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

Tolerability of perampanel: A retrospective study at the department of psychiatry

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify factors that contribute to the discontinuation of perampanel.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with epilepsy at the Department of Psychiatry, Hokkaido University Hospital. We evaluated the factors contributing to perampanel discontinuation as primary outcomes using Cox proportional hazards regression. Then, we explored the components contributing to the primary outcomes using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included, 44.9% of whom discontinued participation, 22.0% had intellectual disability, and 23.7% had a psychiatric disorder other than intellectual disability. Adverse effects occurred in 65% of the patients, 23.7% had psychiatric adverse effects (PAE), and 49.2% had common adverse effects (CAE). The effect of PER to suppress seizures was confirmed in 65.3% of them. Discontinuation was influenced by non-response (Hazard Ratio (HR) 6.70, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.42-13.1), the occurrence of PAE (HR 3.68, 95% CI 1.89-7.16), CAE (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.06-3.41), and comorbid psychiatric disorders (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.21-4.59). Moreover, comorbid intellectual disability correlated with a low risk of PAE (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The discontinuation of perampanel is influenced by poor efficacy and the occurrence of common/psychiatric adverse effects. The discontinuation of perampanel is influenced by poor efficacy and the occurrence of common/psychiatric adverse effects. Consideration of factors contributing to perampanel discontinuation may assist in determining the indication for perampanel treatment.

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.

Optimizing perampanel monotherapy for surgically resected brain tumors

Perampanel (PER) is an antiseizure medication (ASM) with a unique mechanism of action, which was approved in Japan for use in combination therapy in 2016 and as a monotherapy in 2020. It has exerted antitumor effects against several types of tumors in vitro. However, the efficacy of PER monotherapy for seizure control is not well-established in patients with brain tumor. In the present study, 25 patients with brain tumor treated using PER monotherapy at our institution were analyzed and compared with 45 patients treated using the most commonly prescribed ASM, levetiracetam (LEV). The PER group was younger and had a higher frequency of glioma cases. During drug administration, seizures were observed in two patients from the PER group (8.0%) and five patients from the LEV group (11.1%); however, the difference was not significant. The incidence of adverse effects did not significantly differ between the groups (12.0 and 2.2%, respectively). In the PER group, mild liver dysfunction was observed in two patients and drug rash in one. In the LEV group, a drug-induced rash was observed in one patient. PER monotherapy may be safe and effective for seizure treatment or prophylaxis in patients with brain tumor. Further large-scale clinical studies are warranted.

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.

Perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in pediatric and adult patients with epilepsy: the first United States-based phase IV open-label ELEVATE study

ELEVATE (Study 410; NCT03288129) is the first prospective, multicenter, open-label, Phase IV study of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥ 4 years with focal-onset seizures or generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States. The study included Screening, Titration (≤ 13 weeks), Maintenance (39 weeks), and Follow-up (4 weeks) Periods. During Titration, perampanel was initiated at 2 mg/day and up-titrated to 4 mg/day at Week 3. Depending on response and tolerability, optional up-titrations to a maximum of 12 mg/day occurred. The primary endpoint was retention rate; additional endpoints included seizure-freedom rate, 50% responder rate, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At baseline, 10 (18.5%) patients were assigned to the monotherapy group and 44 (81.5%) patients to the first adjunctive therapy group. However, due to the addition of an anti-seizure medication along with perampanel on the first day of treatment, one patient was excluded from the monotherapy subgroup analyses. The mean perampanel exposure duration was 39.8 weeks and 32 (59.3%) patients completed the study. Retention rate at 12 months (or study completion) was 63.0% (monotherapy, 77.8%; first adjunctive therapy, 59.1%). Seizure-freedom rate during the Maintenance Period was 32.7% (monotherapy, 44.4%; first adjunctive therapy, 29.5%) and the 50% responder rate was 78.7% (monotherapy, 85.7%; first adjunctive therapy, 76.9%). TEAEs and serious TEAEs were reported by 88.9% (n = 48/54) and 7.4% (n = 4/54) of patients, respectively. Overall, the efficacy and safety of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy support the use of perampanel as early-line treatment for epilepsy.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy in Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures: A single-center, prospective, real-world observational study

OBJECTIVE

Efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy for treating focal-onset seizures (FOS) has been barely studied in China. This observational study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy in treating Chinese patients with FOS.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, real-world observational study enrolled patients aged ≥4 years with FOS who visited the Epilepsy Out-Patient Clinic of Nanjing Brain Hospital affiliated to Nanjing Medical University from January 2020 to December 2021. All patients were treated with perampanel monotherapy. Seizure-freedom rates after 6 and 12 months of treatment were calculated. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Seventy patients with FOS were enrolled. The mean maintenance perampanel dose was 4.64 ± 1.55 mg/day. The 6- and 12-month retention rates of perampanel monotherapy were 78.6% (55/70) and 70.0% (49/70), respectively. The 6- and 12-month seizure-freedom rates were 69.84% (44/63) and 65.08% (41/63), respectively. Patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures had significantly higher 6-month and numerically higher 12-month seizure freedom rates than patients with focal impaired awareness seizures (P = 0.046 and P = 0.204, respectively). Twenty-six (37.1%) patients experienced treatment-emergent AEs, and the most common AE was dizziness. Four (5.7%) patients withdrew from the study due to AEs. No new safety concern was observed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first prospective study on the efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy in treating Chinese patients with FOS, and perampanel monotherapy was effective and safe in treating Chinese patients aged ≥4 years with FOS up to 12 months. More multicenter, real-world studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to further evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy.

Acute inhibition of AMPA receptors by perampanel reduces amyloid β-protein levels by suppressing β-cleavage of APP in Alzheimer's disease models

Hippocampal hyperexcitability is a promising therapeutic target to prevent Aβ deposition in AD since enhanced neuronal activity promotes presynaptic Aβ production and release. This article highlights the potential application of perampanel (PER), an AMPA receptor (AMPAR) antagonist approved for partial seizures, as a therapeutic agent for AD. Using transgenic AD mice combined with in vivo brain microdialysis and primary neurons under oligomeric Aβ-evoked neuronal hyperexcitability, the acute effects of PER on Aβ metabolism were investigated. A single oral administration of PER rapidly decreased ISF Aβ40 and Aβ42 levels in the hippocampus of J20, APP transgenic mice, without affecting the Aβ40 /Aβ42 ratio; 5 mg/kg PER resulted in declines of 20% and 31%, respectively. Moreover, PER-treated J20 manifested a marked decrease in hippocampal APP βCTF levels with increased FL-APP levels. Consistently, acute treatment of PER reduced sAPPβ levels, a direct byproduct of β-cleavage of APP, released to the medium in primary neuronal cultures under oligomeric Aβ-induced neuronal hyperexcitability. To further evaluate the effect of PER on ISF Aβ clearance, a γ-secretase inhibitor was administered to J20 1 h after PER treatment. PER did not influence the elimination of ISF Aβ, indicating that the acute effect of PER is predominantly on Aβ production. In conclusion, acute treatment of PER reduces Aβ production by suppressing β-cleavage of amyloid-β precursor protein effectively, indicating a potential effect of PER against Aβ pathology in AD.

Perampanel and lacosamide monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: A prospective study evaluating efficacy, tolerability, and behavior

PURPOSE

Perampanel (PER) and lacosamide (LCM) are the new third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs) that were approved for the monotherapy of focal epilepsy in children over four years of age in China, in 2021. Very few studies have analyzed the application of PER monotherapy among pediatric patients aged ≥four years, and no study compared the efficacy and tolerability of PER monotherapy with LCM monotherapy in pediatric patients with focal epilepsy. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and effect on behavior and emotion of PER and LCM as monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which is beneficial for clinicians to have more choices to treat pediatric patients with focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, observational study that involved pediatric patients (disease onset age ≥four years) with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy treated with PER or LCM as primary monotherapy. Outcomes included retention, being responders, and seizure-free rates after 3, 6, and 12 months. Adverse events (AEs) were noticed throughout the follow-up period. Behavioral outcomes were evaluated with Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4-16) at baseline and after three and six months.

RESULTS

Using randomization, 60 patients receiving PER (31 females, 29 males, median age: 7.79 [5.34, 10.16] years, median dose: 3.0 [2.0, 4.0] mg/day) and 60 patients receiving LCM (25 females, 35 males, median age: 7.72 [5.91, 10.72] years, median dose: 150.0 [100.0, 200.0] mg/day) were enrolled in the study. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rates in the PER and LCM groups, both were 90.4%, and the responder rates were 65.4% and 71.2%, while seizure-free rates were 57.7% and 67.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the retention, responder and seizure-free rates between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the responder rates between patients with BECTS, abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or types of seizure in the two groups (P > 0.05). In the PER group, 28.8% (15/52) of patients experienced AEs, of which the most frequently reported were irritability (n = 7; 13.5%), dizziness (n = 5; 9.6%), somnolence (n = 3; 5.8%), ataxia (n = 1; 1.9%), headache (n = 1; 1.9%), and rash (n = 1; 1.9%). In the LCM group, 15.4% (8/52) of the patients had AEs, including headache (n = 4; 7.5%), dizziness (n = 4; 7.5%), nausea (n = 2; 3.8%), somnolence (n = 2; 3.8%), irritability (n = 1; 1.9%), stomach ache (n = 1; 1.9%), and vomiting (n = 1; 1.9%). The incidence of irritability was significantly higher in the PER group than in the LCM group (13.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.031), which occurred mainly within eight weeks after drug administration. Patients with irritability were not dangerous to surrounding people by the assessment of parental observation in the life. And the symptoms were relieved spontaneously within a few months. The outcomes of total scores, internalizing scores, and externalizing scores of the CBCL did not show statistically significant differences in the PER and LCM groups between baseline and three and six months. Characteristics of behavior and emotion did not have substantial changes in patients treated with PER and LCM monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study documented similar good effectiveness and good tolerance of PER and LCM as monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and showed no behavioral or emotional impact, as assessed by the CBCL. Though the incidence of irritability with PER monotherapy may be higher than that with LCM monotherapy soon after medication initiation, this side effect appears to resolve spontaneously within a few months. At present, this study was the first research about PER and LCM monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy evaluating efficacy, tolerability, and behavior in China.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of perampanel and oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy

Objective: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of perampanel and oxcarbazepine as monotherapy in children with focal epilepsy (FE). Methods: This is an ambispective, single-center, non-inferiority study comparing the effectiveness and safety of perampanel (PER) monotherapy and oxcarbazepine (OXC) monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed FE. The primary endpoint was a six-month seizure freedom rate. The secondary endpoints included retention, responder, and seizure freedom rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded for both groups. Results: One hundred and thirty children and adolescents aged from 4 to 18years newly diagnosed with FE between May 2020 and November 2022 in Wuhan Children's Hospital were included. There were 71 patients in the PER group and 59 patients in the OXC group. In the per protocol set (PPS), 50 (78.1%) in the PER group and 43 (78.2%) in the OXC group completed six months of treatment without seizures. The lower 95% CI (66.0%-87.5%) limit of PER was higher than the non-inferiority margin of 62.4% (80% of the 6-month seizure freedom rate in the OXC group); PER was non-inferior to OXC. The 3-month and 12-month seizure freedom rates were 77.1% and 82.9% for the PER group, respectively, while they were 80.4% and 75.8% for the OXC group. There were no serious adverse events in both groups. Conclusion: PER showed comparable effectiveness and safety compared with OXC in children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which might be an effective and safe treatment for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed FE. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier ChiCTR2300074696.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy in patients with focal-onset seizures:A real-world experience in eastern China

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in real-world practice for the treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) in eastern China.

METHOD

This is a single-center, retrospective study of patients with FOS, aged ≥ 4 years, who had been prescribed PER as monotherapy. Outcomes included retention, seizure-free, and responder rates at 3, 6 and 12 months and adverse events (AEs) throughout the follow-up period. The efficacy and AEs of PER monotherapy in patients with aged < 14 years old and ≥ 14 years old were also compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients with FOS who received PER monotherapy and completed a one-year follow-up were included in the analysis. The median maintenance dose was 4 mg. Modified intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated that the retention rates of PER monotherapy at follow-up of 3, 6 and 12months were 75%, 70% and 63%, respectively. At the same points, seizure-free rates of PER monotherapy were 69%, 63% and 52%, and responder rates were 69%, 66% and 61%, respectively. Patients with sleep-related seizures had higher seizure-free rates at 12 months of follow-up. No significant difference in seizure-free and responder rates was found between the aged < 14 years old and the aged ≥ 14 years old. Twenty-one patients (31.3%) had AEs and five patients discontinued using PER because of intolerant AEs. Common AEs were dizziness, irritability and somnolence. The AEs rate in patients < 14 years was 17.9%, significantly lower than patients ≥ 14 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed the real-world data of patients in eastern China with FOS using PER as monotherapy. Patients had good retention, seizure-free and responder rates, and relatively low AEs rate at a low dose of PER treatment.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of perampanel monotherapy after adjunctive therapy through retention rate in subjects with focal-onset seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures: A multicenter retrospective study in Korea

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel monotherapy following conversion from adjunctive therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective, non-interventional study of Korean patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Data were extracted from electronic medical records of perampanel-treated patients from 1 February 2016 to 31 October 2020. Kaplan-Meier estimated retention rates, effectiveness, and safety were recorded.

RESULTS

Subjects (n = 66, mean age 46.2 years) were mostly male (68.2%) with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizure (71.2%). Mean duration of illness was 86.3 months. Retention rates after conversion to perampanel monotherapy at 3, 6, and 12 months (primary outcome) were 96.0%, 96.0%, and 75.6%, respectively. Overall retention rates in patients receiving perampanel as adjunctive or monotherapy at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after perampanel add-on were 100%, 98.3%, 95.9%, 92.6%, and 92.6%, respectively. Mean retention duration was 41.2 months (overall perampanel administration) and 21.4 months (monotherapy). Mean seizure frequency/28 days in the Full Analysis Set (n = 61) was comparable for adjunctive and monotherapy (0.2 ± 0.79 vs 0.2 ± 0.64; change between adjunctive and monotherapy periods: 0.0 ± 0.59; p = 0.498). Perampanel was well tolerated and no new safety signals were identified. Dizziness (4.6%), only reported during adjunctive therapy, was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to perampanel monotherapy from adjunctive therapy showed promising results in subjects with FOS with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures; further studies in a larger population are needed to confirm these encouraging data.

Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of Treatment With Perampanel in Pediatric Patients With Epilepsy Aged ≥4 Years: A Real-Life Observational Study

Purpose: The safety and effectiveness of perampanel in clinical settings involving Chinese pediatric patients are limited, as perampanel has only recently been approved for use in China, in September 2019. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel as an adjunctive therapy for pediatric patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 4 years in Xinjiang, Northwest China. Methods: Efficacy was assessed by measuring changes in seizure frequency at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up compared with baseline. The baseline was 3 months before the addition of perampanel, and the seizure frequency was based on the patients' seizure diary. The safety and tolerability depended on the type and frequency of any adverse event during epilepsy treatment across all pediatric patients. Results: Overall, 67 pediatric patients from 2 different hospitals were enrolled in the study. Among the pediatric patients with seizures during the baseline period, the effective rates for all seizure types at 3, 6, and 12 months were 59.1%, 58.7%, and 57.4%, respectively. During perampanel treatment, 34 patients (50.7%) experienced at least 1 adverse reaction. Conclusion: Overall, this real-world retrospective study of pediatric patients validated that perampanel is an effective treatment option as an adjunctive therapy among pediatric patients with epilepsy aged ≥4 years.

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.

Effect of Serum Perampanel Concentration on Sporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Progression

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To clarify the effect of perampanel (PER) on sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (sALS) progression, the relationship between the changes in Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) scores and serum PER concentrations was investigated.

METHODS

12 patients with sALS from our hospital who agreed to participate and completed the PER for sALS randomized phase 2 study were included. After completing the study, we retrospectively obtained serum PER concentration data from the patients. Based on their mean PER concentrations, we divided the patients who had been taking PER into two groups: four patients with a mean PER concentration of ≥400 ng/mL were assigned to the H group, and three with a mean PER concentration of <400 ng/mL were assigned to the L group. The control group consisted of five patients who had been taking a placebo. We obtained the ALSFRS-R scores of each patient at 36 and 48 weeks after randomization. The differences in ALSFRS-R scores at baseline (0 weeks) and each subsequent week were used in the analysis.

RESULTS

At 48 weeks, there were no differences in the degree of deterioration of the bulbar, upper and lower limb, and respiratory ALSFRS-R subscores and total ALSFRS-R score. However, at 36 weeks, the bulbar subscore was significantly lower in the H group than in the control group (p=0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

Because high PER concentrations may exacerbate bulbar symptoms in patients with sALS, serum PER measurements may be beneficial when patients with sALS are taking PER.

Perampanel Monotherapy for Focal and Generalized Epilepsy in Clinical Practice

Objectives. To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as monotherapy to treat focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, using data from the PERMIT study. Methods. PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with focal and generalized epilepsy were treated with PER. This post hoc analysis included people with epilepsy (PWE) from PERMIT who were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Effectiveness assessments included ≥50% responder rate 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. Overall, 268 PWE were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention was assessed for 168 PWE, effectiveness for 183 PWE, and safety and tolerability for 197 PWE. Retention rates were 91.1%, 87.3%, and 73.3% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. At 12 months, responder rates were 84.2% overall, 82.9% in PWE with only focal-onset seizures at baseline, and 88.0% in those with only generalized-onset seizures at baseline; corresponding freedom rates were 62.9%, 57.7%, and 80.0%, respectively. AEs were reported for 45.2% of PWE. The most frequently reported AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (16.8%), irritability (11.2%), somnolence (9.1%), and depression (6.6%). Over 12 months, 13.7% discontinued due to AEs. Conclusions. PER was effective when used as monotherapy in clinical practice, particularly in those with generalized-onset seizures, and was generally well tolerated.

Twelve-Month Efficacy of Lacosamide Monotherapy at Maximal Dose and Tolerability for Epilepsy Treatment in Pediatric Patients: Real-World Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy have not been established. Therefore, this real-world retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of 12 months after achievement the maximal dose and tolerability of LCM as monotherapy for epilepsy treatment in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Pediatric patients were administered LCM monotherapy in two ways: primary or conversion monotherapy. Seizure frequency was recorded as an average per month for the preceding three months at baseline and then at each follow-up period for three, six, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Primary monotherapy with LCM was administered to 37 (33.0%) pediatric patients, whereas conversion to monotherapy was achieved in 75 (67.0%) pediatric patients. The responder rates of pediatric patients receiving primary monotherapy with LCM at three, six, and 12 months were 75.7% (28 of 37), 67.6% (23 of 34), and 58.6% (17 of 29), respectively. The responder rates of pediatric patients receiving conversion to monotherapy with LCM at three, six, and 12 months were 80.0% (60 of 75), 74.3% (55 of 74), and 68.1% (49 of 72), respectively. The incidence of adverse reactions with conversion to LCM monotherapy and primary monotherapy was 32.0% (24 of 75) and 40.5% (15 of 37), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LCM is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option as monotherapy for the treatment of epilepsy.

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).

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 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.

Replacement of Valproic Acid with New Anti-Seizure Medications in Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy

Background: Little is known regarding the non-inferiority of new anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in terms of replacing valproic acid (VPA) in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). We hypothesized that replacement of VPA with new ASMs would offer non-inferior or better control of seizure frequency. The purpose of this study was to compare epileptic seizure frequency between the subset of patients with IGE who were on VPA and the subset of patients with IGE who replaced VPA with new ASMs. Methods: Patients with IGE who were on or had been on VPA between January 2016 and March 2022 were divided into a group that replaced VPA with new ASMs (VPA-replace group) and a group that remained on VPA (VPA-continue group). We then compared the groups in terms of seizure frequency and myoclonus. Results: Of the 606 patients on VPA between January 2016 and March 2022, 156 patients with IGE were enrolled to this study (VPA-replace group, n = 68; VPA-continue group, n = 88). The VPA-replace group included significantly more females than the VPA-continue group (p < 0.001). The VPA-replace group also showed significantly higher seizure frequency before replacement (p < 0.001), but not after replacement (p = 0.074). Patients on monotherapy displayed improved seizure frequency with new ASMs (p < 0.001). Among the new ASMs, perampanel (PER) significantly improved seizure frequency (p = 0.002). Forty-two patients in the VPA-replace group who had myoclonus achieved significant improvements (p < 0.001). Among these, patients on PER monotherapy (p < 0.001) or PER + lamotrigine (0.016) showed significantly improved myoclonus scale scores. Conclusions: This study shows the non-inferiority of new ASMs compared to VPA, with better seizure control using new ASMs in subsets of patients with IGE on monotherapy.

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.

Intranasal delivery of lipid-based nanosystems as a promising approach for brain targeting of the new-generation antiepileptic drug perampanel

Perampanel (PER), a new-generation antiepileptic drug effective against different types of seizures, has already demonstrated a potential in status epilepticus therapy. Considering the growing interest of intranasal (IN) administration for nose-to-brain delivery, PER could be envisioned as a good candidate for this route, especially if formulated in a lipid-based nanosystem. With that purpose, a hydrophobic formulation (FO1.2) and a self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS) (FH5) loaded with PER were developed and characterized. Following PER IN administration (1 mg/kg) to mice, its pharmacokinetics was characterized and compared with intravenous and oral routes. Histopathological toxicity was also examined after a 7-day repeated dose study. FH5 homogeneously formed nanodroplets upon dispersion (20.07 ± 0.03 nm), showing a sustained in vitro PER release profile up to 4 h. By IN route, PER brain delivery was more extensive with FH5 (C_max and AUC of 52.32 ng/g and 190.35 ng.h/g for FO1.2; 93.87 ng/g and 257.75 ng.h/g for FH5). Maximum brain concentration and total brain exposure were higher than those obtained after oral dosage, with maximum PER concentrations reached significantly faster than post-oral administration (15 min vs 2 h). An improvement in PER plasmatic concentration was also obtained, demonstrated by high relative bioavailability values (134.1% for FH5 and 107.8% for FO1.2). PER absolute plasma bioavailability after IN delivery was 55.5% for FH5 and 44.6% for FO1.2, ensuring a somewhat improved targeting of PER to the brain by the IN route compared to the IV route. No signs of toxicity were found by histopathologic evaluation. Results suggest that IN administration of PER might be a feasible and safe approach for acute and chronic epilepsy management, especially using delivery systems as SMEDDS.

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.

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.

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.