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

Effects of CYP3A5*3 genetic polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics of perampanel in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

This study was the first to evaluate the effect of CYP3A5*3 gene polymorphisms on plasma concentration of perampanel (PER) in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

We enrolled 98 patients for this investigation. Plasma PER concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Leftover samples from standard therapeutic drug monitoring were allocated for genotyping analysis. The primary measure of efficacy was the rate of seizure reduction with PER treatment at the final checkup.

RESULTS

The plasma concentration showed a linear correlation with the daily dose taken ( r  = 0.17; P  < 0.05). The ineffective group showed a significantly lower plasma concentration of PER (490.5 ± 297.1 vs. 633.8 ± 305.5 μg/ml; P  = 0.019). For the mean concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio, the ineffective group showed a significantly lower C/D ratio of PER (3.2 ± 1.7 vs. 3.8 ± 2.0; P  = 0.040). The CYP3A5*3 CC genotype exhibited the highest average plasma concentration of PER at 562.8 ± 293.9 ng/ml, in contrast to the CT and TT genotypes at 421.1 ± 165.6 ng/ml and 260.0 ± 36.1 ng/ml. The mean plasma PER concentration was significantly higher in the adverse events group (540.8 ± 285.6 vs. 433.0 ± 227.2 ng/ml; P  = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

The CYP3A5*3 gene's genetic polymorphisms influence plasma concentrations of PER in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy. Given that both efficacy and potential toxicity are closely tied to plasma PER levels, the CYP3A5*3 genetic genotype should be factored in when prescribing PER to patients with epilepsy.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of add-on third-generation antiseizure medications in treating focal seizures worldwide: a network meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials

Background

Adjunctive newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) are being used in patients with treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS). An updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was necessary to compile evidence in this critical area.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from their inception until 17 January 2024, evaluating the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rufinamide (RUF), brivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), retigabine (RTG), and perampanel (PER) as adjunctive treatments for FOS. Efficacy outcomes included seizure response and seizure freedom. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Safety outcomes were evaluated based on the number of patients experiencing at least one AE and serious adverse events (SAEs). This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023485130).

Findings

A total of 29 studies involving 11,750 participants were included. For seizure response, all ASMs were significantly superior to placebo, with RTG ranking highest, followed by CNB. Considering dosage, CNB 400 mg/d was top-ranked, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d. For seizure freedom, BRV was highest-ranked, followed by CNB, with BRV 100 mg/d leading, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding tolerability, LCM 600 mg/d had the lowest ranking, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. For the safety outcome of AEs, ESL 1200 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by CNB 400 mg/d. Regarding SAEs, LCM 400 mg/d was ranked lowest, followed by RTG 1200 mg/d.

Interpretation

ASMs at different dosages have varying efficacy and tolerability profiles. We have provided hierarchical rankings of ASMs for efficacy and safety outcomes. Our findings offer the most comprehensive evidence available to inform patients, families, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers about the choice of ASMs in patients with treatment-resistant FOS.

Funding

None.

Plasma Concentration, Efficacy, and Tolerability of Perampanel in Chinese Pediatric Patients with Epilepsy: Real-World Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

Information on the efficacy and plasma concentration of perampanel (PER) in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy is limited. Therefore, this real-world retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and plasma concentration of the maximum dose of PER for epilepsy treatment in Chinese pediatric patients.

METHODS

A total of 107 pediatric patients from 2 hospitals in China were enrolled in this study. The plasma concentration of PER was determined using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography. The primary efficacy endpoint was the seizure reduction rate after PER treatment at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The response rate to PER therapy was 59.8% (64/107). The authors observed that patients younger than 6 years of age (n = 49) showed a significantly lower concentration-to-dose ratio than patients with ages between 6 and 14 years (n = 58) (2.2 ± 1.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.8 mcg·mL -1 ·kg·mg -1 , respectively; P < 0.05). Patients who received enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication had significantly lower concentration-to-dose ratios than those who did not receive enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication (EIASM) (2.1 ± 1.8 vs. 3.1 ± 2.0 mcg·mL -1 ·kg·mg -1 , P < 0.05). A total of 37 patients (34.6%) reported treatment adverse events. Patients with somnolence and irritability had a significantly higher PER plasma concentration than the "no treatment-emergent adverse effect" groups ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PER is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with epilepsy. To ensure the clinical efficacy and safety of PER in pediatric patients, it is necessary to monitor its plasma concentrations.

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

Purpose

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

Method

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

Results

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

Main findings

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Lacosamide as an Adjunctive Treatment in Adults With Refractory Epilepsy

Background: Lacosamide (LCM), a novel AED (antiepileptic drug), was used as an adjunctive treatment in patients with partial-onset seizures or without secondary generalization. However, no meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of LCM as an adjunctive treatment in post-marketing clinical studies.

Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of LCM as an adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory epilepsy, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies were performed.

Methods: All studies were identified from electronic databases. Both RCTs and observational prospective studies were included. Primary outcomes included responder rate, adverse effects (AEs) and withdraw rate. The pooled rates (PR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Publication bias was assessed with Begg's or Egger's tests.

Results: Total 16 studies (3,191 patients) including 5 RCTs and 11 real-word studies were enrolled. The pooled 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate were 48% (95% CI: 0.42, 0.54) and 9% (95% CI: 0.06, 0.11) in all studies, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled 50% responder rate were 53% (95% CI: 0.44, 0.62) from observational studies and 38% (95% CI: 0.35, 0.42) from RCTs, respectively; the pooled seizure-free rate were 13% (95% CI: 0.09, 0.18) from observational studies and 4% (95% CI: 0.06, 0.11) from RCTs, respectively. Similar incidence of AEs were reported in real-world studies (0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.72) and RCTs (0.59, 95% CI: 0.42–0.76). Finally, a total of 13% (95%CI: 0.09, 0.16) and 13% (95% CI: 0.08, 0.16) of all patients prescribed with LCM was withdrawn in RCTs and real-world studies, respectively, due to the occurrence of AEs. Furthermore, similar to the 50% responder rate, seizure-free rate, incidence of AEs and withdraw rate were reported at 6-month or at least 12-month of LCM adjunction. Publication bias was not detected in these studies.

Conclusions: Our results revealed that LCM adjunctive therapy even with long-term treatment was efficacious and well tolerated in adults with refractory epilepsy.