Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d for the treatment of focal seizures: A pooled post hoc analysis of four randomized, double-blind, phase III studies

Long-term treatment with Perampanel of Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures, especially in sleep-related epilepsy: a prospective real-world observational study

Background

There is currently a lack of studies examining the long-term therapeutic effectiveness of the third-generation anti-sezure medication, perampanel (PER), for focal-onset seizures (FOS), particularly in Chinese patients with sleep-related epilepsy (SRE). Additionally, the appropriate dosage, plasma concentration, and the relationship between dose and plasma concentration of PER in Chinese patients are still uncertain.

Methods

A prospective, single-center, 24-month observational study was conducted in patients diagnosed with FOS, with a focus on patients with SRE. Changes in seizure frequency from baseline, adverse events, and retention rates were analyzed at 12 and 24 months following the start of the treatment. Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events and discontinuation profiles. PER plasma concentrations were used to assess dose-concentration-response relationships.

Results

A total of 175 patients were included (median age: 25 years; range: 4-72 years; 53. 1% males and 46.9% females), with the SRE population accounting for 49. 1% (n = 86). The patients diagnosed with SRE showed considerably higher response rates than those who did not have this diagnosis (p = 0.025, odds ratio = 3.8). Additionally, the SRE group adhered better to PER treatment (r = 0.0009). Patients with a shorter duration of epilepsy (median: 3 years; range:2-7 years) demonstrated a more favorable therapeutic response to PER (p = 0.032). Throughout the administration of maintenance doses, among the entire FOS population, the concentration of PER (C0) ranged between 101.5 and 917.4 ng/mL (median, 232.0 ng/mL), and the mean plasma concentration of PER in the responders was 292.8 ng/mL. We revealed a linear relationship between PER dose and plasma concentration, regardless of whether PER was used as monotherapy or add-on therapy. The retention rates were 77.7% and 65. 1% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients and were mostly manageable.

Conclusion

PER effectively reduced seizure frequency in Chinese patients with FOS, particularly in those with SRE, over a 24-month period. The treatment was well-tolerated and had a clear linear dose-plasma concentration relationship.

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

Purpose

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

Method

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

Results

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

Main findings

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

Perampanel monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy: Clinical trial and real-world evidence

Perampanel, a selective, non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication (ASM) for focal-onset seizures (FOS) and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). In the US, perampanel is approved for the treatment of FOS (adjunctive and monotherapy), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in patients aged ≥4 years, and as adjunctive treatment of GTCS in patients aged ≥12 years. The monotherapy approvals in the US were based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) policy allowing extrapolation of adjunctive data to the monotherapy setting in the absence of randomized controlled monotherapy trials; since then, perampanel monotherapy has received approvals in approximately 48 countries. As there are key differences in clinical evidence of perampanel as adjunctive therapy vs monotherapy, we review the clinical outcomes of perampanel when administered as primary or secondary monotherapy. Eight publications reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of perampanel monotherapy in clinical trial and real-world settings were selected during our literature search and are included; these comprise three Eisai-sponsored studies in patients with epilepsy: one prospective, open-label, Phase III clinical trial of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy (Study 342 [FREEDOM]) and two retrospective, real-world Phase IV studies of patients with epilepsy who received perampanel during routine clinical care (Studies 504 and 506 [PROVE]); and five retrospective, real-world studies in patients with epilepsy who were prescribed perampanel during routine clinical care. Results from these studies demonstrated that seizure freedom may be achieved following treatment with perampanel monotherapy (either primary or secondary), with favorable retention rates and safety profiles. Overall, the clinical evidence supports the use of perampanel monotherapy both in newly diagnosed patients and in those who have been unable to control their seizures with other ASMs.

Safety evaluation of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) that are well tolerated and effective as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy to reduce the need for adjunctive ASMs to treat newly diagnosed epilepsy, and to reduce the number of concomitant ASMs in patients with refractory epilepsy. Although the pivotal trials of perampanel evaluated its adjunctive use in patients with refractory seizures, open-label/real-world studies support its use in first/second-line settings.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety/tolerability of perampanel, focusing on its use as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy. The safety of perampanel in special populations and its safety/tolerability compared with that of other ASMs is also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Perampanel is a favorable candidate for initial or first adjunctive therapy due to its favorable efficacy and safety/tolerability as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, its long half-life and ease of use, and its limited drug-drug interactions. The proposed mitigation strategies for managing the risk of serious psychiatric adverse events are appropriate patient selection, use of low doses, and slow titration. The growing body of evidence might shift current treatment strategies towards the early use of perampanel and its use at a low dose (4 mg/day).

Sustained seizure freedom with adjunctive perampanel in patients with convulsive seizures: Post hoc analysis of open-label extension studies 307 and 332

OBJECTIVE

Since increased mortality rates have been associated with convulsive seizures, it is important to achieve seizure control in these patients. Here, we report post hoc analyses to assess long-term seizure-freedom rates with adjunctive perampanel in patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with refractory focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) who participated in open-label extension (OLEx) studies.

METHODS

Patients with focal-onset seizures, with/without FBTCS, who completed double-blind, Phase III Studies 304, 305, or 306 could enter OLEx Study 307 (16-week blinded Conversion; 256-week Maintenance). Patients with GTCS who completed the double-blind phase of Study 332 could enter the OLEx Phase (6-week blinded Conversion; 136-week Maintenance). Maximum perampanel dose: 12 mg/day. Seizure-freedom rates for up to 24 months were assessed in perampanel-treated patients who achieved seizure freedom during the double-blind studies to determine if their seizure-free status was maintained during the OLEx. In addition, to ensure any patients who only achieved seizure freedom during the OLEx were captured, seizure-freedom rates were also assessed in all patients who achieved and maintained a seizure-free status for a period of at least six consecutive months at any time during the double-blind and/or OLEx studies; some of these patients may have received placebo during the double-blind study but only their time on perampanel is included in the seizure-free analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictive factors for achieving seizure freedom for at least 6 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 53.8% (n = 42/78) of patients who received perampanel and were FBTCS free during the double-blind studies remained seizure free for up to 24 months during Study 307, and 31.6% (n = 6/19) of patients who were GTCS free during the double-blind phase of Study 332 remained seizure free for up to 24 months during the OLEx Phase. Over 40% (FBTCS, 41.5% [n = 197/475]; GTCS, 52.9% [n = 73/138]) of patients were seizure free for a period of at least six consecutive months. Multivariate analysis showed that the best predictors of achieving seizure freedom from FBTCS for at least 6 months were lower baseline seizure frequency (p = 0.0014) and absence of enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications at baseline (p = 0.0056); multivariate analysis was not conducted for GTCS since only one variable was identified as a significant predictor of seizure freedom in the univariate analysis (lower baseline seizure frequency). Perampanel was generally well tolerated with no new safety signals identified. The most common TEAE was dizziness. For both seizure types, 10% or fewer seizure-free patients discontinued perampanel due to TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that adjunctive perampanel may be a suitable long-term treatment option for patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with convulsive seizures to achieve and maintain seizure freedom.

Cost-effectiveness of perampanel as an adjunctive treatment for uncontrolled focal seizures in pediatric patients: a Chinese perspective

Background

The incidence of epilepsy is 41-187 per 100,000 person-year in children. The health care costs for children with uncontrolled epilepsy is a huge burden. Perampanel (PER) was effective, safety and well-tolerated as add-on therapy in pediatric patients aged 4 to <12 years with uncontrolled focal seizures. However, there is still limited evidence on cost-effectiveness of PER in pediatric patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PER as an add-on therapy for pediatric patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Methods

A Markov model was established to conduct an analysis from the perspective of the Chinese health system and society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of patients using PER and conventional therapy versus patients using conventional therapy alone were estimated and compared. The transition probability of the response level, health state utility values, and costs were derived from clinical trials and the literature. Costs, including medical, drug, transportation and indirect costs, were calculated. We performed 1-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A subgroup analysis of different ages was also conducted.

Results

The base-case analysis indicated that compared to maintaining conventional therapy, adding PER as an adjuvant drug therapy had an increased cost of $3,449.85 over 5 years, with an incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) value of 0.40, resulting in an ICER of $8,582.58 per additional QALY. The health state utility value had the greatest effect on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of PER being cost-effective was 76.72% at a willingness-to-pay of $11,293/QALY. The ICER of the subgroup ranged from $7,167.95/QALY to $19,710.96/QALY.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that PER is a cost-effective add-on therapy for pediatric patients.

Effectiveness of perampanel in managing chronic pain caused by the complex regional pain syndrome: A case report

RATIONALE

The α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methy-4-isoxazole propionate (AMPA) receptor plays a critical role in the development and persistence of pain, and AMPA receptor antagonists are considered possible therapeutic targets for controlling pain. This report describes a patient with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I in the right lower leg and foot who responded well to perampanel, an AMPA receptor antagonist, for managing the chronic pain.

PATIENT CONCERN

A 61-year-old woman complained of pain in her right lower leg and foot over a period of 7 year (numeric rating scale: 8) due to CRPS type I.

DIAGNOSIS

CRPS type 1.

INTERVENTIONS

Despite the combination of 300 mg pregabalin, 225 mg/1950 mg tramadol/acetaminophen, and 10 mg nortriptyline per day, her right lower leg and foot were nearly disabled due to the severity of the pain. High-dose prednisolone was found to be ineffective. Then, perampanel (4 mg; 2 mg twice) was administered to this patient daily.

OUTCOMES

The day after treatment with perampanel, her pain completely disappeared. Additionally, at day 7 and 1 month follow-up, she reported no pain in the right lower leg and foot. Moreover, no adverse effects were reported after the application of perampanel.

LESSONS

These results suggest that perampanel may potentially be used to treat centralized pain.

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.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Perampanel as Adjunctive Therapy in Chinese Patients With Focal-Onset Seizures: An Observational, Prospective Study

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel (PER) in Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Methods: Fifty-six patients aged 14-72 years were recruited consecutively in this single-center prospective observational study. All patients received PER as add-on treatment on the basis of clinical judgment. Seizure frequency, adverse events (AEs), and retention rates were obtained at 3 and 6 months after PER introduction. Results: The overall response rates were 60 and 71.1% after 3 and 6 months, respectively, and the freedom of seizures at the same points were reached in 8 and 15.8%. The retention rates were 89.3% at the 3-month follow-up and 67.9% at the 6-month follow-up. The overall incidence of adverse events was 55.4%. The leading reported AEs were dizziness (39.3%) and somnolence (25%). Conclusions: Our study confirmed the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive PER in Chinese patients in real-life conditions. Based on our treatment experience, a lower maintenance dose of PER would be needed in Chinese patients.

An open label pilot study of the safety and tolerability of perampanel in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

Perampanel, a selective noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) antagonist, is capable of slowing the progression of the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) phenotype and increasing the number of anterior horn cells in transgenic mice. Trials of perampanel in epilepsy showed a favorable tolerability profile. In this study we aimed to determine the tolerability and safety of perampanel in patients with ALS.

METHODS

Enrolled subjects were started on 2 mg/day of perampanel and the dose was increased by 2 mg/day every week to a maximum dose of 8 mg/day. Our primary outcome measure was tolerability, which was evaluated by monitoring adverse events. The secondary outcome measure was clinical progression, assessed using the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) and spirometry.

RESULTS

Six participants were enrolled. All had adverse events, mostly behavioral. Two completed the trial and the other four withdrew due to adverse events. All participants reported resolution of these events after discontinuation of the drug. The trial was halted due to the large number of adverse events.

DISCUSSION

The use of perampanel in this study of ALS was limited by its poor tolerability.

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.

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.

A multivariable prediction model of a major treatment response for focal-onset seizures: A post-hoc analysis of Phase III trials of perampanel

OBJECTIVE

Although 50 % reduction in seizure frequency is a common efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), 75 % or greater reductions may be required to improve patients' health-related quality of life. Identification of clinical factors that are associated with high responder rates may help to inform clinicians on which patients may optimally benefit from treatment. We evaluated potential predictive factors for achieving major treatment responses (≥75 % reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from study baseline) in patients with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures, with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (FBTC) seizures in perampanel trials designed for regulatory approval.

METHODS

Univariate analyses using logistic regression were performed using data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III studies of adjunctive perampanel (Studies 304 [NCT00699972], 305 [NCT00699582], 306 [NCT00700310]), and their open-label extension study (OLEx; Study 307 [NCT00735397]). For the double-blind studies, baseline seizure frequency, number of baseline AEDs, baseline seizure type, baseline concomitant enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs), baseline carbamazepine, lamotrigine, or valproic acid, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, etiology, and perampanel plasma concentration were included individually with study treatment. The same factors were included for the OLEx analysis except for plasma concentration and treatment. Variables found to be significant predictors for a major treatment response in univariate analyses were subsequently included in multivariable analyses using backwards and forwards selection.

RESULTS

In the double-blind studies, 175/1374 patients had a major response to placebo (n = 25) or perampanel (n = 150). The best predictors of a major treatment response in multivariable models with forwards and backwards selection were: the presence of FBTC seizures during baseline (P = 0.0002), higher perampanel plasma concentration (P < 0.0001), older age at diagnosis (P = 0.0024 and 0.0045, respectively), and lower baseline seizure frequency (P = 0.0364 and 0.0127, respectively). In the OLEx, 217/1090 patients had a major treatment response. The best predictors of a major treatment response in the final multivariable model, regardless of backwards or forwards selection, were a lower baseline seizure frequency (P = 0.0022), the absence of focal impaired awareness seizures during baseline (P = 0.0011), the presence of FBTC seizures during baseline (P = 0.0164), lower number(s) of baseline AEDs (P = 0.0002), the absence of EIAEDs during baseline (P = 0.0059), an older age at diagnosis (P = 0.0054), and absence of structural etiologies (P = 0.0138).

SIGNIFICANCE

These analyses of placebo-controlled and long-term extension trial data identified a number of potential predictive factors for patients with focal-onset seizures achieving a major treatment response. These factors may help guide clinicians when predicting a patient's response to treatment and optimizing individual treatment regimens.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d for the treatment of focal seizures: A pooled post hoc analysis of four randomized, double-blind, phase III studies

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d received as modal dose, which may have differed from randomized dose, for treatment of focal seizures.

METHODS

Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies of adjunctive perampanel in patients (aged ≥12 years) with focal seizures, with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (FBTC) seizures: studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), and 335 (NCT01618695). Efficacy assessments included median percentage reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days and seizure-freedom rates for patients receiving placebo and perampanel 4 mg/d (modal dose). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed in patients receiving perampanel 4 mg/d at their TEAE onset. Outcomes were also assessed with/without enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs).

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 979 patients with focal seizures (placebo: n = 616 [235 with FBTC seizures]; perampanel 4 mg/d: n = 363 [134 with FBTC seizures]). Compared with placebo, perampanel 4 mg/d conferred significantly greater median percentage reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for focal (12.6% vs 21.1%; P = .0004) and FBTC seizures (17.4% vs 49.8%; P < .0001), and seizure-freedom rates for focal (0.8% vs 3.6%; P = .0018) and FBTC seizures (11.1% vs 18.7%; P = .0424). Seizure improvements with perampanel 4 mg/d were greater without EIASMs than with EIASMs. For assessment of TEAEs, overall 1376 patients with focal seizures received perampanel 4 mg/d at any time (FBTC seizures, n = 499). TEAEs with perampanel 4 mg/d occurred in 419 of 1376 (30.5%) and 148 of 499 (29.7%) patients with focal and FBTC seizures, respectively; most common was dizziness. The proportion of TEAEs was similar with or without EIASMs.

SIGNIFICANCE

This post hoc analysis showed adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with focal seizures, with or without FBTC seizures. This dose may be a valuable treatment option in patients unable to tolerate higher perampanel doses up to 12 mg/d.