Possible effect of perampanel on focal status epilepticus after generalized tonic-clonic status epilepticus

Use of perampanel oral suspension for the treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus

INTRODUCTION

Status epilepticus (SE) is a medical emergency associated with a significant risk of disability and death. The treatment of SE follows a step-wise approach, with limited data on ideal antiseizure medications (ASMs) for refractory and super refractory SE (RSE/SRSE). Perampanel (PER), an AMPA receptor antagonist, has shown promise in animal models but still has limited data in humans. This study tried to evaluate optimal dosage and safety of PER in RSE and SRSE patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 17 adult patients with RSE (1) or SRSE (16) treated with PER. Demographic and clinical data, including EEG patterns, ASMs administered, PER dosages, and PER plasma concentrations, were collected. For patients receiving a 24 mg PER loading dose (full dose group), the following treatment regimen was applied: 24 mg per day for 48 h following by 16 mg per day. The response to PER was assessed based on electroencephalographic (EEG) improvement from high to low epileptiform activity or from low to the absence of epileptiform activities. Safety was evaluated monitoring hepatic and renal function.

RESULTS

A response rate of 58.82 % was observed, with significantly higher responses in the full dose group (81.82 %) compared to those receiving PER doses below 24 mg (low dose group) (16.67 %) (p-value = 0.004; OR 0.044, 95 % CI 0.003 to 0.621, p = 0.021). No other clinical factors significantly influenced treatment response. Hepatic enzymes become elevated in most patients (70.59 %) but spontaneously decreased.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that a 24 mg PER dose administered for 48 h may be more effective in managing RSE and SRSE compared to doses below 24 mg, potentially due to pharmacokinetic factors.

CONCLUSION

More robust data on PER in RSE and SRSE, including standardized dosing procedures and plasma level monitoring are needed. PER's potential benefits should be explored further, particularly in patients with RSE and SRSE.

Perampanel in achieving status epilepticus cessation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency necessitating rapid seizure control to prevent long-term consequences. Perampanel (PER) is a novel selective, noncompetitive alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic (AMPA) receptor antagonist that demonstrated efficacy and safety in lithium-pilocarpine models of SE; however, data in humans are limited. This systematic review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of PER in patients with SE, RSE, and SRSE.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until May 30, 2021 to identify all human studies on PER for the treatment of SE of any type and etiology. An additional search was performed on DANS Easy Archive, in which OpenGrey data were stored, from inception until January 10, 2022 and conference proceedings by the International League Against Epilepsy from 2011 onward. The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of the body of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (7 case reports, 9 case series, and 5 retrospective cohort studies) were included with a total of 369 cases of SE in 368 patients aged 11 months to 99 years, of which 56.2% were female. Seizures of the majority were refractory (n = 220), super refractory SE (n = 70), or either (n = 81) with prominent motor symptoms (n = 284) and are associated with a structural etiology (n = 218). The number of antiseizure medications and/or anesthetics used prior to PER ranged from 1 to 13. PER was administered in 324 cases and was initiated at a dose of 2-36 mg between 30 min to 59 days from SE onset. SE cessation ranged from 1 h to 4 weeks from PER initiation. A total of 119 cases (36.6%) were considered PER responders. According to the GRADE approach, there is very low certainty of evidence for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The real-world data of PER as a possible therapeutic option in SE of any type are increasing. However, there is very low certainty of evidence for its use and this requires further clinical studies to establish the appropriate timing, dosing, and titration that are efficacious and safe for SE cessation.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel in refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus: cohort study of 81 patients and literature review

BACKGROUND

The effective dose of perampanel in status epilepticus (SE), refractory SE (RSE), and super-refractory SE (SRSE) in humans is unknown, and the potential of perampanel in treating SE has not been evaluated in a large cohort.

METHODS

Data of intensive care patients with RSE and SRSE treated with perampanel were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients received perampanel, including 39 females with median age 64 [17-91] years, perampanel responders (n = 27), and non-responders (n = 54). The initial perampanel dose was positively associated with treatment response in patients with RSE or SRSE (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.57, p = 0.025), while the maximum dose was negatively associated with treatment response (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96, p = 0.022). Hypoxia caused seizures in six patients; five died in hospital and one had severe disability. A statistically non-significant tendency toward better response was found in patients with unique SE type and cause, particularly in nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) without coma (NCSE without coma vs. generalized tonic-clonic seizure: OR = 4.14, 95% CI 0.98-17.47, p = 0.053). In the high-dose (≥ 16 mg/day) groups, although distributions of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were similar between perampanel responders and non-responders at discharge, a greater proportion of perampanel responders had less change in mRS scores from baseline than did perampanel non-responders (median mRS: 0 vs 4, p = 0.064). No cardiorespiratory adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were noted with perampanel treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel is effective and has a satisfactory safety profile in the emergency treatment of established RSE and SRSE.

Perampanel Treatment for Refractory Status Epilepticus in a Neurological Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is a novel anti-epileptic drug (AED) which acts as a non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist to reduce glutamate-mediated postsynaptic excitation. Previous animal studies and a few case reports/series have suggested that it may be effective to treat refractory status epilepticus (RSE).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 67 consecutive patients with RSE, of whom 22 received perampanel. The clinical features, epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus, status epilepticus severity score, seizure control, functional outcome, RSE etiology, and electroencephalogram findings were collected. Responder to perampanel was defined as seizure resolution within 4 days of therapy with perampanel being the last AED used plus no recurrence during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight of the 22 (36.4%) RSE patients fulfilled the definition of responder to perampanel. An additional 1 patient responded to perampanel after 4 days of treatment. In total, perampanel was the last AED in 9 (40.1%) patients. Among the 8 responders to perampanel, 5 had convulsive SE, 1 had non-convulsive SE, and 2 had focal motor SE. The responders accounted for both of the patients with focal motor SE (100%), 5 (33.3%) of the 15 patients with convulsive SE, and 1 (20%) of the 5 patients with non-convulsive SE. The ictal and inter-ictal activities also decreased after perampanel therapy, and three patients (13.6%) had preferable outcomes at last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel may be an effective add-on treatment for RSE even in patients who failed multiple AEDs. Our study suggests that perampanel may be more effective for focal motor SE and convulsive SE than non-convulsive SE. As most previous studies have focused on non-convulsive SE, further studies are warranted to clarify the effectiveness of perampanel for different subtypes of SE.

Perampanel for treatment of status epilepticus in Austria, Finland, Germany, and Spain

OBJECTIVE

Novel treatments are needed to control treatment-resistant status epilepticus (SE). We report a summary of clinical cases where perampanel was used in established SE, refractory SE (RSE), or super-refractory SE (SRSE).

METHODS

Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for perampanel administration in SE at five European hospitals between 2011 and 2015.

RESULTS

Of 1319 patients identified as experiencing SE, 52 (3.9%) received perampanel. Median latency from SE onset to perampanel initiation was 10 days. Patients with SE had previously failed benzodiazepines (when received) and a median of five other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Median initial perampanel dose was 6 mg/d, up-titrated to a median maximum dose of 10 mg/d. Perampanel was the last drug added in 32/52 (61.5%) patients, with response attributed to perampanel in 19/52 (36.5%) patients. A greater proportion of perampanel non-responders had SRSE (51.5%; 17/33) vs perampanel responders (31.6%; 6/19), and had failed a higher mean number of AEDs before initiating perampanel (5.9 vs 5.1, respectively). Most commonly reported adverse effects during perampanel treatment were dizziness (n = 1 [1.9%]) and somnolence (n = 1 [1.9%]). No serious adverse effects were documented, and none led to discontinuation of perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel was administered to patients with established SE, RSE, or SRSE at greater initial doses than those administered in clinical practice to patients with epilepsy. The SE cases reported here represent a refractory and heterogeneous population, and rate of seizure cessation attributed to perampanel treatment (36.5%) represents a notable response. These data should be confirmed in a larger patient population.

Use of Newer Anticonvulsants for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) has a high mortality rate and is one of the most common neurologic emergencies. Fast progression of this neurologic emergency and lack of response to traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in most cases has challenged clinicians to use new agents. This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of AEDs released to the market after 2000 for SE, refractory status epilepticus (RSE), and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE). The PubMed database was searched for clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2018 using the search terms status epilepticus, refractory status epilepticus, super refractory status epilepticus, brivaracetam, clobazam, cannabidiol, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, rufinamide, stiripentol, and zonisamide. Trials that evaluated these agents in adults with SE, RSE, and SRSE were included. Brivaracetam use was identified in two retrospective reviews with success rates of 27% and 57%. One unsuccessful case report of cannabidiol use in SE was found. Four clobazam studies were identified in SE and RSE with success rates ranging from 25-100%. No evidence for the use of eslicarbazepine and zonisamide was found. Using the search terms for lacosamide identified 38 articles: 1 systematic review, 5 prospective studies, 15 retrospective reviews, and 17 case reports. Success rates and dosing varied, but studies that included focal or partial types of SE showed higher success rates. Five articles were identified regarding perampanel use in this setting. Three were retrospective reviews with success rates ranging from 17-60%, and two were case reports. Only one case report regarding the use of rufinamide was found; rufinamide titrated up to 4.4 mg/day allowed discontinuation of barbiturate and clobazam. One case report and two case series of stiripentol were found with reported efficacy between 60% and 100% in SRSE. Evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of these agents in this setting.

Perampanel in the treatment of status epilepticus: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Perampanel (PER) is a noncompetitive β-amino-3-(5-methyl-3-oxo-1,2-oxazol-4-yl)propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist with demonstrated efficacy in animal models of status epilepticus (SE). We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the efficacy and tolerability of PER in the treatment of refractory and super-refractory SE.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL (accessed from inception to April 30, 2018) to identify studies evaluating oral PER as treatment of SE of any type. We also searched the OpenGrey repository and conference proceedings of international congresses by the International League Against Epilepsy and by the American Epilepsy Society from 2012 onwards.

RESULTS

Ten articles were included, with a total of 69 episodes of SE occurring in 68 patients (aged 18 to 91 years). The type and etiology of SE varied remarkably across studies. The number of drugs used prior to PER ranged from 1 to 9. The time from SE onset to PER administration ranged from 9.25 h to 35 days. The initial PER dose ranged from 2 to 32 mg. The proportion of patients achieving clinical SE cessation varied from 17% to 100%. The time from PER administration to SE cessation ranged from 1 h to 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence supporting the use of PER in SE is weak and hampered by several confounding factors. Further studies should be performed in more clinically homogeneous and larger cohorts to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PER administered in earlier stages of SE, at higher dosages, and at intervals shorter than 24 h.

Novel drugs and early polypharmacotherapy in status epilepticus

PURPOSE

Rescue medications for status epilepticus (SE) have a relatively high rate of failure. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence for the efficacy of novel drugs and early polypharmacotherapy for SE.

METHOD

Literature review.

RESULTS

New drugs and treatment strategies aim to target the pathophysiology of SE in order to improve seizure control and outcomes. Changes at the synapse level during SE include a progressive decrease in synaptic GABA_A receptors and increase in synaptic NMDA receptors. These changes tend to promote self-sustaining seizures. Current SE guidelines recommend a rapid stepwise treatment using benzodiazepines in monotherapy as the first-line treatment, targeting GABA_A synaptic receptors. Novel treatment approaches target GABA_A synaptic and extrasynaptic receptors with allopregnanolone, and NMDA receptors with ketamine. Novel rescue treatments used for SE include topiramate, brivaracetam, and perampanel, which are already marketed in epilepsy. Some available drugs not marketed for use in epilepsy have been used in the treatment of SE, and other agents are being studied for this purpose. Early polytherapy, most frequently combining a benzodiazepine with a second-line drug or an NMDA receptor antagonist, might potentially increase seizure control with relatively minor increase in side effects. Although many preclinical studies support novel drugs and early polytherapy in SE, human studies are scarce and inconclusive. Currently, evidence is lacking to recommend specific combinations of these new agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel drugs and strategies target the underlying pathophysiology of SE with the intent to improve seizure control and outcomes.

Perampanel in patients with refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus in a neurological intensive care unit: A single-center audit of 30 patients

In refractory status epilepticus (SE), γ-aminobutyric acidergic drugs become less effective and glutamate plays a major role in seizure perpetuation. Data on the efficacy of perampanel (PER) in treatment of refractory SE in humans are limited. Here, we present a single-center case series of patients with refractory SE who received PER orally in an intensive care unit. We retrospectively analyzed treatment response, outcome, and adverse effects of all patients with refractory SE in our Neurological Intensive Care Unit who received add-on PER between September 2012 and February 2018. Thirty patients with refractory SE (median = 72 years, range = 18-91, 77% women) were included. In 14 patients (47%), a high-dose approach was used, with a median initial dose of 24 mg (range = 16-32). In five patients (17%), SE could be terminated after PER administration (median dose = 6 mg, range = 6-20 mg, 2/5 patients in high-dose group). Clinical response was observed after a median of 24 hours (range = 8-48 hours), whereas electroencephalogram resolved after a median of 60 hours (range = 12-72 hours). Time to treatment response tended to be shorter in patients receiving high-dose PER (median clinical response = 16 hours vs 18 hours; electroencephalographic response = 24 hours vs 72 hours), but groups were too small for statistical analysis. Continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring showed no changes in cardiorespiratory function after "standard" and "high-dose" treatment. Elevated liver enzymes without clinical symptoms were observed after a median of 6 days in seven of 30 patients (23%; 57% high dose vs 43% standard dose), of whom six also received treatment with phenytoin (PHT). Outcome was unfavorable (death, persistent vegetative state) in 13 patients (43%; 39% high dose vs 61% standard dose), and good recovery (no significant disability, moderate disability) was achieved in nine patients (56% high dose vs 44% standard dose). Oral PER in loading doses up to 32 mg were well tolerated but could terminate SE only in a few patients (5/30; 17%). Long duration of SE, route of administration, and severe underlying brain dysfunction might be responsible for the modest result. An intravenous formulation is highly desired to explore the full clinical utility in the treatment of refractory SE.

Newer Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus in Adults: What's the Evidence?

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent neurological emergencies. Despite this, understanding of its pathophysiology and evidence regarding its management is limited. Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment to achieve seizure cessation is advocated to prevent brain damage or potentially lethal outcomes. The last two decades have witnessed an exponential increase in the number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). These compounds, especially lacosamide and levetiracetam, in view of their intravenous formulation, have been increasingly prescribed in SE. These and other newer AEDs present a promising profile in terms of tolerability, with few centrally depressive effects, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and fewer drug interactions than classical AEDs; conversely, they are more expensive. There is still no clear evidence to suggest a specific beneficial impact of newer AEDs on SE outcome, preventing any strong recommendation regarding their prescription in SE. Further comparative studies are urgently required to clarify their place and optimal use in the armamentarium of SE treatment.

25 years of advances in the definition, classification and treatment of status epilepticus

PURPOSE

Status epilepticus (SE) requires not only urgent symptomatic treatment with antiepileptic drugs but also rapid identification and treatment of its cause. This narrative review summarizes the most important advances in classification and treatment of SE.

METHOD

Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and back tracking of references in pertinent studies, reviews, and books.

RESULTS

SE is now defined as "a condition resulting either from the failure of the mechanisms responsible for seizure termination or from the initiation of mechanisms, which lead to abnormally, prolonged seizures (after time point t1). It is a condition, which can have long-term consequences (after time point t2), including neuronal death, neuronal injury, and alteration of neuronal networks, depending on the type and duration of seizures." A new diagnostic classification system of SE introduces four axes: semiology, aetiology, EEG correlates, and age. For the acute treatment intravenous benzodiazepines (lorazepam, diazepam, clonazepam) and intramuscular midazolam appear as most effective treatments for early SE. In children, buccal or intranasal midazolam are useful alternatives. In established SE intravenous antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, phenobarbital, and lacosamide) are in use. Treatment options in refractory SE are intravenous anaesthetics; ketamine, magnesium, steroids and other drugs have been used in super-refractory SE with variable outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 25 years major advances in definition, classification and understanding of its mechanisms have been achieved. Despite this up to 40% of patients in early status cannot be controlled with first line drugs. The treatment of super-refractory status is still an almost evidence free zone.

Successful treatment of epilepsia partialis continua due to Rassmussen encephalitis with perampanel

Background. Epilepsia partialis continua (EPC) is a difficult to treat condition, which tends to be refractory to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). We previously published two other treatment episodes of EPC due to stroke and vascular dementia with a possible effect of perampanel (PER).

Aim. With the publication of a third treatment episode of EPC terminated by the administration of PER we would like to suggest that PER may be an effective treatment option in this condition.

Material and Methods. We present a case where PER was the last AED introduced in the treatment of a patient with EPC and individual seizures due to Rasmussen encephalitis before his seizure frequency could be reduced significantly.

Results. A 44 years old male patient, who had been on a combination therapy of at least 4 AEDs since the age of 24, was admitted to our hospital presenting with an EPC. After the introduction of PER in the therapy EPC stopped and he remained seizure free for more than a year. Two of his other AEDs could be tapered of.

Conclusion. PER might be especially effective in EPC.

New antiepileptic drugs: focus on ezogabine, clobazam, and perampanel

Ezogabine, clobazam, and perampanel are among the newest antiseizure drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2011 and 2012. Ezogabine and perampanel are approved for adjunctive treatment of partial epilepsy. Perampanel is also approved for adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic–clonic seizures. Ezogabine and perampanel have novel mechanisms of action. Ezogabine binds to voltage-gated potassium channels and increases the M-current thereby causing membrane hyperpolarization. Perampanel is a selective, non-competitive 2-amino-3-(3-hydroxy-5-methyl-isoxazol-4-yl)propanoic acid receptor antagonist, which reduces neuronal excitation. Clobazam has been used worldwide since the 1970s and is approved for adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Clobazam is the only 1,5-benzodiazepine currently in clinical use, which is less sedating than the commonly used 1,4-benzodiazepines. Phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials demonstrated efficacy and good tolerability of these 3 new antiepileptic drugs. These drugs represent a welcome addition to the armamentarium of practitioners, but it remains to be seen how they will affect the landscape of pharmacoresistant epilepsy.

Perampanel in patients with refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus in a neurological intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

In refractory status epilepticus (SE), because of subcellular maladaptive changes, GABAergic drugs are no longer effective, and the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate (Glu) plays a major role in seizure perpetuation. Perampanel (PER, licensed since 09/2012) is the first orally active noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist for adjunctive treatment of refractory focal epilepsy.

METHODS

We analyzed treatment response, seizure outcome, and adverse effects of add-on treatment with perampanel in patients with refractory status epilepticus in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Salzburg, Austria between 09/2012 and 11/2014 by retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (75% women) with refractory status epilepticus were treated with PER administered per nasogastric tube between 09/2012 and 11/2014. Median age was 75 years [range: 60-91]. The most frequent SE type was nonconvulsive SE (NCSE) with (5/12, 42%) and without coma (6/12, 50%). In seven patients (58%), SE arose de novo, with an acute symptomatic cause in five patients (42%). Cerebrovascular diseases (4/12, 33%) and cerebral tumors (4/12, 33%) were the most common etiologies. Perampanel was given after a median number of four antiepileptic drugs [range: 2-7] and a median time of 1.5 days [range: 0.8-18.3]. In one patient (8%), clinical improvement was observed within 24h and EEG improvement within 60 h after administration of PER, while in another patient (8%), clinical and EEG improvement was observed more than 48 h after administration. Median initial dose was 4 mg [range: 2-12; SD: 4.11], titrated up to a median of 12 mg [range: 4-12] in steps of 2 to 4 mg per day. No adverse effects were reported regarding cardiorespiratory changes or laboratory parameters. Outcomes after SE were moderate disability in five patients (42%), death in three patients (25%), and persistent vegetative state in two patients (17%).

CONCLUSION

Though glutamate plays a major role in seizure perpetuation, the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist PER could only ameliorate seizure activity in a few patients with refractory SE. The long duration of SE before the administration of PER via nasogastric tube, as well as relatively low doses of PER, might be responsible for the modest result. Perampanel was well tolerated, and no adverse events were reported. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Status Epilepticus.

Efficacy of perampanel in refractory nonconvulsive status epilepticus and simple partial status epilepticus

We provide some evidence concerning the efficacy of perampanel (PER) in refractory status epilepticus (SE). We retroactively identified patients with SE treated in our department by searching for the term "status epilepticus" in the electronic archive of medical records. We present and analyze in this paper the subset of data of the patients treated with PER. We analyzed ten episodes of SE in nine patients. At the first administration, PER was given in a dosage of 6mg to most of our patients (7 of 10). On average, PER was administered as the 6th antiepileptic drug (AED) (range: 2-10). Depending on the criterion for efficacy, PER appears effective for the termination of SE in 2 to 6 (of 10) episodes. Unfortunately, safety data for the administration of PER with loading doses needed for the treatment of SE are lacking. Because of this, PER should be used very carefully in refractory SE and only after first-line treatment options have failed.