 (NCT00150800).

Methods

Patients ≥16 years of age who had completed double‐blind, placebo‐controlled adjunctive brivaracetam trials NCT00175825, NCT00490035, NCT00464269, or NCT00504881 were eligible. Outcomes included safety, efficacy, and quality of life.

Results

The safety set included 667 patients (focal seizures, 97.8%; PGS, 2.2%); the efficacy set included 648 patients with focal seizures and 15 patients with PGS. Overall, 49.2% of patients had ≥48 months of exposure. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 91.2% of all patients (91.3% of focal seizures group), brivaracetam discontinuation due to TEAEs in 14.8%, drug‐related TEAEs in 56.7%, and serious TEAEs in 22.8%. The most common TEAEs in the focal seizures group (≥15%) were headache (25.3%) and dizziness (21.9%). Mean changes from baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores at last value during 2‐year evaluation were −0.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.3) and −0.2 (SD = 4.4) overall. In the focal seizures group, median reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency/28 days was 57.3%, 50% responder rate was 55.6%, and 6‐month and 12‐month seizure freedom rates were 30.3% and 20.3%, respectively. Efficacy outcomes improved by exposure duration cohort and then stabilized through the 108‐month cohort. Mean improvement from baseline in Patient‐Weighted Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory total score (efficacy set) was 5.7 (SD = 16.1, Cohen's d = 0.35) at month 12 and 6.5 (SD = 18.0, Cohen's d = 0.36) at month 24.

Significance

Adjunctive brivaracetam was well tolerated, with a good safety profile in long‐term use in adults with epilepsy at individualized doses. Approximately half of the patients remained in the trial at 4 years. Brivaracetam reduced focal seizure frequency versus baseline. Efficacy improved with increasing exposure duration and remained stable through the 9‐year cohort.

Evaluation of perampanel as monotherapy for focal seizures: Experience from open-label extension studies

Perampanel, a selective, non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, is approved for adjunctive treatment of focal seizures, with or without secondarily generalized seizures, and for primary generalized tonic–clonic seizures in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 12 years. Perampanel was recently approved for monotherapy use for focal seizures in the U.S.A. Anti-seizure drug monotherapy may be preferable to polytherapy, which is generally associated with increased toxicity, non-compliance, and cost. Here, we report cases where patients had converted to perampanel monotherapy during open-label extension (OLEx) portions of 9 Phase II and III studies.

Of 2245 patients who enrolled in the OLEx studies, we identified 7 patients with drug-resistant focal seizures who discontinued all non-perampanel anti-seizure drugs and were maintained on perampanel monotherapy for ≥ 91 days until the end of data cut-off. Patients received perampanel monotherapy for up to 1099 days (157 weeks), most at a modal dose of 12 mg. Seizure data were available for 6 patients, of whom 5 had a ≥ 90% reduction in overall seizure frequency between baseline and their last 13-week period of monotherapy (3 were seizure-free). Perampanel monotherapy was generally well tolerated and the safety profile during perampanel monotherapy was consistent with clinical and post-marketing experience in the adjunctive setting.

This analysis included a small proportion of patients with highly drug-resistant focal seizures who converted to monotherapy during OLEx studies. While these limited data are encouraging in suggesting that perampanel might be useful as a monotherapy, further studies are required to explore outcomes in a less drug-resistant population, where a larger proportion of patients might benefit from monotherapy.

•

Seven patients with drug-resistant focal seizures

•

Patients on adjunctive perampanel converted to perampanel monotherapy

•

Seizure frequency was markedly reduced.

•

Perampanel monotherapy was generally well tolerated.

•

These limited data suggest that perampanel might be useful as a monotherapy.

Spotlight on perampanel in the management of seizures: design, development and an update on place in therapy

Purpose

Perampanel is a first-in-class antiepileptic medication approved for the treatment of partial (focal) seizures, and as adjunctive treatment for primarily generalized tonic–clonic seizures. The pharmacology, efficacy data, adverse-effect profile, pharmacokinetics and place in therapy are reviewed.

Summary

Perampanel is indicated for use in patients with epilepsy who are 12 years of age or older. It is the first medication designed specifically to be a non-competitive antagonist at post-synaptic α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate receptors. Efficacy in refractory seizures has been established, and ongoing efficacy demonstrated by post-marketing data. The drug is completely absorbed, and exhibits a half-life that allows for once-daily administration in doses up to 12 mg/day. Drug interactions are minimal, but increased doses may be necessary when given with strong inducers of cytochrome P450 enzymes, including when perampanel is co-administered with other antiepileptics that exhibit this property. The most common adverse effects noted in both clinical trials and post-marketing are dizziness and somnolence. Psychiatric and behavioral adverse events have been documented in both adult and pediatric patients, including those with no corresponding diagnostic history.

Conclusion

Perampanel is a novel adjunctive antiepileptic medication that is an effective option for adolescents and adults with partial seizures, and primarily generalized tonic–clonic seizures uncontrolled with other medications.

The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Third-Generation Anticonvulsant Drugs

Epilepsy is a neurologic disorder affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide, or about 0.7% of the population [1]. Thus, the use of anticonvulsant drugs in the treatment of epilepsy is common and widespread. There are three generations of anticonvulsant drugs, categorized by the year in which they were developed and released. The aim of this review is to discuss the pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, and adverse events of the third generation of anticonvulsant drugs. Where available, overdose data will be included. The pharmacokinetic properties of third-generation anticonvulsant drugs include relatively fewer drug-drug interactions, as well as several unique and life-threatening adverse events. Overdose data are limited, so thorough review of adverse events and knowledge of drug mechanism will guide expectant management of future overdose cases. Reporting of these cases as they occur will be necessary to further clarify toxicity of these drugs.

Perampanel: A Review in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Perampanel (Fycompa®), an orally-active, selective, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, is a first-in-class antiepileptic drug (AED) offering the convenience of once-daily administration. In the EU and US, perampanel is approved in patients with epilepsy aged ≥12 years for the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) and partial-onset seizures (POS; with or without secondary generalization). In phase III trials of 17 or 19 weeks' duration, add-on perampanel ≤12 mg/day significantly improved seizure control in patients aged ≥12 years who were experiencing either primary GTCS or POS (with or without secondary generalization), despite ongoing treatment with stable dosages of one to three AEDs. Improvements in seizure control were maintained for up to 2 years in extensions of these core studies. Perampanel also provided sustained seizure control for up to ≈4 years in an extension of two phase II studies in patients aged ≥18 years with drug-resistant POS. Adjunctive perampanel therapy was generally well tolerated. Treatment-emergent adverse events were most commonly CNS-related (e.g. dizziness, somnolence, fatigue and irritability) and dose-related; however, most were of mild to moderate intensity. Clinical experience with perampanel is accumulating, although comparative studies and pharmacoeconomic data that could assist in positioning it relative to other AEDS that are approved and/or recommended as adjunctive therapy are lacking. Nonetheless, on the basis of its overall clinical profile and unique mechanism of action, perampanel is a useful additional adjunctive treatment option for patients with drug-resistant POS, with or without secondary generalization, and primary GTCS.

Management of epilepsy during pregnancy

Over a million women with epilepsy are of childbearing age in the USA and require careful consideration of not only type of antiepileptic drug (AED) but also dosage, in the event of a planned or unplanned pregnancy. Careful selection of AEDs can lower the potential adverse effects of AEDs while maintaining seizure control for the health of not only on the patient, the mother, but also the unborn fetus. The number of treatment options has increased significantly in the last 20 years and remarkable progress has been made in characterizing the risks AEDs pose to pregnant women and fetuses. There are now robust data on teratogenesis, a growing body of data on neonatal/obstetrical outcomes and on neurodevelopmental problems associated with each AED, and some data about seizure control during pregnancy. Based on clinical evidence so far, levetiracetam and lamotrigine have emerged as the safest during pregnancy, although others may also be suitable. Despite being a common belief, not all polytherapy combinations may be detrimental, especially when avoiding valproate and topiramate. Here, we review the available clinical research, highlighting recent findings and provide thoughts for future directions in the field.

Perampanel in the management of partial-onset seizures: a review of safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability

Perampanel (PER) is a novel antiepileptic drug recently introduced for the adjunctive treatment in epilepsy patients aged 12 years or older with partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in the US and Europe. Its antiepileptic action is based on noncompetitive inhibition of postsynaptic AMPA receptors, decreasing excitatory synaptic transmission. Evaluation of efficacy in three placebo-controlled randomized Phase III studies showed that add-on therapy of PER decreased seizure frequencies significantly compared to placebo at daily doses between 4 mg/day and 12 mg/day. PER's long half-life of 105 hours allows for once-daily dosing that is favorable for patient compliance with intake. Long-term extension studies showed a 62.5%-69.6% adherence of patients after 1 year of treatment, comparing favorably with other second-generation antiepileptic drugs. Whereas these trials demonstrated an overall favorable tolerability profile of PER, nonspecific central nervous system adverse effects like somnolence, dizziness, headache, and fatigue may occur. In addition, neuropsychiatric disturbances ranging from irritability to suicidality were reported in several case reports; both placebo-controlled and prospective long-term extension trials showed a low incidence of such behavioral and psychiatric complaints. For early recognition of neuropsychiatric symptoms like depression, anxiety, and aggression, slow titration and close monitoring during drug introduction are mandatory. This allows on the one hand to recognize patients particularly susceptible to adverse effects of the drug, and on the other hand to render the drug's full potential of seizure control available for the vast majority of patient groups tolerating the drug well.

Perampanel

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service.Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The April 2013 monograph topics are alogliptin, crofelemer, lomitapide, ponatinib, and sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal. The DUE/MUE is on alogliptin.

Perampanel: a selective AMPA antagonist for treating seizures

Perampanel is a selective, noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist that has recently been approved for treating localization-related epilepsy. This article reviews the pharmacology, clinical development, efficacy, and safety/tolerability of perampanel.

Perampanel: What is its Place in the Management of Partial Onset Epilepsy?

Introduction

Current pathways for treatment of partial onset epilepsy are diverse and include 14 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) licensed for use as either monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. However, the impact of these new AEDs on the treatment of partial epilepsy has so far been disappointing and there persists a need for additional drugs. Recently, perampanel, a first-in-class AED was licensed as an adjunct for the management of refractory partial onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients 12 years and older. This review highlights the current management of partial epilepsy and analyses the published clinical and preclinical data of perampanel to consider its potential role in the treatment of partial epilepsy.

Methods

A literature review of Embase, Medline and PubMed was conducted in April 2013 using the search terms ‘perampanel’ and ‘AMPA receptor antagonist/blocker’. Publications were included if they discussed perampanel in the context of preclinical or clinical epilepsy.

Results

Perampanel acts on the glutamate pathway. It is a novel highly selective non-competitive alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist. This is a previously untargeted post-synaptic glutamate receptor. It is responsible for mediating rapid trans-synaptic signal transduction and hence believed to play a major role in seizure propagation. The three pivotal placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive perampanel demonstrated that the effective dosing range is 4–12 mg/day. The drug can be prescribed once daily, and its adverse effect profile is minimal with dizziness, fatigue, headache, and somnolence being the most commonly reported.

Conclusions

Perampanel is a welcome addition as it represents an alternative approach in the management of epilepsy with potential to have a significant impact on the prognosis of intractable epilepsy. However, it has only recently been licensed for clinical use in Europe, the USA, and Canada, and there are no data directly comparing it with other AEDs; hence, it remains far too early to ascertain its place in the treatment of patients with partial epilepsy.

Epilepsy, antiseizure therapy, and sleep cycle parameters

A reciprocal relationship exists between sleep and epilepsy. The quality of sleep is affected by the presence and frequency of seizures, type of antiepileptic therapy utilized, and coexisting primary sleep disorders. Daytime somnolence is one of the most common adverse effects of antiepileptic therapy, with specific pharmacologic agents exhibiting a unique influence on components of sleep architecture. The newer generation of antiseizure drugs demonstrates improved sleep efficiency, greater stabilization of sleep architecture, prolongation of REM sleep duration, and increased quality of life measures. The emerging field of chronoepileptology explores the relationship between seizures and circadian rhythms, aiming for targeted use of antiseizure therapies to maximize therapeutic effects and minimize the adverse events experienced by the patients.

New drug classes for the treatment of partial onset epilepsy: focus on perampanel

Perampanel (2-[2-oxo-1-phenyl-5-pyridin-2-yl-1,2-dihydropyridin-3-yl] benzonitrile hydrate) is the latest in the line of new antiepileptic drugs with a novel mechanism of action. Perampanel inhibits α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA)-induced increases in intracellular Ca²⁺ and selectively blocks AMPA receptor-mediated synaptic transmission, thus reducing neuronal excitation. Three Phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy and good tolerability of perampanel as adjunctive treatment in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. The drug is approved for use in the European Union and United States, with expected release onto the American market in June–September 2013, pending US Drug Enforcement Agency classification. The pharmacology of perampanel offers potential as more than just another new antiepileptic drug. This first-in-class drug will provide another option for practitioners of rational polytherapy. As an AMPA-receptor antagonist, perampanel may possess antiepileptogenic properties in addition to its demonstrated antiseizure properties.

Recent and Emerging Anti-seizure Drugs: 2013

OPINION STATEMENT

Recent and emerging pharmacotherapies have become available for use within the last 4 years to enhance our ability to manage people with epilepsy (PWE). More antiseizure drug (ASD) choices allow greater opportunity to match a unique medicine with each patient from the time of first seizure and for drug-resistant epilepsy. Balancing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an ASD is unique for each person and epilepsy syndrome. This tailored approach to effectiveness includes seven new ASDs that have become available since 2009 to treat PWE expanding our armamentarium to more than two dozen ASDs in the US that are now available for use. "Which ASD is best?" is still a complex challenge that remains to be answered. Until the ASD is found that is a panacea for everyone, the role of new AEDs in the treatment of epilepsy lies in the hands of the clinician to address the overall needs of the person first and foremost. In this paper, the newest and emerging ASDs in 2013 are reviewed focusing on the pharmacology, efficacy, and adverse effects. Each ASD has benefits and risks and the ultimate role in clinical use will be established over time as experience with each agent grows.

Profile of perampanel and its potential in the treatment of partial onset seizures

Perampanel (PER) is a novel antiepileptic compound that decreases neuronal excitability by modulating glutamatergic transmission through selective noncompetitive blockade of AMPA receptors. PER has been evaluated in three pivotal placebo-controlled randomized trials as adjunctive therapy in adult drug-resistant partial epilepsy. In comparison to placebo, adjunctive PER effectively reduces seizure frequency. The relative risk of the responder rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was thus 1.60 (1.08-2.36), 1.79 (1.42-2.25) and 1.66 (1.24-2.23) for once-daily PER 4 mg/day, 8 mg/day and 12 mg/day, respectively. The most common adverse events associated with PER were nonspecific central nervous system side effects. Some concerns have been raised about risk of clinically significant weight gain and of psychiatric adverse events. Long-term open-label extensions of the three pivotal trials are underway. PER has recently been approved both in Europe and in the USA for the adjunctive treatment of partial onset seizures in patients aged 12 years and above. However, in the absence of a direct comparison between PER and other licensed antiepileptic drugs' efficacy and tolerability, the clinical advantages of PER over the other drugs in intractable partial epilepsy remains to be determined.

Perampanel: as adjunctive therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures

Perampanel is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) used as adjunctive therapy in adolescents and adults with partial-onset seizures (with or without secondarily generalized seizures). It is a selective, noncompetitive antagonist of α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA)-type glutamate receptors on post-synaptic neurons, and is the first in this new class of AED known as AMPA receptor antagonists. In three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials in adolescent and adult patients with refractory partial-onset seizures, once-daily administration of perampanel 4, 8 and 12 mg/day (6-week titration phase followed by 13-week maintenance phase), as adjunctive therapy with one to three AEDs, was statistically superior to adjunctive placebo in achieving the key efficacy endpoints of the median percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency and/or the proportion of patients with a ≥50 % reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline. Adverse events were usually mild or moderate in severity and the most frequent treatment-emergent events reported among perampanel recipients were CNS-related, such as dizziness, somnolence, headache and fatigue. Interim data from a large extension study (16-week blinded conversion period followed by open-label maintenance phase), which enrolled patients who completed the phase III trials, showed a similar group response for the reduction in seizure frequency over at least 1 year of adjunctive treatment with perampanel. Perampanel was generally well tolerated over the longer-term in extension studies, with no unexpected adverse events reported. On the basis of its overall clinical profile and unique mechanism of action, perampanel is a useful adjunctive treatment option in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures.