Perampanel as add-on treatment in refractory focal epilepsy. The Dianalund experience

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.

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.

European perspective of perampanel response in people with Intellectual Disability

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy prevalence is over 20% for those with ID. It is difficult to diagnose and treat and more likely to be treatment resistant. The evidence informing prescribing is sparse, particularly for new drugs such as perampanel (PMP).

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence regarding PMP for people with ID by pooling information from two isolated and separately conducted studies: the UK-based Epilepsy Database Register (Ep-ID) and the data from the Kempenhaeghe clinic in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A single data set of comparable data was created and analysed under agreement and supervision of a UK statistician.

RESULTS

Seizure reduction within twelve months was evident in 62% of Dutch and 47% of UK patients. Retention rates were higher for those in the UK (P = .01) and for patients with moderate to profound ID, whilst side effects were more prominent in the Dutch cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable rates of seizure reduction are in line with estimates for non-ID patients, adding to the evidence suggesting that PMP has a similar impact on those with ID. Taking a European perspective and sharing data across centres can help strengthen the evidence for prescribing antiepileptic drugs in the ID population.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel monotherapy for focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures: Experience from a national multicenter registry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients aged ≥12 years treated with PER as primary monotherapy or converted to PER monotherapy by progressive reduction of background antiepileptic drugs. Outcomes included retention, responder, and seizure-free rate after 3, 6, and 12 months and tolerability throughout the follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 21.7 years, 51% female) with focal seizures and/or GTCS were treated with PER monotherapy for a median exposure of 14 months (range = 1-57) with a median dose of 4 mg (range = 2-10). The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months and last follow-up were 93.8%, 89.3%, 80.9%, and 71.4%, respectively. The retention rates according to the type of monotherapy (primary vs conversion) did not differ (log-rank P value = .57). Among the 98 patients, 61.2% patients had seizures throughout the baseline period, with a median seizure frequency of 0.6 seizures per month (range = 0.3-26). Responder rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 79.6%, 70.1%, and 52.8%, respectively, and seizure freedom rates at the same points were 62.7%, 56.1%, and 41.5%. Regarding the 33 patients who had GTCS in the baseline period, 87.8% were seizure-free at 3 months, 78.1% at 6 months, and 55.1% at 12 months. Over the entire follow-up, PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated, and only 16% of patients discontinued PER due to adverse events (AEs). Female patients were found to be at a higher risk of psychiatric AEs (female vs male odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 1-8.33, P = .046).

SIGNIFICANCE

PER demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile when used as primary therapy or conversion to monotherapy at relatively low doses, in a clinical setting with patients with focal seizures and GTCS.

Improved irritability, mood, and quality of life following introduction of perampanel as late adjunctive treatment for epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in late adjunctive treatment of focal epilepsy. We assessed outcomes 1) according to patients' clinical profiles and the broad mechanism of action (MoA) of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and 2) the effects of PER on adverse events, irritability, mood, and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Consecutive patients commenced on PER at two epilepsy centers in Melbourne, Australia were identified. A nested cohort underwent detailed prospective assessment, while the remainder were retrospectively analyzed. Six- and 12-month efficacy endpoints were at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders) and complete seizure freedom. The prospective cohort underwent standardized validated questionnaires at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the modified semi-structured seizure interview (SSI), Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (LAEP), Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Patient-Weighted (QOLIE-10-P), Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory Epilepsy (NDDI-E), and an Irritability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty patients were followed for a median of 6 months: the mean number of prior AEDs was 6, 99% had drug-resistant epilepsy, and 72% had never experienced a prior seizure-free period of at least 6 months (=continuously refractory epilepsy). Perampanel was associated with responder and seizure freedom rates of 30.6% and 9.4% at 6 months and 19.4% and 4.4% (5.6% adjusted for the titration period) at 12 months. Having "continuously refractory epilepsy" was associated with a reduced likelihood of seizure freedom at 6 months (5% vs. 30%; p = 0.001) and 12 months (3% vs. 13%; p = 0.058). Quality of Life in Epilepsy-Patient-Weighted, irritability, and NDDI-E showed mean improvement at 6 months from baseline.

SIGNIFICANCE

Even when used as late add-on adjunctive therapy in patients with highly refractory focal epilepsy, PER can result in 12-month seizure freedom of 5.6%. The likelihood of seizure freedom was associated with prior "continuous medication refractoriness". Six months after introduction of PER patients reported improved mood, QOL, and decreased irritability.

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).

Clinical Experience with Perampanel in Intractable Focal Epilepsy Over 12 Months of Follow-Up

Background and Purpose

There are only limited studies on perampanel (PER), one of the latest antiepileptic drug. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of perampanel as an add-on therapy in patients with intractable focal epilepsy.

Methods

The medical records of 97 patients (age, 12-30 years) were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. The patients had been diagnosed with focal epilepsy, treated with PER, and regularly followed up over 12 months.

Results

All patients had uncontrolled seizures despite treatment with two or more antiepileptic drugs. The mean age of seizure onset was 5.2 years (range, 0-17.0). PER was first prescribed at an average age of 15.7 years (range, 12.0-25.3), and mean follow-up duration after PER initiation was 15.9 months (range, 12-20). The responder rate was 41.7%, with over 75% seizure reduction obtained in 11 cases (15.3%), including three seizure-free cases (4.2%). The retention rates at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months of follow-up were 82.5% (80/97), 72.1% (70/97), 60.8% (59/97), and 37.5% (6/16), respectively. Forty-four patients (44/97, 45.4%) discontinued PER, because of treatment-related adverse events in 20 (20.6%) and no efficacy in 24 (24.7%). Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 52 patients (53.6%). The most common adverse event was somnolence or lethargy, reported by 17 patients (17/97, 23%), followed by dizziness (15/97, 20%) and psychological problems such as aggressiveness or irritability (15/97, 20%). Thirty-three patients (33/52, 63.4%) showed their first adverse symptom for 2 or 4 mg/day of PER.

Conclusions

PER would be an effective therapeutic option for patients with intractable focal epilepsy. However, careful monitoring of adverse events is essential from treatment initiation, with particular attention to psychological problems in adolescents and young adults.

Safety and tolerability profile of new antiepileptic drug treatment in children with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of pediatric epilepsy requires a careful evaluation of the safety and tolerability profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to avoid or minimize as much as possible adverse events (AEs) on various organs, hematological parameters, and growth, pubertal, motor, cognitive and behavioral development.

AREAS COVERED

Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) reported in the literature 2000-2018 regarding second- and third-generation AEDs used in the pediatric age, with exclusion of the neonatal period that exhibits specific peculiarities, have been described on the basis of their frequency, severity/tolerability, and particular association with a given AED.

EXPERT OPINION

Somnolence/sedation and behavioral changes, like irritability and nervousness, are among the most commonly observed TEAEs associated with almost all AEDs. Lamotrigine, Gabapentin, Oxcarbazepine, and Levetiracetam appear to be the best-tolerated AEDs with a ≤2% withdrawal rate, while Tiagabine and Everolimus are discontinued in up to >20% of the patients because of intolerable TEAEs. For some AEDs, literature data are scanty to draw a high-level evidence on their safety and tolerability profile. The reasons are: insufficient population size, short duration of treatments, or lack of controlled trials. A future goal is that of identifying clearer, easier, and more homogeneous methodological strategies to facilitate AED testing in pediatric populations.

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.

Adjunctive perampanel in partial-onset seizures: Asia-Pacific, randomized phase III study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of perampanel, a selective, non-competitive, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, as an adjunctive treatment for patients with refractory partial-onset seizures (POS) from Asia-Pacific.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01618695) involved patients aged ≥12 years with refractory POS (receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs). Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive once-daily placebo or perampanel 4, 8, or 12 mg over a 6-week titration and 13-week maintenance double-blind period. Enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs were equally stratified between groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change in POS frequency per 28 days (double-blind phase vs baseline). Other efficacy endpoints included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also monitored.

RESULTS

Of 710 randomized patients, seizure frequency data were available for 704 patients. Median percent changes in POS frequency per 28 days indicated dose-proportional reductions in seizure frequency: -10.8% with placebo and -17.3% (P = .2330), -29.0% (P = .0003), and -38.0% (P < .0001) with perampanel 4, 8, and 12 mg, respectively. In total, 108 (15.3%) patients discontinued treatment; 44 (6.2%) due to TEAEs. TEAEs occurring in ≥5% of patients, and reported at least twice as frequently with perampanel vs placebo, included dizziness and irritability.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive perampanel (8 and 12 mg/d) significantly improved seizure control in patients with refractory POS. Safety and tolerability were acceptable at daily doses of perampanel 4-12 mg.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of adjunctive perampanel in subjects with partial-onset seizures

OBJECTIVES

Explore perampanel pharmacokinetics (PK) in all subjects (aged ≥12 years) vs adolescents (aged ≥12 to ≤17 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) and identify factors explaining between-subject variability in efficacy using a population PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) analysis.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Population PK analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling with data from phase II/III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adjunctive perampanel in POS. Perampanel exposure was predicted for all subjects and adolescents. Population PK/PD analyses were performed using data from phase III studies to explore the relationship between perampanel exposure and 28-day average seizure frequency and responder probability.

RESULTS

Pooled perampanel PK data from 1318 subjects were described by a one-compartment disposition model. In the absence of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) affecting perampanel PK, estimated perampanel apparent clearance (CL/F) was 0.668 L/h (all subjects) and 0.682 L/h (adolescent subjects). Co-administration of carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine/phenytoin reduced perampanel exposure. Gender, Asian race (excluding Japanese or Chinese), and increasing alanine aminotransferase lowered perampanel CL/F, but differences were small and not considered clinically relevant. Adolescent outcomes were similar to the total population. Based on PK/PD data from 1748 subjects, percent reduction in 28-day average seizure frequency from baseline and responder probability increased with increasing perampanel exposure; concomitant CYP3A-inducing AEDs lowered perampanel exposure but did not impact the slope for responder probability.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with previous analyses but expand on these through inclusion of a larger number of patients from different ethnic groups, and demonstrate that outcomes were similar between adults and adolescents.

Preliminary Asian experience of using perampanel in clinical practice

Background

To analyze the efficacy and safety of perampanel over a 3-month period in a sample of Asian people with epilepsy.

Methods

The efficacy and safety of perampanel as an adjunctive therapy for patients with epilepsy were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Patients were categorized according to seizure type, concomitant antiepileptic drug usage, and perampanel dosage.

Results

A total of 210 patients were included in the study and 131 patients completed 3 months of perampanel treatment. The average dosage of perampanel was 5.31 mg/day, and the 50% responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction) in all patients was 45.8%, with a 27.5% seizure-free rate. For focal seizures, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and primary generalized seizures, the 50% responder rates were respectively 29.4%, 49.5%, and 36.4%. In total, 39.5% of patients experienced adverse events within 3 months of observation period, and the rate of drug withdrawal due to adverse events was 8.6%. Dizziness, ataxia, irritability/aggression were the most common adverse events.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of perampanel in a real-world setting with Asian patients is comparable to that in clinical trials that have included fewer Asian patients.

[Perampanel in the treatment of patients with epilepsy]

Development of new antiepileptic drugs (AED) does not stop due to the fact that the number of patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy remains at about 30%. One of the newest AEDs is perampanel (PER), a selective, non-competitive AMPA receptor antagonist to target post-synaptic glutamate transmission. PER is approved in the Russian Federation as adjunctive treatment for focal seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures and for primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) in patients with epilepsy aged ≥12 years. The drug is effective and well-tolerated in the dose of 4-8 mg/day, and most side effects are dose-dependent. The high efficacy of PER combined with the good tolerability, absence of life-threatening adverse reactions and convenient intake allow us to recommend PER as the first choice additional drug in treatment of patients with epilepsy.

Behavioural changes in patients with intellectual disability treated with perampanel

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this cross-sectional retrospective study was to assess the tolerability and efficacy of perampanel in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who also suffered from intellectual disability (ID).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used an industry-independent, non-interventional retrospective evaluation based on standardized, daily seizure records. Twenty-seven patients with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy were started on perampanel between September 2012 and November 2015 after a 3-month observation period without perampanel treatment. Perampanel was given at a maximum dosage of 4-12 mg daily. Evaluation was carried out after 6, 12 and 24 months, including calculation of the retention rate. Mean seizure frequency was compared between the 3-month baseline period and subsequent 3-month treatment periods. The Clinical Global Impression scale was applied to assess qualitative changes in seizure severity, and the Aggressive Behaviour Scale (ABS) gave further insights into challenging behaviour.

RESULTS

Perampanel was efficacious and well tolerated in five of 25 patients. In 18 patients, perampanel treatment was stopped, mainly because of adverse events (n=6), lack of efficacy (n=3) or both (n=9). Behavioural changes were documented in 15 of 27 patients, with aggressive behaviour being the commonest effect; we observed ataxia (n=6) and sedation (n=8) in further patients. The ABS showed worsening of aggressive behaviour in six patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel was well tolerated and efficacious in one-fifth of our patients. We observed challenging behaviour, ataxia and sedation in a relevant number of patients with ID under perampanel treatment. Further studies are warranted to explore the tolerability of perampanel in patients with ID.

Comparing Safety and Efficacy of "Third-Generation" Antiepileptic Drugs: Long-Term Extension and Post-marketing Treatment

Four "third-generation" antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were approved for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal onset seizures during the past 10 years. Long-term efficacy and safety of the drugs were demonstrated in large extension studies and in reports of subgroups of patients not studied in pivotal trials. Reviewing extension study and post-marketing outcome series for the four newer AEDs-lacosamide, perampanel, eslicarbazepine acetate and brivaracetam-can guide clinicians in treating and monitoring patients. AED extension studies evaluate treatment retention, drug tolerability, and drug safety during individualized treatment with flexible dosing and thus provide information not available in rigid pivotal trials. Patient retention in the studies ranged from 75 to 80% at 1 year and from 36 to 68% at 2-year treatment intervals. Safety findings were generally similar to those of pivotal trials, with no major safety risks identified and with several specific adverse drug effects, such as hyponatremia, reported. The third-generation AEDs, some through new mechanisms and others with improved tolerability compared to related AEDs, provide new options in efficacy and tolerability.

AMPA receptors and perampanel behind selected epilepsies: current evidence and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

The alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptors are the major mediators of glutamate-mediated excitatory neurotransmission, and are critical for synchronization and spread of epileptic activity. Areas covered: AMPA receptor antagonists have been also developed as antiepileptic drugs and perampanel (PER) is the first highly selective, non-competitive AMPA-type glutamate receptor antagonist that is available on the market. It is approved as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, and for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy, in patients aged ≥ 12 years. This article reviews the role of AMPA receptors in the neuronal hyperexcitability underlying epilepsy, the mechanism of action and clinical experience on the anti-seizure activity of PER. Moreover, the rationale for targeting AMPA receptor in specific epileptic disorders, including brain tumor-related epilepsy, mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with/without hippocampal sclerosis, and status epilepticus is evaluated. Finally, the pharmacological rationale for the development of AMPA receptor antagonists in other neurological disorders beyond epilepsy is considered. Expert opinion: Further research aimed at better understanding the pharmacology and blocking mechanism of PER and other AMPA receptor antagonists will drive future development of therapeutic agents that target epilepsy and other neurological diseases.

Effectiveness and tolerability of Perampanel in children, adolescents and young adults with refractory epilepsy: A UK national multicentre study

PURPOSE

Perampanel is one of the latest antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) approved for the treatment of focal and generalised epilepsy in individuals with epilepsy aged 12 years and older. There is sparse data on the use of Perampanel in children under 12. We conducted a study amongst paediatric neurologists in the United Kingdom to investigate its effectiveness and tolerability as an adjunctive therapy in children of all ages with refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

Data was collected via an online questionnaire sent to paediatric neurologists in the UK. Data gathered, prospective in 62 (64.5%) and retrospective in 34 (35.5%) patients, included changes in seizure frequency from baseline and unwanted effects at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up. Only patients with a minimum follow-up of six months were included.

RESULTS

Ninety six patients (48 females) with refractory epilepsy from 11 of 29 tertiary centres were included. Median [IQR] (range) age was 14 years 11 months [12 years, 16 years 6 months] (11 months-24 years 5 months). Seventy three (76%) had focal epilepsy, sixteen (17%) generalised, and seven (7%) patients both generalised and focal epilepsy. The responder rate, ≥50% seizure reduction from baseline, was 19% for all seizure types at both 6 and 12 months, 19% and 24% for focal seizures, and 25% and 7% for generalised seizures at these time points respectively. The retention rate was 42% at 12 months. Treatment was discontinued due to unwanted effects in 29 (36.7%) of the 79 patients with follow-up data available up to 12 months: 30% due to challenging behaviour, 14% dizziness, and 7.6% somnolence.

CONCLUSION

Perampanel was fairly effective in a heterogeneous group of 96 children and adolescents with very refractory epilepsy. The rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation was considerable in this group.

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

RATIONALE

Observational data on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) inform about their use in clinical practice. We describe our clinical experience with perampanel (PER) in a large UK tertiary epilepsy center.

METHODS

Adults initiated on PER between October 2012 and March 2015 were followed until they discontinued PER or 10 September 2016. Data on epilepsy syndrome, duration, seizure types, concomitant and previous AED use, PER dosing, efficacy and side effects were recorded. Efficacy was categorized as temporary or ongoing (at last follow-up) seizure freedom, ≥50% seizure reduction, or other benefit (e.g. No convulsions or daytime seizures). These categories were mutually exclusive except for people with temporary seizure freedom.

RESULTS

391 received a PER prescription, five of whom never took it. No follow-up data were available for ten. 83% had focal epilepsy. People were prescribed PER in addition to 1-7 (Interquartile range [IQR] 2, 2, 3) AEDs and had previously used up to 18 (IQR 5, 7, 10) AEDs. Total exposure was 639patient/years. Retention rates were 60.4% at one year, 48.3% at two years, and 42.7% at three years. 19 (5%) people reported seizure free periods lasting at least six months. A ≥50% reduction in seizures lasting at least six months was reported by 76 people (20%), and marked improvement for ≥6months was seen in 52 (14%). Five (1%) were taken off other AEDs and continued on PER monotherapy for 4-27months. Seizures were aggravated in 57 (15%). Somatic side effects were reported by 197 (52%), mostly CNS. Mood changes, irritability or challenging behavior were reported by 137 (36%). PER was discontinued by 211 (56%) due to adverse effects (39%), inefficacy (26%), or both (35%). No idiosyncratic adverse events were seen.

CONCLUSION

PER resulted in some benefit in 40% of those exposed. Adverse effects on mental health and on balance were common and should be discussed with people before initiating PER.

Current role of perampanel in pediatric epilepsy

Perampanel is among the latest AEDs approved, indicated for the treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, and for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures, in patients aged 12 years and older. This paper summarizes the clinical recommendations on the current role of perampanel in the treatment of pediatric epilepsies and future directions for research. The optimal dosage should be comprised between 4 and 12 mg/day, with 8 mg/day being the most common dosage used. The rate and severity of adverse events, including psychiatric symptoms, can be decreased by starting at low doses, and titrating slowly. Overall, perampanel presents an acceptable risk/benefit ratio, but special caution should be made to the risk of seizure aggravation and behavioral problems. The favorable cognitive profile, the ease of use of the titration scheme and the once-daily formulation offer advantage over other AEDs and make this drug particularly suitable for adolescent population. Perampanel is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of the existing AEDs, as it represents a new approach in the management of epilepsy, with a novel mechanism of action and a potential to have a considerable impact on the treatment of adolescents with epilepsy.

Budget impact of perampanel as adjunctive treatment of uncontrolled partial-onset and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States

PURPOSE

To evaluate the budget impact (BI) of adopting perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS), with or without secondarily generalized seizures, and the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in patients 12years or older in the United States.

METHODS

A BI model was developed to estimate the potential BI of adopting adjunctive perampanel from a US payer (direct costs only) and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspective over a 5-year period. Efficacy data for perampanel and antiepileptic drug (AED) maintenance therapy were obtained from perampanel phase III clinical trials. Drug, direct medical (healthcare provider, emergency room, and hospitalizations), and indirect (productivity loss) costs were obtained from appropriate sources (e.g., AnalySource® Online [wholesale acquisition costs], 2013 Optum Insight Clinformatics Database [market share percentages, direct medical costs per unit], and 2011-2013 National Health and Wellness Survey [NHWS; healthcare resource utilization, overall work impairment, and baseline distribution of patients across the 4 health states]). Mapping of seizure frequency to medical resource utilization and work impairment was obtained from Kantar Health's NHWS.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 660 (0.066%) members ≥12years old had uncontrolled POS (395 [59.8%]) or PGTCS (265 [40.2%]). During the first 5years of adoption of perampanel, absolute BI (including drug, direct medical, and indirect costs) was $852, $2124, $3855, $5318, and $6397, respectively, for a cumulative absolute BI of $18,545. Drug cost was estimated to increase by $13,888, $34,646, $62,863, $86,728, and $104,326, respectively; however, this cost would be mostly offset by decreases in direct medical ($5041, $12,576, $22,818, $31,481, and $37,869, respectively) and indirect ($7995, $19,946, $36,190, $49,929, and $60,060, respectively) costs. Total per-member-per-month cost (drug and direct medical costs) was estimated to increase by $0.0007, $0.0018, $0.0033, $0.0046, and $0.0055 from years 1 to 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on results of this BI model, increased cost of adopting perampanel in a health plan of 1 million members would be minimal for payers, and societal costs would be close to neutral.

Evaluation of perampanel in patients with intellectual disability and epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Initial registration studies of perampanel (PMP), an AMPA receptor antagonist, have now been followed up by 'clinical' studies that confirmed its efficacy and safety in patients with refractory epilepsy. Publications on the use of PMP among patients with intellectual disability (ID) are still limited. This study extends our knowledge with respect to the relevance of PMP for patients with both ID and epilepsy, and furthermore specifies the behavioral side effects of PMP in this specific population.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of medical records at 3, 6 and 12months of follow-up after the initial start of PMP.

RESULTS

62 patients were included. 21 patients (33.9%) were female. All patients had complete data of 6months follow-up and we were able to review 42 patients with a 1-year follow-up. Level of ID varied from borderline to profound, and mild ID was most common (43.5%). The mean maximum daily dosage of PMP was 5.6mg (range 1-12mg). Retention rates for PMP were 87.1% and 67.7% after three and six months. A trend indicated a longer mean retention time in patients with a more severe ID (borderline-mild-moderate ID: 205days, severe-profound ID: 275days). Seizure reduction was achieved in 53.2%. 36 patients (58.1%) experienced adverse effects, 80.6% of those within 3months. 45.2% of the patients experienced somatic adverse effects. Most common were fatigue & sleep problems, motor problems & unsteadiness, and gastrointestinal problems. Behavioral adverse effects were present in 40.3%. Most common were aggression, agitated behavior, disruptive behavior, and mood symptoms. Reasons for discontinuation of PMP were lack of efficacy in 14.8%, intolerable adverse effects in 44.4%, and a combination of both in 40.7%. Altogether, 24.2% (15/62) of the patients achieved seizure reduction without experiencing adverse effects, though none reached seizure freedom.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PMP might lead to an effective seizure reduction without adverse effects in a minority of patients with both epilepsy and ID. Pre-existing behavioral problems or polypharmacy do not predict the occurrence of additional behavioral adverse effects, implying that these patients need not be excluded from the introduction of PMP when clinically indicated. Patients should, ideally, be monitored at a multidisciplinary clinic.