Perampanel in routine clinical use in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: The 12-month GENERAL study

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel treatment in pediatric patients with epilepsy aged 4-12 years: a real-world study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of perampanel (PER) as an adjunctive therapy in children aged 4-12 years with epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a non-randomized, open-label, placebo-uncontrolled, real-world self-controlled study that included 216 young children (aged 4-12 years) with epilepsy who received PER as adjunctive therapy at the children's hospital affiliated with Chongqing Medical University from July 4, 2020, to September 20, 2023.

RESULTS

(1) The efficacy rates of adjunctive PER therapy at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 62.8%, 67.8%, 65.3%, and 61.2%, respectively. PER showed efficacy in alleviating focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures. The efficacy rates for variants of self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS) and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) were 89.5% and 66.7%, respectively. (2) Focal non-motor onset seizures with or without impaired awareness, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), LGS, variants of SeLECTS, the number of concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs), a family history of epilepsy, and focal lesions on cranial magnetic resonance imaging were independent factors affecting efficacy. The order of PER addition did not affect efficacy. The retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 90.7%, 84.7%, 74.7%, 64.9%, respectively. (3) Adverse reactions occurred in 45 patients (45/216, 20.8%), with irritability/aggressive behavior (18/216, 8.3%) and somnolence (14/216, 6.5%) being the most common. Twelve patients (12/216, 5.6%) withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

In young Chinese children with epilepsy, PER is effective, safe, and well-tolerated as an adjunctive therapy, making it a viable option for use with broad-spectrum ASMs.

Perampanel for Treatment of People with a Range of Epilepsy Aetiologies in Clinical Practice: Evidence from the PERMIT Extension Study

INTRODUCTION

It is important to assess the effectiveness of an antiseizure medication in treating different epilepsy aetiologies to optimise individualised therapeutic approaches. Data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) Extension study were used to assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was conducted of PERMIT Extension data from individuals with a known aetiology. Retention was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

PERMIT Extension included 1945 individuals with structural aetiology, 1012 with genetic aetiology, 93 with an infectious aetiology, and 26 with an immune aetiology. Retention rates at 12 months were 61.1% (structural), 65.9% (genetic), 56.8% (infectious) and 56.5% (immune). At the last visit, responder rates (total seizures) were 43.3% (structural), 68.3% (genetic), 37.0% (infectious) and 20.0% (immune), and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 15.8%, 46.5%, 11.1% and 5.0%, respectively. AE incidence rates were 58.0% (structural), 46.5% (genetic), 51.1% (infectious) and 65.0% (immune), and corresponding rates of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months were 18.9%, 16.4%, 18.5% and 21.7%, respectively. The types of AEs reported were generally consistent across aetiology subgroups, with no idiosyncratic AEs emerging.

CONCLUSION

Although PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice, variability in its effectiveness and tolerability across the subgroups indicates that PER may be particularly useful for individuals with specific epilepsy aetiologies.

Efficacy and Safety of adjunctive Perampanel in a prospective, real-world, Phase IV study in Indian patients aged ≥12 years for Treatment of focal-onset Epilepsy: Study 508

OBJECTIVE

ESPRITE (Study 508; NCT03836924) evaluated the real-world safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in India.

METHODS

ESPRITE was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational, Phase IV study with a 6-month Treatment Period. Patients were aged ≥12 years and had been prescribed perampanel for adjunctive treatment of FOS, with or without FBTCS. Assessments included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; primary endpoint), median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, 50% responder rates, and seizure-freedom rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (199 patients in the Safety Analysis Set and 174 patients who completed all visits in the main efficacy analyses). TEAEs (all mild or moderate in severity) were reported in 18.1% (n = 36/199) of patients (the most common were dizziness [3.0%] and irritability [2.0%]). TEAEs leading to discontinuation of perampanel were reported in 2.0% of patients; no deaths or serious TEAEs occurred. At 6 months, median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 100.0%, 50% responder rate was 83.3%, and seizure-freedom rate was 49.4%.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjunctive perampanel (at a mean daily dose of 4 mg/day) was shown to be well tolerated and effective in patients aged ≥12 years with FOS, with or without FBTCS, from India.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Many patients do not receive adequate treatment for epilepsy and need effective seizure control medications. In this 6-month clinical study, 199 patients from India, aged 12 years or older, added perampanel to the anti-seizure medications they were already taking. At 6 months, 49% of patients experienced no seizures since starting perampanel and seizure frequency was reduced by half in 83% of patients. Side effects occurred in 18% of patients (most commonly dizziness and irritability) and caused 2% to stop perampanel; no deaths were reported. Perampanel was an effective and generally safe added medication for patients with epilepsy from India.

PERPRISE: A prospective non-interventional study of PERampanel as only adjunctive treatment in patients with PRImary or SEcondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures: First interim analysis

OBJECTIVE

To report the interim results of the PERPRISE study (Study 509; NCT04202159), which is evaluating perampanel as the only adjunctive anti-seizure medication (ASM) in adults with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

PERPRISE is an ongoing 12-month multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional study of perampanel in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients are aged ≥18 years with FBTCS or GTCS due to focal or idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Perampanel, as an adjunctive therapy to ASM monotherapy ('add-on therapy') or as a substitute for one ASM in dual therapy ('substitution therapy'), is prescribed in line with its SmPC. The Interim Analysis Set comprises the first 100 patients who received ≥1 dose of perampanel and attended or discontinued prior to the ~6-month visit. Interim endpoints include retention rate, measures of effects on seizure frequency, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included in the Interim Analysis Set (add-on, n = 43 [43.0%]; substitution, n = 55 [55.0%]; unknown, n = 2). The 6-month retention rate was 78.0% (add-on, 83.7%; substitution, 72.7%). For the overall population with GTCS and/or FBTCS, seizure-freedom rate at 6 months was 58.8% (add-on, 72.2%; substitution, 47.9%) and 50% responder rate at 6 months was 82.6% (add-on, 89.2%; substitution, 76.6%). Retention rates and seizure outcomes were better with perampanel as an early-line treatment than as a late-line treatment. TEAEs were reported by 48 patients (48.0%), most commonly dizziness (n = 9), fatigue (n = 7), and irritability (n = 7). Sixteen patients (16.0%) withdrew from perampanel treatment due to TEAEs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The interim analysis of PERPRISE offers insight into the real-world use of perampanel in Germany, including for the first time, clinical practice data from patients with GTCS and switching ASMs within a dual therapy. Further data from PERPRISE will be of value to inform clinical decision-making in this patient cohort.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Patients with epilepsy often take more than one medication for seizure control. This 12month study looked at patients in Germany receiving perampanel as only add-on medication. The interim analysis shows, that at 6 months, over 70% of the 100 patients continued to use perampanel; 59% experienced no seizures during treatment with perampanel, and in 83%, seizure frequency was reduced by half. Side effects occurred in 48% of patients (most commonly dizziness, fatigue, and irritability) and caused 16% to withdraw from the study. Overall, perampanel was a suitable as only add-on medication for patients with epilepsy.

Phase IV PROVE study: Perampanel in real-world clinical care of pediatric patients with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

The non-interventional Phase IV PROVE study (NCT03208660) assessed retention, efficacy, safety and tolerability, and perampanel dosing in patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care. This analysis evaluated final data from patients aged <4 years and 4-<12 years.

METHODS

Data were obtained retrospectively from medical/pharmacy records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinician recommendations. Retention rate was the primary endpoint. Secondary assessments included median percent changes in seizure frequency, seizure-freedom rates, investigator impression of seizure effect, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

The Safety Analysis Set (SAS) included 41 patients (<4 years; mean maximum dose, 3.5 mg/day) and 203 patients (4-<12 years; mean maximum dose, 5.3 mg/day); 24-month retention rates were 35.7% (n = 5/14) and 42.0% (n = 47/112), respectively. In the Full Analysis Set, during Months 1-3, median percent reductions in seizure frequency were 33.3% (n = 8 [<4 years]) and 26.0% (n = 32 [4-<12 years]), and seizure-freedom rates were 12.5% in both groups (n = 1/8 and n = 4/32); patient numbers were low at later time points. Most patients showed improvements in seizure control (45.9% [<4 years] versus 52.4% [4-<12 years]) or no change (45.9% versus 34.5%) (SAS). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 12 (<4 years: 29.3%; most common, irritability [7.3%]) and 64 patients (4-<12 years: 31.5%; most common, aggression [6.9%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel was generally well tolerated with <21% of TEAEs leading to withdrawal at 24 months, had favorable retention rates (≥50% and >35% at 12 and 24 months, respectively), and sustained efficacy in pediatric patients during routine clinical care.

The latest advances in the pharmacological management of focal epilepsies in children: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Focal epilepsy constitutes the most common epilepsy in children, and medical treatment represents the first-line therapy in this condition. The main goal of medical treatment for children and adolescents with epilepsy is the achievement of seizure freedom or, in drug-resistant epilepsies, a significant seizure reduction, both minimizing antiseizure medications (ASM)-related adverse events, thus improving the patient's quality of life. However, up to 20-40% of pediatric epilepsies are refractory to drug treatments. New ASMs came to light in the pediatric landscape, improving the drug profile compared to that of the preexisting ones. Clinicians should consider several factors during the drug choice process, including patient and medication-specific characteristics.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review aims to summarize the latest evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of the newest ASMs administered as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy in pediatric epilepsies with focal onset seizures, providing a practical appraisal based on the existing evidence.

EXPERT OPINION

The latest ASMs have the potential to be effective in the pharmacological management of focal onset seizures in children, and treatment choice should consider several drug- and epilepsy-related factors. Future treatments should be increasingly personalized and targeted on patient-specific pathways. Future research should focus on discovering new chemical compounds and repurposing medications used for other indications.

Value of drug level concentrations of brivaracetam, lacosamide, and perampanel in care of people with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether clinical efficacy and reported adverse effects (AEs) of the newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) have been associated with plasma levels of these ASMs. We also investigated whether plasma levels outside the reference range has led to dose adjustments.

METHODS

Plasma levels of 300 people with epilepsy (PWE) seen at our tertiary epilepsy center were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. PWE received BRV (n = 100), LCM (n = 100), or PER (n = 100), in most cases in polytherapy. Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively analyzed and related to plasma levels. Clinical efficacy of BRV, LCM, or PER was assessed retrospectively by comparing seizure frequency at the time of current blood draw with seizure frequency at the time of first administration. AEs were also recorded and, if reported, compared retrospectively with the time of first administration.

RESULTS

No significant associations were found between plasma levels of BRV, LCM, or PER and seizure freedom (BRV, p = 1.000; LCM, p = .243; PER, p = .113) or responder status (BRV, p = .118; LCM, p = .478; PER, p = .069) at presentation. There was also no pattern between plasma levels and the occurrence of AEs. In the majority of cases, drug levels outside the reference ranges have not led to adjustments in the daily doses of BRV (93.5%), LCM (93.9%), or PER (89.1%).

SIGNIFICANCE

Plasma levels at a given time point did not allow conclusions to be drawn about seizure control or the occurrence of AEs. Our findings indicate that efficacy and tolerability cannot be predicted based on averaged data from a single plasma measurement due to high interindividual variability. Instead, individual reference values should be established when sufficient clinical data are available, in line with the 2008 International League Against Epilepsy position paper on therapeutic drug monitoring.

Effectiveness and safety of mono- and add-on perampanel in pediatric patients with epilepsy: Experience from a single-center retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of perampanel (PER) monotherapy (MT) or add-on therapy (AT) in Chinese children with epilepsy, as well as to evaluate the data from routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of PER for these pediatric patients.

METHODS

This retrospective and observational study was carried out on children with epilepsy (n = 340) from 2020 to 2022 at the Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. Outcome measures were the responder rate (50% or greater seizure reduction), long-term efficacy, and tolerability (number and types of adverse events) in MT and AT groups. Concentrations of plasma PER obtained from these patients, if available, were analyzed too.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients achieved at least 3 months of therapy, and 58.1% responded to PER therapy. 53 of the responders were seizure-free (32.7%). The retention rate dropped from 88.0% at 3 months to 40.6% at 12 months after treatment. Patients with MT achieved better seizure control than those with AT (P < 0.001). Intriguingly, PER exerted a very weak effect on patients who took more than 2 ASMs or were diagnosed with drug-resistant epilepsy. There were no significant differences in tolerability between the two groups. In addition, 179 patients were routinely monitored for PER, and the trough concentrations (C0 ) for these patients ranged from 30.0 to 992.0 ng/mL. However, no significant difference in C0 was observed between responders and nonresponders (333 ng/mL vs 325.5 ng/mL, P = 0.264).

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides effectiveness and safety data on Chinese children with epilepsy treated with PER either as MT or as AT. The efficacy of patients receiving MT was much better than cases administered with more than 2 ASMs or diagnosed with drug-resistant epilepsy. In addition, no association was found between the plasma PER concentration and efficacy or safety.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The study reports the effects of perampanel on seizures and adverse effects in Chinese patients with epilepsy younger than 18 years. Seizures decreased in 58.1% of patients (responders); in a third of these responders, seizures stopped. After treatment was started, 88% of patients were still on perampanel at 3 months and 40.6% at 12 months. People who were treated with perampanel only were more likely to respond than those who received perampanel and other antiseizure treatments, although perampanel was tolerated equally well in these groups. Plasma perampanel concentration did not predict seizure response or adverse effects.

Long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel as an add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Perampanel (PER) is a newly developed amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist that has been globally approved for the treatment of both focal and generalized seizures. The efficacy and safety of PER have only been reported over short periods of treatment so far. This study aims to clarify the long-term efficacy and safety of PER as an add-on therapy.

METHOD

This retrospective observational study investigated 176 epilepsy patients who received PER as add-on medical therapy in two Japanese epilepsy centers between June 2016 and July 2022. The adherence, seizure frequency, and plasma concentration of PER were evaluated at three time points: 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months or longer after the start of adjunctive PER treatment.

RESULTS

112 patients undergoing PER treatment were evaluated at 6 months, 86 were evaluated at 12 months, and 52 were evaluated at 24 months or longer. Overall, 42.9 % (48/112), 45.4 % (40/86), and 44.2 % (23/52) of the patients were seizure-free at 6, 12, and 24 months or longer, respectively. The rate of PER tolerance was 78.3 %, 69.9 %, and 54.7 % at 6, 12, and 24 months or longer, respectively. At the latest timepoint, the seizure-free group was taking a significantly lower dose of PER than the seizure-remnant group, and the number of anti-seizure medications (ASMs) was associated with seizure outcomes. In addition, the seizure-free rate was significantly higher in patients who received PER as a first add-on than in those who received it as a late add-on. No significant difference was found in the plasma concentration of PER between the seizure-free and seizure-remnant groups at 24 months or longer. Among the patients receiving PER at dose of 2 mg, however, the plasma concentrations were significantly higher in the seizure-free group than in the seizure-remnant group (282.7 ± 109.8 μg/ml vs 94.7 ± 54.9 μg/ml, p = 0.0024).

CONCLUSION

This long-term retrospective observational study provides evidence of the efficacy and safety of PER over 2 years treatment period in Japan. Notably, patients who started on PER as the first add-on showed a better seizure outcome than those who received it as a late add-on over the long term. Measured plasma concentrations may provide valuable guidance for the management of patients. Higher plasma concentration at low dose PER may suggest the better seizure control.

Checkmate: Chess-induced reflex seizures in patient with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy

Content available: Video

Role of Perampanel in the Management of Pediatric Epilepsies in Asia: Expert Opinion

Management of pediatric epilepsies poses unique challenges around diagnosis, treatment options, comorbidities, and the potential for these factors to interact with processes in the developing brain. In pediatric patients, broad-spectrum antiseizure medications (ASMs) with minimal potential for adverse events (AEs) and limited impact on cognition and behavior are preferred. Perampanel is a first-in-class ASM with broad-spectrum efficacy, a tolerable safety profile, minimal negative impact on cognitive function, and other features that make it a viable treatment option in this patient population. However, evidence and experience of its use in pediatric patients are less extensive than in adult patients. Experts in pediatric epilepsy across the region convened at a series of meetings to discuss the use of perampanel in pediatric patients, including dose optimization, AE prevention and management, and considerations in particular groups. This article summarizes key evidence for perampanel in the pediatric population and consolidates the experts' recommendations for using the ASM in managing pediatric epilepsies.

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.

The Cognitive and Behavioural Effects of Perampanel in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review

In children and adolescents with epilepsy, neurodevelopmental comorbidities can impair the quality of life more than seizures. The aim of this review was to evaluate the cognitive and behavioural effects of perampanel (PER) in the paediatric population. We performed a systematic search of the literature, selecting studies published in English including children and adolescents with epilepsy treated with PER. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes were assessed through validated neuropsychological standardised scales. Eighteen studies involving 3563 paediatric patients were included. Perampanel did not impair general cognitive functions and visuospatial skills, whereas a slight improvement in verbal memory and a decline in attentional power were detected. In adolescents with refractory epilepsies, high doses and/or rapid titration of PER and an underlying psychiatric disorder were risk factors for developing or worsening psychiatric outcomes such as anger, aggressiveness, and irritability. Data on children and adolescents treated with new antiseizure medications are scant, and neuropsychiatric effects are tricky to be detected during developmental age. According to the currently available evidence, PER showed an overall favourable risk-benefit profile. Pharmacodynamics, co-administration of other antiseizure medications, and family and personal history of neuropsychiatric disorders should be considered before PER treatment.

Perampanel as only add-on epilepsy treatment in elderly: A subgroup analysis of real-world data from retrospective, multicenter, observational study

INTRODUCTION

Drug management of epilepsy in the elderly presents unique but data on this population are scarce. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on to a background anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the elderly in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years included in a previous 12-month multicenter study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

The sample included 65 subjects (mean age: 75.7 ± 7.2 years), with mainly focal (73.8%) epilepsy. The mean PER daily dose was ≈4 mg during all follow-up. Retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 90.5%, 89.6%, and 79.4%ly. The baseline median normalized per 28-day seizure number significantly decreased at 3-, 6- and 12-month visits. One year after PER introduction, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency) was 89.7%, with a seizure freedom rate of 72.4%. Adverse events occurred in 22 (34.9%) patients with dizziness and irritability being the most frequent. No major differences between early (41 patients, 63.1%), and late add-on groups were observed.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated when used as only add-on treatment in elderly people with epilepsy in clinical practice, thus representing a suitable therapeutic option in this age category.

Further advances in epilepsy

In 2017, one of us reviewed advances in epilepsy (Manford in J Neurol 264:1811-1824, 2017). The current paper brings that review up to date and gives a slight change in emphasis. Once again, the story is of evolution rather than revolution. In recognition that most of our current medications act on neurotransmitters or ion channels, and not on the underlying changes in connectivity and pathways, they have been renamed as antiseizure (ASM) medications rather than antiepileptic drugs. Cenobamate is the one newly licensed medication for broader use in focal epilepsy but there have been a number of developments for specific disorders. We review new players and look forward to new developments in the light of evolving underlying science. We look at teratogenicity; old villains and new concerns in which clinicians play a vital role in explaining and balancing the risks. Medical treatment of status epilepticus, long without evidence, has benefitted from high-quality trials to inform practice; like buses, several arriving at once. Surgical treatment continues to be refined with improvements in the pre-surgical evaluation of patients, especially with new imaging techniques. Alternatives including stereotactic radiotherapy have received further focus and targets for palliative stimulation techniques have grown in number. Individuals' autonomy and quality of life continue to be the subject of research with refinement of what clinicians can do to help persons with epilepsy (PWE) achieve control. This includes seizure management but extends to broader considerations of human empowerment, needs and desires, which may be aided by emerging technologies such as seizure detection devices. The role of specialist nurses in improving that quality has been reinforced by specific endorsement from the International League against Epilepsy (ILAE).

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.

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.

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.

Sleep-wake cycle and daytime sleepiness in patients with epilepsy after initiating perampanel as adjunctive therapy

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure medications (ASMs) may affect nocturnal sleep and daytime vigilance. Perampanel (PER), a third-generation ASM, showed to improve nocturnal sleep in patients with epilepsy (PWE). Although ASMs can have beneficial effects on nocturnal sleep and daytime sleepiness, no study investigated the effect of PER on both sleep-wake cycle and daytime sleepiness. Therefore, this study aimed to objectively evaluate the sleep-wake cycle and daytime sleepiness in PWE treated with PER as adjunctive therapy.

METHODS

This prospective study included adult PWE who received PER as add-on treatment. Sleep-wake cycle was assessed through actigraphic monitoring and daytime sleepiness by the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) performed at the end of the actigraphic recording. All patients performed both tests at baseline and at 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Ten patients (mean age: 44.50 ± 22.71 years, 50.0% female) were included. The mean monthly seizure frequency was 3.20 ± 5.94. Six of ten patients started PER as a first add-on treatment. The final PER dose was 5.11 ± 2.02 mg/day, and nine of ten patients achieved seizure freedom at follow-up. There was a significant decrease in mean monthly seizure frequency from baseline to follow-up (p = 0.004). No significant changes were found in the sleep-wake cycle parameters. An increase in sleep latency mean was observed at MSLT at 6-month follow-up (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that adjunctive PER is effective on seizures without pathologically change of the sleep-wake cycle in PWE and can even improve daytime sleepiness. This effect can be mediated by the achievement of seizure control. Therefore, PER may be promising in PWE with sleep disturbances and daytime sleepiness.

Perampanel as precision therapy in rare genetic epilepsies

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel, an antiseizure drug with α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist properties, may have a targeted effect in genetic epilepsies with overwhelming glutamate receptor activation. Epilepsies with loss of γ-aminobutyric acid inhibition (e.g., SCN1A), overactive excitatory neurons (e.g., SCN2A, SCN8A), and variants in glutamate receptors (e.g., GRIN2A) hold special interest. We aimed to collect data from a large rare genetic epilepsy cohort treated with perampanel, to detect possible subgroups with high efficacy.

METHODS

This multicenter project was based on the framework of NETRE (Network for Therapy in Rare Epilepsies), a web of pediatric neurologists treating rare epilepsies. Retrospective data from patients with genetic epilepsies treated with perampanel were collected. Outcome measures were responder rate (50% seizure reduction), and percentage of seizure reduction after 3 months of treatment. Subgroups of etiologies with high efficacy were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients with 79 different etiologies, aged 2 months to 61 years (mean = 15.48 ± 9.9 years), were enrolled. The mean dosage was 6.45 ± 2.47 mg, and treatment period was 2.0 ± 1.78 years (1.5 months-8 years). Sixty-two patients (44.9%) were treated for >2 years. Ninety-eight patients (71%) were responders, and 93 (67.4%) chose to continue therapy. The mean reduction in seizure frequency was 56.61% ± 34.36%. Sixty patients (43.5%) sustained >75% reduction in seizure frequency, including 38 (27.5%) with >90% reduction in seizure frequency. The following genes showed high treatment efficacy: SCN1A, GNAO1, PIGA, PCDH19, SYNGAP1, POLG1, POLG2, and NEU1. Eleven of 17 (64.7%) patients with Dravet syndrome due to an SCN1A pathogenic variant were responders to perampanel treatment; 35.3% of them had >90% seizure reduction. Other etiologies remarkable for >90% reduction in seizures were GNAO1 and PIGA. Fourteen patients had a continuous spike and wave during sleep electroencephalographic pattern, and in six subjects perampanel reduced epileptiform activity.

SIGNIFICANCE

Perampanel demonstrated high safety and efficacy in patients with rare genetic epilepsies, especially in SCN1A, GNAO1, PIGA, PCDH19, SYNGAP1, CDKL5, NEU1, and POLG, suggesting a targeted effect related to glutamate transmission.

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.

Kainate Receptor Antagonists: Recent Advances and Therapeutic Perspective

Since the 1990s, ionotropic glutamate receptors have served as an outstanding target for drug discovery research aimed at the discovery of new neurotherapeutic agents. With the recent approval of perampanel, the first marketed non-competitive antagonist of AMPA receptors, particular interest has been directed toward 'non-NMDA' (AMPA and kainate) receptor inhibitors. Although the role of AMPA receptors in the development of neurological or psychiatric disorders has been well recognized and characterized, progress in understanding the function of kainate receptors (KARs) has been hampered, mainly due to the lack of specific and selective pharmacological tools. The latest findings in the biology of KA receptors indicate that they are involved in neurophysiological activity and play an important role in both health and disease, including conditions such as anxiety, schizophrenia, epilepsy, neuropathic pain, and migraine. Therefore, we reviewed recent advances in the field of competitive and non-competitive kainate receptor antagonists and their potential therapeutic applications. Due to the high level of structural divergence among the compounds described here, we decided to divide them into seven groups according to their overall structure, presenting a total of 72 active compounds.

Effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in the treatment of pediatric patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: A retrospective, single-center, real-world study

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel (PER) in the treatment of children and adolescents with epilepsy.

METHODS

Pediatric patients who visited the pediatric epilepsy clinic of Henan Provincial People's Hospital between May 2020 and December 2021 were recruited. All participants were treated with PER as adjunctive therapy and were seen routinely (minimum: a baseline and 12-week visit). The efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive PER for the treatment of epilepsy were investigated.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled, among whom 7 (6.1%) were lost to follow-up. At 12 weeks, the responder rate and the seizure-free rate were 56.1% (60/107) and 32.7% (35/107), respectively. The responder rate increased with the duration of PER administration and was significantly higher when PER was used as an early add-on (after ≤2 prior antiseizure medications (ASMs)) than a late add-on (after >2 prior ASMs). However, there was no significant difference in the treatment efficacy of adjunctive PER in patients with different epilepsy etiologies or types. Adverse events, including irritability, dizziness, somnolence, ataxic gait, weight gain, and tinnitus, were reported in thirty-two patients (29.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a routine clinical setting of pediatric patients with epilepsy, good effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive PER were demonstrated. Notably, patients initiating PER as an early add-on showed a better seizure outcome than those initiating PER as a late add-on.

Effectiveness of perampanel as the only add-on: Retrospective, multicenter, observational real-life study on epilepsy patients

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel (PER) is indicated as adjunctive antiseizure medication (ASM) in adolescents and adults with epilepsy. Data from clinical trials show good efficacy and tolerability, while limited information is available on the routine clinical use of PER, especially when used as only add-on treatment.

METHODS

We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study on people with focal or generalized epilepsy aged >12 years, consecutively recruited from 52 Italian epilepsy centers. All patients received PER as the only add-on treatment to a background ASM according to standard clinical practice. Retention rate, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6, and 12 months after PER introduction. Subanalyses by early or late use of PER and by concomitant ASM were also conducted.

RESULTS

Five hundred and three patients were included (age 36.5 ± 19.9 years). Eighty-one percent had focal epilepsy. Overall, the retention rate was very high in the whole group (89% at 12 months) according with efficacy measures. No major differences were observed in the subanalyses, although patients who used PER as early add-on, as compared with late add-on, more often reached early seizure freedom at 3-month follow-up (66% vs 53%, P = .05). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 25%, far less commonly than in PER randomized trials.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study confirms the good efficacy and safety of PER for focal or generalized epilepsy in real-life conditions. We provide robust data about its effectiveness as only add-on treatment even in patients with a long-standing history of epilepsy and previously treated with many ASMs.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of perampanel in children diagnosed with epilepsy: Focus on influencing factors on the plasma concentration-to-dose ratio

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) therapy and to optimize a specific plasma reference range for PER in children. Another major aim was to evaluate the potential determinators of PER concentration.

METHODS

Concentrations obtained from 80 children were analyzed for routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) between 2021 and 2022. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of these patients and assessed the efficacy at 3 months after treatment initiation. Trough concentration-to-dose ratio (C₀ /Dose ratio) of PER was compared among patients on various potential influencing factors.

RESULTS

A 3-month PER therapy produced a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency in 58.8% of patients. Twelve patients reported at least one adverse effect (AE), mainly dizziness. The monitoring data showed that the median C₀ was 325.5 ng/mL. Under maintenance dosages, approximately 75% of the C₀ values were 180.0-610.0 ng/mL. The C₀ /Dose ratio in patients aged 1 to <4 was significantly lower by twofold than in those aged 4 to ≤12 years (P = 0.001). Enzyme-inducing ASMs (EIASMs) decreased the C₀ /Dose ratio of PER by 25.9% (P = 0.165). In addition, seizure frequency reduction in responders was achieved at a median PER C₀ value of 357 ng/mL, which was similar to the value of 314 ng/mL found in nonresponders (P = 0.288). No significant difference was found in PER C₀ values between patients with and without AEs (P = 0.082).

SIGNIFICANCE

In this study, PER treatment showed acceptable efficacy and tolerance in Chinese children with epilepsy. Contributing factors like age to variable C₀ /Dose ratios were identified, and complex PER-ASMs interactions were observed. Notably, the reference range, that is, 180.0-610.0 ng/mL, for routine PER monitoring may be more applicable for them. Routine TDM should be considered a positive attempt to manage the effectiveness and safety of PER.

Perampanel as adjuvant treatment in epileptic encephalopathies: A multicenter study in routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

Developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) are a heterogeneous group of syndromes, including Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), which are refractory to multiple therapies. Perampanel efficacy has been reported in LGS but further real-world evidence is needed in DEEs.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective, 1-year observational study in patients with DEEs on adjuvant perampanel treatment was conducted to assess perampanel safety and effectiveness in this type of patients in a real-world setting. Seizure types [focal onset seizures (FOS), generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), tonic seizures (TS), atonic seizures (AtS), atypical absences (AA), and myoclonic seizures (MS)] and seizure clusters were divided in different frequency groups: daily, weekly, and monthly seizures, and absent or seizure freedom. Patients could have more than one seizure type. For each frequency group, group change and seizure freedom were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients diagnosed with DEEs (45 males) of median age 22 [1-70] years were included. The most frequent DEEs were LGS (35.6%) and Lennox-like syndrome (37.9%). At baseline 20 patients had three to five types of seizures, 36 patients had two types of seizures and 31 patients had one predominant type of seizure. The mean number of seizure types per patient at baseline was 2.12 ± 0.97 which was reduced to 1.62 ± 0.91 at 12 months (p < 0.001). Overall, 51.7% of patients had a significant improvement in at least one seizure type. At baseline, 45 patients had GTCS, 42 FOS, 41 TS, 18 AA, 16 AtS, 11 MS, and 30 seizures clusters. Seizure freedom for each specific type at 12 months was significantly achieved by 35% of patients with GTCS (p < 0.001), 17% (p = 0.016) with TS and 37% with seizure clusters (p < 0.001). Patients achieved seizure freedom from other seizure types but with no statistical significance: 7% FOS-free, 28% AA-free, 6% Ats-free, and 18% MS-free. Regarding changes of group at 12 months, 22% of TS and 19% of FOS improved significantly to a group with lower seizure frequency (p = 0.004 and p = 0.02, respectively). In remaining groups (4% of GTCS, 11% of AA, 18% of Ats, 18% of MS, and 13% of seizure clusters), the improvement was not statistically significant. Twenty-nine patients discontinued perampanel: 18 (21%) due to AEs, 8 (9%) due to lack of efficacy, and 3 (3%) due to seizure worsening. Adverse events, mostly mild or moderate, were reported in 53% of patients, and irritability/mood changes (22%) and somnolence (17%) were the most frequent.

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale real-world study with perampanel across different seizure types in patients with DEEs. Perampanel was effective, especially in GTCS, TS, and FOS, as well as in seizure clusters. Perampanel was generally well-tolerated without unexpected AEs.

The real-world effectiveness and safety of perampanel in Europe: A scoping review

In order to characterize the real-world effectiveness and safety of perampanel during clinical use in Europe, we conducted a structured literature search and scoping review of real-world studies conducted in Europe in adolescents (aged ≥ 12 years) or adults who were prescribed perampanel for focal epilepsy or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the context of idiopathic generalized epilepsy, published between January 2016 and July 2021. We identified 29 relevant studies (20 retrospective and 9 prospective) in 3608 patients; median study duration was 12 months. Most patients (76.1%) were receiving two or more antiseizure drugs (ASDs) when perampanel was initiated. The maintenance perampanel dose ranged from 2 to 16 mg/day (most commonly 6 mg/day). Retention rate at 12 months ranged from 46% to 90.5% (median 71.1%). The proportion of patients who were free of seizures during perampanel ranged from 1.8% to 84.6%, but were consistently below 20% in studies where patients had received an average of ≥5 prior ASDs and above 20% where patients had received an average of <5 prior ASDs. The proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction in seizures during perampanel ranged from 20.0% to 85.7%. Across all studies, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) ranged from 18.2% to 67.4% (median 37.1%) and discontinuation due to AEs from 6.2% to 56% (median 12.5%). Discontinuation rates tended to be higher in UK studies than in studies from Italy or Spain. The most commonly reported individual AEs were dizziness/vertigo (median incidence 13.7%), somnolence (median 11.9%), aggression (median 9.8%), irritability (median 9.1%), and cognitive deficits (median 7.0%). There was no relationship between the overall rate of AEs and perampanel dose, perampanel plasma levels, or number of concomitant medications. Our global overview of European observational studies with perampanel provides evidence that this agent is effective and safe in clinical practice in a range of countries, patients, and settings.

Perampanel and childhood absence epilepsy: A real life experience

Objectives

The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as first add-on and as second line monotherapy in subjects with childhood absence epilepsy.

Methods

Our sample consisted of 20 patients with childhood absence epilepsy, aged between 8 and 10, already in therapy with a first antiseizure medication with incomplete seizure control. PER was added as first add-on in a dose ranging from 3 to 8 mg/die with 1- 2 mg/week increments. The patients that were seizure-free were shifted to a PER monotherapy. All patients underwent a standardized neuropsychological evaluation in order to assess non-verbal intelligence and executive functions before adding PER and after 6 months of drug therapy. All parents completed two questionnaires, in order to assess the emotional-behavioral problems and parental stress.

Results

15/20 patients responded to add-on PER and were seizure-free, in 3/20 patients we observed a reduction of seizure frequency <50%, and in the 2 remaining patients the add-on therapy with PER did not lead to a reduction in seizures frequency from baseline. The patients who were seizure-free were switched to PER monotherapy. 9/15 patients remained seizure-free in monotherapy with PER. In the first month of therapy with PER 2/20 patients (10%) reported mild, transient side effects of irritability, headache and dizziness, which did not lead to discontinuation of therapy. Adjunctive treatment with PER did not negatively affect non-verbal intelligence, executive functions, emotional/behavioral symptoms of children and parental stress levels.

Significance

Our clinical experience in real life showed that PER appears to be effective in the control of absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy, with a favorable tolerability profile. PER would seem effective on absence seizures even in monotherapy. Further studies with larger samples, longer follow-up and controlled vs. placebo (or other first choice antiseizure medications) are needed to confirm our data.

Efficacy and adverse reactions of perampanel in the treatment of epilepsy in children

Objective

To observe the clinical effect and adverse reactions of perampanel in the treatment of epilepsy in children.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 83 children with epilepsy who were treated with perampanel in the Department of Pediatric Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from April to August 2021. The treatment status, prognosis and adverse reactions were followed up. The effective rates of different age groups, different seizure types and epilepsy syndromes, and different treatment methods were statistically analyzed. The effective rate and adverse reactions of all patients were statistically analyzed.

Results

The overall effective rate of perampanel in the treatment of epilepsy was 62.03%, and there was no significant difference in the effective rate of perampanel in the treatment of epilepsy in patients of different ages (P > 0.05). The effective rates of perampanel in the treatment of focal seizures and generalized seizures were 60.38% and 65.38%, and the effective rates of benign childhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (BECT), BECT combined with electrical status epilepticus during sleep (ESES) and frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) were 88.89, 72.73, and 66.67%. The effective rates of monotherapy and combination therapy were 88.88 and 58.57%, respectively. The above statistical differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). In addition, the adverse reaction rate of perampanel treatment was 16.45%, including irritability, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting and abnormal liver function.

Conclusion

Perampanel has a high efficiency and controllable adverse reactions in the treatment of childhood epilepsy. This drug can be used as a reliable choice for long-term use in the treatment of epilepsy in children.

Perampanel for the treatment of patients with myoclonic seizures in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in treating myoclonic seizures in clinical practice, using data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study.

METHODS

PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which patients with focal and generalised epilepsy were treated with PER. This post-hoc analysis included patients with myoclonic seizures at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months; effectiveness was additionally assessed at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

RESULTS

156 patients had myoclonic seizures (59.0% female; mean age, 32.1 years; idiopathic generalised epilepsy, 89.1%; Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy, 63.1%; monthly median myoclonic seizure frequency [interquartile range], 1.7 [1.0-10.0]; mean [standard deviation] prior antiseizure medications, 2.9 [2.6]). Retention was assessed for 133 patients (mean time, 12.1 months), effectiveness for 142, and safety/tolerability for 156. Responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 89.5% and 68.8% at 12 months, and 85.9% and 63.4% at the last visit. Incidence of AEs was 46.8%, the most frequent being dizziness/vertigo (19.2%), irritability (18.6%) and somnolence (9.6%). AEs led to discontinuation of 14.0% of patients over 12 months.

CONCLUSION

PER was associated with reduction in myoclonic seizure frequency in patients with myoclonic seizures treated in everyday clinical practice.

Long-term open-label perampanel: generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy

Objective

Assess the longer‐term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/day) in patients aged ≥12 years with generalized tonic–clonic (GTC) seizures from the Open‐label Extension (OLEx) Phase of Study 332 to determine whether responses obtained during the Core Study are maintained during long‐term treatment.

Methods

Patients with GTC seizures previously enrolled in a randomized placebo‐controlled trial of perampanel could enter an OLEx Phase comprising 6‐week blinded conversion (during which patients previously randomized to placebo‐switched to perampanel) and up to 136‐week maintenance periods (maximum perampanel dose of 12 mg/day). A 4‐week follow‐up period was completed by all patients after the last on‐treatment visit during the OLEx. We assessed seizure frequency outcomes from preperampanel baseline and the Core Study Pre‐randomization Phase, retention rates, doses selected, and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

Overall, 138 patients entered the OLEx. Median percent reductions in GTC seizures per 28 days from preperampanel were 77% (Weeks 1‐13) and 90% (Weeks 40‐52). Retention rates were 88% (6 months) and 75% (12 months). Seizure‐freedom rates were maintained for at least 2 years regardless of prior treatment received during the Core Study. Most common modal daily dose was >4‐8 mg/day (n = 93). Across the Core and OLEx Phases, 120 (87%) patients experienced TEAEs; the most common was dizziness.

Significance

Perampanel was generally well‐tolerated, and the TEAEs reported here are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel. Perampanel offers a long‐term treatment option for patients (aged ≥12 years) with GTC seizures.

Perampanel add-on therapy for drug-refractory epilepsy: A single-center retrospective study based on 6-month treatment outcomes in Central China

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and retention of perampanel (PER) for treating drug-refractory epilepsy (DRE), and to investigate the independent factors affecting efficacy and retention. We hope this will provide clinicians with guidelines for the use of PER to treat patients with DRE.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective observational study of patients with DRE who received PER as add-on therapy at the Epilepsy Center of the People's Hospital of Henan Province, China, between 2020 Mar. and 2021 Sep. We collected clinical data from these patients. The observation period was 6 months. The observation endpoint is the drug response and retention rate at 6 months of PER use. Regression analyses were used to compare the differences in efficacy and retention rates, respectively.

RESULTS

Clinical data were obtained for 72 patients with DRE (mean duration of treatment: 10.6 months). At 6 months, 25% of patients (n = 18) were seizure free; 18.1% of patients (n = 13) remained seizure free for 6 months after the addition of PER. 22.2% of patients (n = 16) had a response (One of the patients was withdrawn 5 months after adding PER due to financial difficulties). The retention rate of PER at 6 months was 77.8%. Adverse effects tended to be dominated by neuropsychiatric symptoms. Multifactorial logistic regression analysis showed significant differences in whether the baseline seizure frequency exceeded 4 seizures/month (OR = 0.232, 95%CI: 0.077-0.702, p = 0.01) and whether the number of previously failed ASMs exceeded 3 (OR = 0.316; 95%CI:0.109-0.920, p = 0.035). This indicates that the risk of experiencing a nonresponse is higher with a higher baseline seizure frequency as well as with a higher number of previous ASM failures. Therefore, a baseline frequency exceeding four seizures/month and more than three previous ASM failures were independent influencing factors for PER addition treatment for patients with DRE. Multifactorial COX regression showed that patients with DRE due to infection had a lower retention rate (OR = 15.957, 95% CI: 3.692-68.972, P < 0.001) than patients with DRE due to other noninfectious etiologies. Patients with DRE who only had a single seizure type (OR = 0.053, 95% CI:0.006-0.476, P = 0.009), and patients who did not have cognitive impairment (OR = 134.253, 95% CI:5.623-3205.104, P = 0.002) showed longer durations of PER use. Infection-related epilepsy etiology, experiencing multiple types of seizures, and with cognitive impairment were independent influencing factors on PER use retention in patients with DRE.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated the efficacy of PER for reducing seizure frequency in patients with DRE and found significant differences in efficacy and retention rate, respectively. This provides a basis for assessing the expected efficacy and duration of use of PER for patients with DRE.

A post-approval observational study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perampanel as an add-on therapy in adolescent, adult, and elderly patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication for focal-onset seizures, with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Study 402 (NCT02033902) collected safety information on clinically important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from real-world clinical practice in patients aged ≥12 years with refractory epilepsy who were receiving perampanel as an add-on therapy.

METHODS

Study 402 was a multicenter, observational, 52-week cohort study conducted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Safety data were gathered prospectively from patients at clinic visits. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically important TEAEs defined as dizziness; blurred vision; somnolence; aggression; balance disorders (including ataxia and falls); weight gain; suicidality; drug abuse, misuse, dependence, and withdrawal; skin photosensitivity; and unintended pregnancy while taking levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives. Off-label use of perampanel and outcomes associated with any suspected drug-drug interaction were also monitored and recorded. Secondary endpoints included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Clinical Global Impression of Change.

RESULTS

Of 483 patients in the Safety Analysis Set, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 38.3 (15.1) years, 48.4% were female, mean (SD) time since diagnosis was 23 (14.8) years, 56.5% had focal impaired awareness seizures, and 48.7% had FBTCS. Overall, 243 (49.3%) patients treated with perampanel completed the study and 227 (46.0%) patients discontinued. The most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n = 130 [26.4%]). A total of 301 (62.3%) patients reported at least one TEAE, of which 45 (15.0%) patients had severe TEAEs and 256 (85.0%) patients had TEAEs judged as mild to moderate in severity. Overall, 51 (10.6%) patients had serious TEAEs, including two deaths that were judged as not related to perampanel, and 136 (28.2%) patients experienced a TEAE that led to treatment discontinuation. Clinically important TEAEs were reported by 153 (31.7%) patients, with the most common being dizziness (13.9%), balance disorders (5.6%), aggression (5.4%), and weight gain (5.4%). In general, the frequencies of clinically important TEAEs were lower in this study compared with previous interventional clinical studies, except for the incidence of suicidality (2.1% vs 1.0%) and aggression (5.4% vs 5.1%). Mean total HADS scores were similar at the end of the study compared with baseline; at the end of treatment, most (>60%) patients had no shift in HADS score category; ∼15% of patients moved to a worse category vs baseline and ∼20% of patients moved to an improved category vs baseline for both anxiety and depression. Based on investigator assessment, disease severity was improved in 185/415 (44.6%) patients. A subanalysis in elderly patients aged ≥65 years showed similar results to the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

The data from this observational study are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel derived from previous interventional phase II and III clinical studies. No unusual or unexpected TEAEs were observed in this real-world clinical practice setting.

Adjunctive perampanel therapy for patients with epileptic spasms

BACKGROUND

Perampanel is an antiepileptic drug. Some studies have documented the efficacy of perampanel in epileptic spasms. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel therapy (PT) in patients with epileptic spasms.

METHODS

We retrospectively surveyed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive PT in 14 patients with epileptic spasms at the Saitama Children's Medical Center between June 2016 and September 2021. Seizure outcomes and safety were evaluated 12 months after commencing PT. Response to perampanel was defined as complete remission of epileptic spasms for more than 3 months.

RESULTS

The median age at onset of epileptic spasms was 0.4 years (range, 0.1-1.3 years). The etiology was structural in 11 patients, genetic in two, and unknown in one. The median age at the commencement of PT was 3.2 years (1.5-10.3 years). The initial and maintenance doses of perampanel were administered at 0.04 (range, 0.02-0.05) mg/kg/day and 0.12 (range, 0.03-0.24) mg/kg/day, respectively. Five of the 14 patients (35.7%) showed remission of epileptic spasms for more than 3 months at 12 months after PT; these patients had a structural etiology. The median duration between commencement of perampanel and spasm remission was 2 months (range, 1-6 months). No serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first case series evaluating adjunctive PT for epileptic spasms. PT is worth investigating to treat epileptic spasms in patients with structural etiologies. As our study population primarily comprised children aged 2 years and older, PT may be useful for epileptic spasms beyond infancy.

Current concepts in the management of idiopathic generalized epilepsies

Idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) are a group of epilepsies characterized by an underlying genetic predisposition and a good response to antiseizure medicines (ASMs) in the majority of the patients. Of the various broad-spectrum ASMs, valproate is the most effective medicine for the control of seizures in IGEs. However, with the availability of many newer ASMs and evidence showing the high teratogenic potential of valproate, the choice of ASMs for IGEs has become increasingly difficult, especially in women of the child-bearing age group. In this article, we review the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of various ASMs in patients with IGEs and provide practical guidelines for choosing appropriate ASMs in various subgroups of patients with IGEs.

PROVE: retrospective, non-interventional, Phase IV study of perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy

Objective

To assess retention, dosing, efficacy, and safety of perampanel in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care.

Methods

PROVE was a retrospective, non‐interventional Phase IV study (NCT03208660). Data were obtained retrospectively from the medical records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinicians' recommendation. Retention rate was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, seizure‐freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect. Safety endpoints included incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy and safety were also assessed according to baseline use of enzyme‐inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs).

Results

Overall, 1703 patients were enrolled and included in the Safety Analysis Set (SAS; ≥1 baseline EIASMs, n = 358 [21.0%]; no baseline EIASMs, n = 1345 [79.0%]). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 17.4 (15.7) months; mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.6 (2.7) mg. The most frequent perampanel titration intervals were weekly (23.4%) and every 2 weeks (24.7%). Across the SAS, 24‐month retention rate was 48.1% (n = 501/1042). Based on overall investigator impression at the end of treatment, 51.9%, 35.8%, and 12.3% of patients in the SAS experienced improvement, no change, or worsening of seizures, respectively. TEAEs occurred in 704 (41.3%) patients; 79 (4.6%) had serious TEAEs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (7.3%). There was some variation in efficacy according to EIASM use, while retention rates and safety were generally consistent.

Significance

In this final analysis of >1700 patients with epilepsy receiving perampanel in routine clinical care, favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ≥12 months.

Perampanel may represent an effective treatment for the prevention of migraine comorbid with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a common comorbidity in patients with epilepsy. Considering the proven associations and the common pathophysiological features linking epilepsy and migraine, some anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have been considered as a treatment for both disorders. This study aimed at assessing both the effectiveness of perampanel (PER) on epileptic seizures and migraine attacks in patients with epilepsy and comorbid migraine, as well as the reduction in the monthly mean rate usage of rescue migraine medications.

METHODS

This observational, multi-centre study included adult patients with epilepsy and comorbid migraine who started PER to better control epileptic seizures and who were followed up for 12 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included (mean age 40.13 ± 13.13 years; 67.0% female). At the 12-month follow-up visit, 27 patients were continuing PER concomitantly with 1 (45.2%) or 2 ASMs (54.8%). A significant reduction in epileptic seizures, migraine attacks, and the monthly use of rescue migraine medications between baseline and both 6- and 12-month follow-up visits was documented.

CONCLUSION

PER demonstrated good effectiveness in reducing both epileptic seizures and migraine attacks in patients with comorbid epilepsy and migraine. Future studies with possibly larger samples are needed to evaluate the efficacy of PER in migraine other than epilepsy.

Does a psychiatric history play a role in the development of psychiatric adverse events to perampanel… and to placebo?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to establish whether a past psychiatric history could play a role in the development of psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (PTEAEs) in patients randomized to perampanel (PER) or placebo.

METHODS

The development of PTEAEs was compared between patients with/without a psychiatric history in a post hoc analysis from four randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) of PER (304/305/306/335) in patients with treatment-resistant focal epilepsy.

RESULTS

Among the 2,187 patients enrolled in the RPCTs, 352 (16.1%) had a psychiatric history (PER n = 244; placebo n = 108), while 1835 patients (83.9%) did not (PER n = 1325; placebo n = 510). Compared to patients without a psychiatric history, those with a positive history reported more PTEAEs for both patients randomized to PER (11.8% vs. 29.9%, p < 0.01) or to placebo (9.2% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.01). The prevalence of PTEAEs was not higher among patients randomized to 2 mg and 4 mg/day doses than placebo in both those with and without psychiatric history. Rather, the higher prevalence rates were among subjects randomized to 8 mg (29.8%) and 12 mg (36.4%) PER doses in patients with a past psychiatric history.

SIGNIFICANCE

A psychiatric history appears to increase the risk of PTEAEs in patients randomized to placebo and to PER at doses of 8 and 12 mg/day. It should be identified in all patients considered for treatment with PER, particularly when prescribed at doses above 4 mg/day.

Perampanel as first add-on antiseizure medication: Italian consensus clinical practice statements

Background

When use of a single antiseizure medication (ASM) fails to induce seizure remission, add-on therapy is justified. Perampanel (PER) is approved in Europe as adjunctive therapy for focal, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Aim of the study was to establish whether PER is suitable for first add-on use.

Methods

A Delphi methodology was adopted to assess consensus on a list of 39 statements produced by an Expert Board of 5 epileptologists. Using an iterative process, statements were finalized by a Delphi Panel of 84 Italian pediatric and adult neurologists. Each statement was rated anonymously to determine level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was established as agreement by at least 80% of the panelists. The relevance of each statement was also assessed on a 3-point scale.

Results

Consensus was achieved for 37 statements. Characteristics of PER considered to justify its use as first add-on include evidence of a positive impact on quality of life based on long term retention data, efficacy, tolerability, and ease of use; no worsening of cognitive functions and sleep quality; a low potential for drug interactions; a unique mechanism of action. Potential unfavorable factors are the need for a relatively slow dose titration; the potential occurrence of behavioral adverse effects; lack of information on safety when used in pregnancy; limited access to plasma PER levels.

Conclusion

Perampanel has many features which justify its use as a first add-on. Choice of an ASM as first add-on should be tailored to individual characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-021-02450-y.

PERMIT study: a global pooled analysis study of the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in routine clinical practice

The PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study was a pooled analysis of data from 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with epilepsy (PWE; focal and generalized) were treated with perampanel (PER). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included 50% responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit); in PWE with status epilepticus, response was defined as seizures under control. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. The Full Analysis Set included 5193 PWE. Retention, effectiveness and safety/tolerability were assessed in 4721, 4392 and 4617, respectively. Retention on PER treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months was 90.5%, 79.8%, and 64.2%, respectively. Mean retention time on PER treatment was 10.8 months. The 50% responder rate was 58.3% at 12 months and 50.0% at the last visit, and the corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively; 52.7% of PWE with status epilepticus responded to PER treatment. Overall, 49.9% of PWE reported AEs and the most frequently reported AEs (≥ 5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (15.2%), somnolence (10.6%), irritability (8.4%), and behavioral disorders (5.4%). At 12 months, 17.6% of PWEs had discontinued due to AEs. PERMIT demonstrated that PER is effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal and/or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

Perampanel effectiveness and tolerability in patients with epilepsy at long-term follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The main of the present study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) in association with 1 or 2 concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy throughout a follow-up period of 24 months or longer in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, multi-center study collected data from both underage (<18 years old) and adult patients who had started PER in association with 1 or 2 ASMs. Only patients who had started PER and were followed up for at least 24 months were included. Response to treatment was analyzed at the 24-, 36-, and 48-month visits by considering the last visit undergone by patients. Subgroup analyses were performed according to age, gender, and epilepsy type and patients were categorized following PER treatment in concomitance with 1 or 2 ASMs to evaluate the factors affecting the achievement of seizure freedom (SF) at the 24-month FU.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included (mean age 36.89 years; 51.1% female). At the 24-month follow-up visit, 90 (95.74%) patients were still receiving PER concomitantly with 1 or 2 ASMs. The mean PER dose was 6.02 mg/day and SF was achieved by 33 (35.1%) patients. A significantly higher SF rate was found in patients who had started PER with only 1 ASM when compared to those who had started PER with 2 concomitant ASMs. Effectiveness was maintained also in the subgroups of patients with a 36- or 48-month follow-up visit. Adult patients had a higher final daily dosage of PER than underage patients. Logistic regression found that the lowest number of previously failed ASMs was associated with a higher SF rate (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Perampanel demonstrated a good effectiveness in association with 1 or 2 ASMs in both pediatric and adult patients, without having to use a high dose of the drug. The possibility to present SF was higher when PER was added early. Finally, the maintenance of effectiveness was observed also in the subgroups of patients with a follow-up of 36 and 48 months.

Therapeutic approach to difficult-to-treat typical absences and related epilepsy syndromes

Introduction: typical absences (TAs), are brief, generalized epileptic seizures of abrupt onset and termination clinically manifesting with impairment of awareness and associated with 3 Hz spike-wave discharges on EEG. TAs may occur in different idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGE). Despite treatment with adequate anti-seizure medications (ASMs), TAs may persist in ~25% of subjects. This narrative review focuses on the therapeutic approach to difficult-to-treat TAs occurring in the setting of IGE.Areas covered: a literature search was conducted on the topic of treatment of TAs.Expert opinion: ethosuximide (ESX), valproic acid (VPA) and lamotrigine (LTG), alone or in combination, are considered the first-choice drugs. In women of childbearing potential, VPA should be avoided. Alternative therapies (benzodiazepines, levetiracetam, topiramate, or zonisamide) should be considered in subjects unresponsive to monotherapy after the exclusion of pseudo-drug resistance. Newer ASMs such as brivaracetam and perampanel seem to be promising options. Well-conducted clinical trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative monotherapy (beyond ESX, VPA or LTG) or combination of ASMs on difficult-to-treat TAs, are warranted.

Optimal Use of Perampanel in Asian Patients with Epilepsy: Expert Opinion

Perampanel is a once-daily, first-in-class AMPA receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of epilepsy and exhibits broad-spectrum efficacy in a range of seizure types when used as both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Clinical studies and real-world evidence have demonstrated the advantages of initiating perampanel at low doses and utilizing a slow titration strategy. Initiating perampanel at an early stage has also been shown to be associated with better patient outcomes. However, the optimal use and place of perampanel in clinical practice has not yet been clearly defined for the Asian patient population. Use of perampanel in clinical practice varies markedly across the Asia region because of variation in knowledge, attitudes, and practice. There is currently no specific guidance on best practices for prescribing perampanel in Asian patients or how to optimize treatment strategies to maximize adherence. A group of epilepsy experts attended a virtual meeting in September 2020 to discuss their experience with using perampanel in the Asian practice setting, including their views regarding appropriate patient populations, optimal starting and maintenance doses, optimal titration regimens, key barriers to adherence, and prevention and management of adverse events. This article summarizes key clinical and real-world evidence for perampanel and consolidates the experts’ opinions on optimization of perampanel prescribing and adherence in real-world practice, providing practical strategies for clinicians to implement to improve outcomes for people with epilepsy in Asia.

Perampanel Reduces Hyperthermia-Induced Seizures in Dravet Syndrome Mouse Model

Treatment options for Dravet syndrome are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiepileptic effect of the AMPA receptor antagonist perampanel (PER) on a mouse model of Dravet syndrome (Scn1a^E1099X/+). We report here that the PER (2 mg/kg) treatment inhibited the spontaneous recurrent seizures and attenuated epileptic activity in Scn1a^E1099X/+ mice. In the hyperthermia-induced seizure experiment, PER clearly increased temperature tolerance and significantly ameliorated seizure frequency and discharge duration. PER also demonstrated antiepileptic effects in a cross-over study and a synergistic effect for attenuating heat-induced seizure when given in combination with stiripentol or valproic acid. The results showed that PER effectively decreased the occurrence of spontaneous recurrent seizures and showed significant therapeutic potential for hyperthermia-induced seizures with regard to both susceptibility and severity in a Dravet syndrome mouse model. Potential therapeutic effects of PER for treatment of Dravet syndrome were demonstrated.

Effect and tolerability of perampanel in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is one of the most recently approved antiseizure medications. The aim of the present study was to assess clinical efficacy and tolerability, in combination with pharmacokinetic variability, of perampanel treatment in patients at a tertiary referral center for epilepsy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of patients given perampanel as adjunctive treatment in the period January 2013 - February 2019 at the National Center for Epilepsy at Oslo University Hospital, Norway.

RESULTS

Clinical data were available for 175 mainly adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy with mean treatment duration of 16.1 months. We found that 23% (40 patients) were responders (i.e., achieving more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency), four of whom became seizure free, 29% (51 patients) experienced a modest effect, whereas for 29% (50 patients) perampanel had no seizure-reducing effect. A paradoxical effect, with seizure aggravation, was reported in 9% (15 patients). The responder rate was significantly higher in those with slow vs. fast dosage titration. Logistic regression analysis showed better efficacy among those with generalized vs. those with focal epilepsy. Adverse effects were reported by 135 patients (77%), ranging from mild (34%), to moderate (41%) and severe (2%). In 55 patients (41%), these adverse effects resulted in discontinuation of treatment with perampanel. The most frequent adverse effects were psychiatric symptoms (34%), dizziness (31%), and sleepiness (26%). Of the 31 patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available, the mean daily perampanel dose was 6.3 mg (SD 3.0), with a mean serum concentration at steady state of 1.03 μmol/L (range: 0.15-3.59 μmol/L). There were pronounced differences between patients, as demonstrated by a 12-fold variability in the range of concentration/dose (C/D)-ratios (0.06 to 0.69 μmol/L/mg), where enzyme inducers contributed.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that perampanel had a modest seizure-reducing effect in this very treatment-resistant patient group. Predictors of treatment success were generalized epilepsy and slow dosage titration. In patients without a history of psychiatric problems, clinicians could consider increasing dose of perampanel beyond 6 mg daily, taking co-medication and serum concentrations into account.

Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to drug-resistant juvenile myoclonic epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME), also known as Janz syndrome, is a common form of generalized epilepsy of presumed genetic origin representing up to 10% of all epilepsy cases. Despite adequate anti-seizure medication (ASM) treatment, seizures persist in one-third of JME patients.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted using Pubmed search on the topics of drug-resistant JME.

EXPERT OPINION

About 30% of JME patients are drug-resistant. Valproate (VPA) is considered the first-choice drug. In women of childbearing potential, levetiracetam (LEV) should represent the first-choice treatment. Alternative monotherapy or add-on therapy should be considered in subjects with resistant seizures after the exclusion of pseudo-drug resistance. The choice of the add-on ASM depends on the predominant seizure type. In subjects with persistent bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, LEV or lamotrigine should be firstly considered. In patients with difficult-to-treat myoclonic seizures, clonazepam or LEV are recommended. In case of persistent absences, ethosuximide should be considered. With appropriate selection and safeguards in place, VPA should remain available as an option in women of childbearing potential whose seizures are resistant to other treatments.

Behavioral adverse events with brivaracetam, levetiracetam, perampanel, and topiramate: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To understand the currently available post-marketing real-world evidence of the incidences of and discontinuations due to the BAEs of irritability, anger, and aggression in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated with the anti-seizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), as well as behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in PWE switching from LEV to BRV.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase was performed to identify retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting the incidence of irritability, anger, or aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, or TPM in PWE. The incidences of these BAEs and the rates of discontinuation due to each were categorized by ASM, and where possible, weighted means were calculated but not statistically assessed. Behavioral and psychiatric adverse events in PWE switching from LEV to BRV were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 records were identified in the searches. Of these, 44 published articles reporting 42 studies met the study criteria and were included in the data synthesis, 7 studies were identified in the clinical trial database, and 5 studies included PWE switching from LEV to BRV. Studies included a variety of methods, study populations, and definitions of BAEs. While a wide range of results was reported across studies, weighted mean incidences were 5.6% for BRV, 9.9% for LEV, 12.3% for PER, and 3.1% for TPM for irritability; 3.3%* for BRV, 2.5% for LEV, 2.0% for PER, and 0.2%* for TPM for anger; and 2.5% for BRV, 2.6% for LEV, 4.4% for PER, and 0.5%* for TPM for aggression. Weighted mean discontinuation rates were 0.8%* for BRV, 3.4% for LEV, 3.0% for PER, and 2.2% for TPM for irritability and 0.8%* for BRV, 2.4% for LEV, 9.2% for PER, and 1.2%* for TPM for aggression. There were no discontinuations for anger. Switching from LEV to BRV led to improvement in BAEs in 33.3% to 83.0% of patients (weighted mean, 66.6%). *Denotes only 1 study.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review characterizes the incidences of irritability, anger, and aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, and TPM, and it provides robust real-world evidence demonstrating that switching from LEV to BRV may improve BAEs. While additional data remain valuable due to differences in methodology (which make comparisons difficult), these results improve understanding of the real-world incidences of discontinuations due to these BAEs in clinical practice and can aid in discussions and treatment decision-making with PWE.