Two-year real-world experience with perampanel in patients with refractory focal epilepsy: Austrian data

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.

Intrinsic brain activity differences in perampanel-responsive and non-responsive drug-resistant epilepsy patients: an EEG microstate analysis

Background

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) patients exhibit aberrant large-scale brain networks. Perampanel may be a therapeutic option for controlling seizures in these patients.

Objective

We aim to explore the differences of resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG) microstate in perampanel-responsive and non-responsive DRE patients.

Design

Retrospective study.

Methods

Clinical data were collected from DRE patients who received perampanel treatment at the Fujian Medical University Union Hospital from June 2020 to September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Patients were classified into three groups based on the extent of reduction in seizure frequency: non-responsive (seizure reduction <50%), responsive (seizure reduction >50% but not seizure-free), and seizure-free. Resting-state EEG data sets of all participants were subjected to EEG microstate analysis. The study comprehensively compared the mean duration, frequency per second, and temporal coverage of each microstate among the three groups.

Results

A total of 76 perampanel-treated DRE patients were categorized into three groups based on their response to treatment: non-responsive (n = 20), responsive (n = 36), and seizure-free (n = 20), according to the degree of seizure frequency reduction. The results of EEG microstate analysis revealed no statistically significant distinctions in frequency, duration, and coverage of microstate D in these DRE patients. However, the seizure-free group showed significantly increased duration and coverage of microstate A, frequency and coverage of microstate B, and significantly decreased duration, frequency, and coverage of microstate C when compared with the other groups.

Conclusion

Microstate A, B, and D is associated with the sensorimotor network, visual network, salience network, and attention network, respectively. This study demonstrates statistically significant differences in the sensorimotor, visual, and salience networks, but not in the attention network, between perampanel-responsive and non-responsive DRE patients.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel as early add-on therapy in Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures: a multicenter, open-label, single-arm study

Background

No interventional study has been conducted in China to assess efficacy and safety of perampanel in treating Chinese patients with epilepsy, nor has there been any study on perampanel early add-on therapy in China. This interventional study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of perampanel as an early add-on treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) in Chinese patients.

Methods

In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 4 interventional study, Chinese patients ≥ 12 years old with FOS with or without FBTCS who failed anti-seizure medication (ASM) monotherapy from 15 hospitals in China were enrolled and treated with perampanel add-on therapy (8-week titration followed by 24-week maintenance). The primary endpoint was 50% responder rate. Secondary endpoints included seizure-freedom rate and changes in seizure frequency from baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and drug-related TEAEs were recorded.

Results

The full analysis set included 150 patients. The mean maintenance perampanel dose was 5.9 ± 1.5 mg/day and the 8-month retention rate was 72%. The 50% responder rate and seizure-freedom rate for all patients during maintenance were 67.9 and 30.5%, respectively. Patients with FBTCS had higher 50% responder rate (96.0%) and seizure-freedom rate (76.0%) during maintenance. Patients on concomitant sodium valproate had a significantly higher seizure-freedom rate than those on concomitant oxcarbazepine. Eight-six (55.1%) patients experienced treatment-related TEAEs, and the most common TEAEs were dizziness (36.5%), hypersomnia (11.5%), headache (3.9%), somnolence (3.2%), and irritability (3.2%). Withdrawal due to TEAEs occurred to 14.7% of the patients.

Conclusion

Perampanel early add-on was effective and safe in treating Chinese patients≥12 years old with FOS with or without FBTCS.Clinical trial registrationwww.chictr.org.cn, Identifier ChiCTR2000039510.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with focal-onset seizures: an observational, prospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive lacosamide (LCM) in patients with focal-onset seizures, with or without combined secondarily generalized seizures.

METHODS

106 patients aged ≥ 16 years were recruited consecutively in this single-center prospective observational study. All patients received LCM as an add-on treatment on the basis of clinical judgement. Seizure frequency, adverse events (AEs) and retention rates were obtained at 3 and 6 months after LCM introduction.

RESULT

The overall response rates were 53.3 and 70.4% after 3 and 6 months, respectively, and the freedom of seizures at the same points was reached at 19 and 26.5%. The retention rates were 99.1% at the 3-month follow-up and 93.3% at the 6-month follow-up. The overall incidence of adverse events was 35.8%. The leading AEs were dizziness (16.98%) and sedation (6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive LCM in Chinese patients in real-life conditions. Based on our treatment experience, a universal maintenance dose of LCM would be needed in Chinese patients.

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 outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

Introduction

The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

Results

The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p &lt; 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p &lt; 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p &lt; 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p &lt; 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p &lt; 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p &lt; 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p &lt; 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031).

Discussion

This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

Effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in pediatric patients (aged 4-12 years) with refractory epilepsy: An observational study

Information on the effects of perampanel in Chinese children ≤12 years of age with refractory epilepsy is limited; thus, we conducted an observational study to assess the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in this pediatric population. In this study, we reviewed the medical records of pediatric patients aged 4 to 12 years with refractory epilepsy who were admitted to Children's Hospital of Soochow University and prescribed perampanel between January 2020 and January 2021. Effectiveness of perampanel was measured by 50% responder rates, seizure-freedom rates, and retention rates for up to 48 weeks. Adverse events were monitored and recorded throughout the study. A total of 34 patients (male, n = 15) who exhibited refractory epilepsy were included in this study, and 64.71% of patients had focal-onset seizures combined with generalized epilepsy. The mean (± standard deviation) age of patients was 7.21 (± 2.12) years, with a mean (± standard deviation) age at seizure onset of 4.57 (± 2.59) years. After the addition of perampanel, the 50% responder rates at 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks were 37.50% (12/32), 43.75% (14/32), 53.13% (17/32), 59.38% (19/32), 59.38% (19/32), and 62.07% (18/29). Two patients withdrew from perampanel treatment due to adverse events in the first 2 weeks. Adverse events were reported by 44.12% (15/34) of patients, and the retention rates at 36 and 48 weeks were 94.12% (32/34) and 85.29% (29/34), respectively. Overall, perampanel exhibited good effectiveness, safety, and tolerability in the treatment of pediatric patients (aged 4-12 years) with refractory epilepsy. These findings suggest that personalized treatment and better baseline seizure control may increase the responder rate and retention rate of perampanel.

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 as First Add-On Therapy in Patients with Focal-Onset Seizures in the FAME Trial: <i>Post hoc</i> Analyses of Efficacy and Safety Related to Maintenance Dose and Background Antiepileptic Drug Therapy

Background and Purpose: FAME (Fycompa^® as first Add-on to Monotherapy in patients with Epilepsy; NCT02726074), a previously reported single-arm, phase IV study, showed that perampanel improved seizure control as first add-on to failed anti-seizure medication (ASM) monotherapy in 85 South Korean patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS) with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. We present results of three <i>post hoc</i> analyses of FAME that further assessed the efficacy and safety of perampanel.Methods: Patients were stratified by low- (4, 6 mg/day) versus high- (8, 10, 12 mg/day) dose maintenance perampanel, perampanel added to first- versus second-line ASM monotherapy, and concomitant background ASM monotherapy and perampanel dose. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in total seizure frequency during the 24-week maintenance period. Safety was assessed by the descriptive incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).Results: In <i>post hoc</i> analyses, 50% responder rates were significantly higher for low- versus high-dose maintenance perampanel (88.6% vs. 40.0%; <i>p</i><0.001) and when added to first- versus second-line ASM monotherapy (83.5% vs. 33.3%; <i>p</i>=0.013). By concomitant background ASM and perampanel maintenance dose, 50% responder rates were 100% for perampanel 4 mg/day added to carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or valproic acid, and 85% when added to levetiracetam. Add-on perampanel improved 75% and seizure-free responder rates, and median percent changes from baseline seizure frequency per 28 days. Perampanel was well tolerated when added to ASM monotherapy, with dizziness being the most common TEAE.Conclusions: <i>Post hoc</i> analyses of FAME provide supportive data for the use of perampanel as an effective and well-tolerated first add-on treatment to a broad spectrum of ASM monotherapies in patients with FOS.

Perampanel as First Adjunctive Treatment in Patients with Focal-Onset Seizures in the FAME Study: <i>Post hoc</i> Analyses of Dose-Related Efficacy, Safety and Clinical Factors Associated with Response

Background and Purpose: Perampanel is approved for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without secondary generalized seizures. The FAME (Fycompa^® as first Add-on to Monotherapy in patients with Epilepsy; NCT02726074) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of perampanel added to monotherapy in patients with FOS with or without secondary generalized seizures (SGS). <i>Post hoc</i> analyses of the FAME study assessed potential predictors of response and an in-depth evaluation of the safety and efficacy of perampanel.Methods: Efficacy was assessed by reduction of total seizure frequency by ≥50%, ≥75% or 100%, and safety by incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses for treatment response were performed.Results: Most patients (82/85) received perampanel doses of 4-8 mg/day during maintenance therapy and the highest efficacy rates were achieved with 4 mg/day, irrespective of efficacy outcome. Doses of 4 or 6 mg/day in patients with FOS with SGS (n=16) produced comparable efficacy outcomes. In multivariate analysis, total perampanel dose was predictive of 50% and 75% response rates; longer total perampanel administration period with 50% response; and concomitant non-anti-seizure medication with a 100% response. Patients developed a TEAE more frequently during the 12-week titration period (60.2%) than the 24-week maintenance period (28.4%), including dizziness (45.5% vs. 9.1%), somnolence (10.2% vs. 0%), and headache (4.5% vs. 3.4%).Conclusions: <i>Post hoc</i> analyses show that even low doses of perampanel may be effective and TEAEs are usually self-limited or well-tolerated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Testing for equality of distributions using the concept of (niche) overlap

In this paper, we propose a new non-parametric test for equality of distributions. The test is based on the recently introduced measure of (niche) overlap and its rank-based estimator. As the estimator makes only one basic assumption on the underlying distribution, namely continuity, the test is universal applicable in contrast to many tests that are restricted to only specific scenarios. By construction, the new test is capable of detecting differences in location and scale. It thus complements the large class of rank-based tests that are constructed based on the non-parametric relative effect. In simulations this new test procedure obtained higher power and lower type I error compared to two common tests in several settings. The new procedure shows overall good performance. Together with its simplicity, this test can be used broadly.

Real-world impact of antiepileptic drug combinations with versus without perampanel on healthcare resource utilization in patients with epilepsy in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Combination regimens of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with various mechanisms of action (MOA) are commonly used in patients with refractory epilepsy. However, outcomes related to combination AEDs with novel MOA, such as perampanel (PER), are not well described. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among recipients of PER-based combinations versus recipients of other non-PER-based combinations.

METHODS

This retrospective study used claims data from the Symphony Health's IDV® (Integrated Dataverse) database (August 2012 to July 2018). Patients were aged ≥12 years with epilepsy or non-febrile convulsions, were treated with AED combinations, and had ≥12 and ≥6 months pre- and post-index date, respectively (date of initiation of the second AED in the combination). AEDs were categorized based on MOA: selective non-competitive antagonist of AMPA receptors (i.e., PER), sodium channel blocker (SC), synaptic vesicle protein 2A binding (SV2), and gamma-aminobutyric acid analog (G). Patients were then classified into MOA-based cohorts: PER + SC, PER + SV2, PER + G, SC + SC, SC + SV2, SC + G, SV2 + G, and G + G. HRU outcomes were evaluated during follow-up and compared between PER-based cohorts and non-PER-based cohorts.

RESULTS

On average, patients in the PER + SC (N = 3,592), PER + SV2 (N = 2,200), and PER + G (N = 1,313) cohorts were younger and had a lower Quan-Charlson comorbidity index than those in non-PER-based cohorts. PER + SC and PER + SV2 users had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations than non-PER-based users (adjusted RR range: 0.66-0.89, all P < 0.05), while PER + G recipients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations than recipients of SV2 + G and G + G (adjusted RR range: 0.92-0.94). Similar trends were observed for epilepsy-related hospitalizations. Across all comparisons, PER-based combinations were associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits relative to non-PER-based combinations (adjusted RR range: 0.69-0.86, all P < 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

Results showed that patients treated with PER-based combinations had fewer all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations, and fewer all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits compared with patients treated with most other non-PER-based combinations.

Relationship between plasma concentrations and clinical effects of perampanel: A prospective observational study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the potential correlation between plasma concentration of the newer antiseizure medication (ASM) perampanel (PMP) and both tolerability and seizure control in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

The study design was multicenter, open, and prospective. Plasma samples were collected in the morning 12 h apart from once-a-day bedtime PMP dose. Perampanel tolerability was assessed on the day of drug monitoring by clinical examination and patients' interview. Response to PMP was defined as ≥50% reduction from baseline seizure frequency (pretreatment). The main outcomes were the comparisons of PMP plasma concentration-to-weight-adjusted dose ratio (C/D) [(μg/mL)/(mg/kg/day)] between patients with and without PMP-related adverse effects (AEs) and between responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients (54% men), mean ± SD age 36 ± 14 years were enrolled in the study. The mean PMP dose was 6.7 ± 2.3 mg, drug treatment averaged 46 ± 34 weeks. The mean plasma concentration was 360 ± 268 ng/mL (range: 37-1213 ng/mL). Forty patients (41%) reported at least one AE, mainly dizziness and behavioral changes. No significant difference was found in median PMP C/Ds between patients with (2.94) and without (2.76) AEs, otherwise comparable for clinical variables. Forty-four patients (45%) were responders, at a median PMP C/D of 3.10, similar to the value of 2.76 found in nonresponders. These two groups also overlapped for clinical characteristics.

CONCLUSION

This is the first prospective real-life study to evaluate the relationship between PMP plasma concentrations, seizure control, and AEs. In line with the few real-world available data, we did not find any significant correlation between PMP plasma concentrations and both tolerability and seizure control.

Perampanel as add-on therapy in epilepsies with known etiology: A single center experience with long-term follow-up

•

PER showed good efficacy for the treatment of epilepsies with known etiology.

•

PER showed greater efficacy in patients with epilepsy due to a focal brain lesion .

•

PER was globally well tolerated with a good profile of safety.

•

EEG pattern , expression of a structural epilepsy, correlates with a better response.

•

EEG pattern might help in the choice of correct antiseizure medication.

We report a retrospective monocentric study performed on 63 patients affected by epilepsy with known etiology, receiving perampanel as add-on therapy with at least 12-month follow-up. The purpose of our study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in this group of epilepsies. Patients were classified into 2 groups based on the presence/absence of a single focal brain lesion on MRI, as epilepsy etiology: 48 subjects were affected by focal lesional epilepsy and 15 by non-focal lesional epilepsy. The retention rate was 76.2% and 53.9% at 12 and 24 months respectively. At 12 months, at least 40% of patients resulted responders, with a significant reduction in seizure frequency (p = 0.01), confirmed at 24 months. Considering epilepsy etiology, we found a better PER response in patients with focal lesional epilepsy. A significant correlation was observed between responder rates and EEG pattern. Only 30% of patients reported mild-moderate adverse events. Efficacy and tolerability of PER, in our study, are in line with the results reported in other real-world studies. Our data suggest the possibility of better PER response in patients with focal brain lesions, which indicates that this drug could be a therapeutic option in this population.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel as a first add-on therapy with different anti-seizure drugs

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when administered as a first add-on therapy to patients with focal epilepsy or idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) taking one other antiseizure drug (ASD).

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective, one-year observational study collected data from patients (≥12 years) who initiated treatment with PER as first add-on therapy. Patients had to be experiencing inadequate seizure control on ASD monotherapy and tried ≤3 ASD monotherapies before initiating PER. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusted for the number and type of previous seizures, duration and aetiology of epilepsy.

RESULTS

Of the 149 patients included in the study (mean age 41 years; 54.4 % male), 118 (79.2 %) were still receiving PER as first add-on treatment after 12 months. Mean PER dose was 6.2 mg/day. At 12 months, 45.6 % were seizure-free and 84.6 % responders. A significant difference in seizure freedom rate was found between patients with IGE and patients with focal epilepsy, but not in responders. Reduced seizure control was observed when PER was administered with strong enzyme-inducing ASDs; conversely, increased seizure control was seen when the same dose of PER was combined with enzyme-inhibiting ASDs. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (15.4 %), irritability (14.1 %) and drowsiness (14.1 %); no differences in tolerance were observed among different combinations.

CONCLUSION

PER demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile when used as a first add-on therapy in patients who did not respond to monotherapy. PER dose adjustments may optimize seizure control when combined with strong enzyme-inducing or enzyme-inhibiting ASDs.

Perampanel in brain tumor-related epilepsy: Observational pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Possible loss of efficacy and potential interactions between antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and chemotherapy could complicate the management of patients with brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) that may expose patients to an increased risk of adverse events. Perampanel (PER) is a highly selective, noncompetitive, alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA)-type glutamate receptor antagonist. This study evaluates the effectiveness, QoL, cognition, and mood of PER in add-on therapy in BTRE patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Observational pilot study on the effectiveness of PER as add-on therapy in BTRE patients with uncontrolled seizures with a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

We recruited 26 BTRE patients. During the follow-up, 16 underwent chemotherapy and 11 radiotherapy; 11 had disease progression. Five patients dropped out. Mean daily PER dosage was 6.6 mg in the 21 patients who completed the follow-up and 6.4 mg in the ITT population. The mean number of seizures/month decreased from 10.8 ± 15.03 at baseline to 1.7 ± 4.34 in the 21 patients who reached the final follow-up. Responder rate was 88.4%: Eight patients were seizure-free, 15 had ≥50% seizure reduction, and 3 remained stable. Four patients (15.4%) reported AEs: 2 required PER dose reduction, and 2 dropped out. Neuropsychological, mood, and QoL questionnaires were not statistically different compared to baseline. There were no significant differences in seizure control in patients with/without IDH1 mutation and with/without MGMT methylation.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel proved to be effective on seizure control in BRTE patients and to be well tolerated without negative effects on cognition and QoL. Perampanel could be a valid therapeutic option in BTRE.

Effectiveness and safety of perampanel in adults with mesial temporal epilepsy: A single-center postmarketing study in Taiwan

Mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) is a common epilepsy syndrome often refractory to antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as add-on treatment for patients of MTLE.We pooled retrospective data from adult patients with MTLE, from a tertiary center in Taiwan, who were prescribed PER between March 2016 and December 2016. The retention, responder, and seizure-free rate as well as the treatment emergent adverse events were assessed after 6 months of PER adjunctive treatment in this single-center postmarketing study.Review of medical records revealed that adequate data were available for 44 patients who were being administered PER (mean age: 42.0 ± 13.3 years, 24 females; baseline mean seizure frequency: 5.4 per 28 days). Twelve patients exhibited hippocampal sclerosis (HS). Open-label PER was added to ongoing medications. Twelve patients withdrew because of ineffectiveness (n = 6) or adverse effects (n = 6). The retention rate was 72.7% at 6 months. On final evaluation, with a mean PER dose of 5.7 mg/day for 6 months, a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency was observed in 46.9% of the patients, and 5 patients became seizure-free. The effectiveness was similar for patients with or without HS. Twenty-three patients (52.3%) experienced adverse effects. The most common adverse effects were dizziness, ataxia, and irritability.Our results suggest that PER, at doses of 2 to 12 mg/day, reduces seizure frequency effectively with acceptable safety profiles for adults with MTLE.

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

Background and Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in children and adolescents with pharmacoresistant epilepsy: The first real-world evaluation in Asian pediatric neurology clinics

AIM

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of perampanel (PER) adjunctive therapy in pediatric patients with epilepsy whose seizures are pharmacoresistant to existing antiepileptic drugs.

METHODS

A clinical retrospective study was conducted from 2016 to 2017 in the pediatric neurology clinic at a tertiary children's hospital. We reviewed the data obtained from 66 children whose seizures were pharmacoresistant to more than two antiepileptic drugs, and could be followed up for a minimum of 3 months after PER adjunctive therapy initiation. The efficacy was estimated by the PER response rate at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up evaluations, and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

The rate of seizure reduction of >50% was 30.3%, 37.5%, and 34.7% for all seizure types at 3, 6, and 12 months, in which 7.6%, 8.9%, and 14.3% of the patients became seizure-free at these time points, respectively. No significant differences were found between enzyme-inducing and nonenzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs in combination with PER with regard to the responder rate. Five patients with Dravet syndrome were included in the study. Four of them (80%) exhibited 50% seizure reduction at the last visit, at which point, two patients (40.0%) were seizure-free. The retention rate was 51% at 12 months. Adverse events were documented in 25 patients (35.7%) and led to PER discontinuation in eight patients (12.1%). The most common adverse events comprised irritability, skin rash, dizziness, and somnolence; however, all were transient and successfully managed after PER dose reduction or discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

The current data support the value of adjunctive PER in child and adolescent patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy in daily clinical practice. Perampanel was efficacious and generally well-tolerated as an add-on treatment for epilepsy.

Perampanel: Does it have broad-spectrum potential?

This article reviews the profile of perampanel, a novel noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) receptor antagonist, and its role as a potential broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug in the treatment of epilepsy. For this narrative review, data were collected using specified search criteria. Articles reporting the evidence for perampanel's efficacy from preclinical models, phase 3 clinical studies, observational studies, and descriptive evidence were included. AMPA receptors play a key role in mediating the action of glutamate at the excitatory synapse. Preclinical research showed the AMPA receptor blockade to constitute a promising target for antiepileptic drug therapy. In animal models, perampanel proved to be protective against seizures and reduce seizure severity and duration. Four phase-3 randomized controlled trials (3 in patients with focal seizures and one in primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy) have been completed. In focal (partial) onset seizures, perampanel (4, 8, and 12 mg) significantly reduced seizure frequency per 28 days (23.3%-28.8% vs 12.8%; P < .01) and responder rates (≥50% reduction in seizures) (28.5%-35.3% vs 19.3%; P < .05) compared with placebo. In primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures, perampanel 8 mg resulted in greater reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days (-76.5% vs -38.4%; P < .0001) and responder rate (64.2% vs 39.5%; P = .0019) than placebo. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of perampanel have been reproduced in real-world clinical practice, and the agent has been shown to be effective in other epilepsy syndromes. Perampanel is a potentially broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug with a novel mechanism of action that may be a useful addition for patients with epilepsy with various seizure types. The availability of novel antiepileptic drugs for epilepsy treatment enables more individualized treatment for these patients.

Perampanel as adjunctive therapy in highly refractory epilepsies: Real-world data from an Italian tertiary care epilepsy centre

Perampanel (PER) is a selective non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, licensed as adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (pGTCSs). We performed a retrospective study on highly refractory adult patients taking PER, with 1-year follow-up. Retention rate represented the primary outcome of our work; seizure frequency reduction (≥50%), "switch rate" and proportion of adverse events (AEs) were evaluated as secondary endpoints. Eighty-nine subjects (47 females, age range: 19-78 years) were included. Seventy-three had focal epilepsy (FE), 9 generalized epilepsy and 7 epileptic encephalopathy. All patients were highly drug-resistant (medication failures: 5-17). Retention rate was 87.6%, 63% and 51.7% at 3, 6 and 12 months. Responders were 27/89 (30.3%), with 8/27 seizure-free. The number of previous treatment failures and the concomitant use of enzyme inducers negatively influenced clinical response, whereas no correlation was documented between PER dose and outcome. Responder proportion was more satisfying in structural FE than in FE of unknown etiology (33% versus 20%), and in secondarily GTCSs than focal seizures (54% vs 28%), whereas pGTCSs showed a lower reponse rate (25%). Mild-to-moderate AEs (mainly dizziness, gait disturbances and psychiatric effects) were reported by 40% of patients; serious psychiatric AEs usually occurred in subjects with psychiatric comorbidities. Our study confirms the tolerability and effectiveness of PER in highly drug-resistant patients with different epilepsy syndromes and aetiologies.

Preliminary Asian experience of using perampanel in clinical practice

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Efficacy of perampanel in a patient with epilepsia partialis continua

Perampanel is the first-in-class selective and noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist. It is authorized in the U.S. and Europe as an add-on antiepileptic drug for partial-onset seizures, and for primary generalized tonic–clonic seizures. Single reports have also indicated a potential efficacy for myoclonic jerks. Here, we report a patient whose drug-resistant epilepsia partialis continua completely resolved after adding perampanel. She has remained seizure-free in an eighteen-month follow-up period. Epilepsia partialis continua reemerged transiently after perampanel was temporarily discontinued, with no recurrence after its reintroduction. Therefore, this effect was reproducible, and suggests that it might be worth trying perampanel in similar settings.

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

INTRODUCTION

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