A retrospective, multicentre study of perampanel given as monotherapy in routine clinical care in people with epilepsy

Impact of Perampanel for First-Episode Seizures versus Usual Care on Clinical Outcome and Safety Profile Aspects of the Thai Experience

Background and Purpose

Epilepsy increases poor outcomes in patients with post-traumatic brain injury and brain tumor-related epilepsy, for whom early seizure control is essential. Perampanel (PER) was a known third-generation antiepileptic drug for treatment all types of seizures. The objective of the study is to compare clinical outcomes and safety of PER administration as monotherapy.

Methods

A prospective study of all 84 patients assigned to PER monotherapy (PER group, n=36) and other first-line antiepileptic drugs (n=48). Clinical outcomes parameters were measured by the prevalence of patients with a diminish in seizure frequency at 50% in 28 days. From November 1, 2020 to April 30, 2024, comparing the PER group with usual care. Clinical outcomes included adherence rate and seizure-free proportion at 28 days and 6 months. Adverse drug reactions were recorded in both groups.

Results

There was no difference in demographic data and incidence of adverse drug reactions between two groups. Median PER dosage was 4 mg (range, 2-12 mg). Compared to other antiepileptic drugs, the PER group had a prevalence of 50% responder rate at 28 days and 6 months significantly were 75%, 81%, 65%, and 51% respectively. Common adverse drug reactions were somnolence and dizziness.

Conclusions

PER administration as monotherapy demonstrated good efficacy and less adverse drug reactions. Low dosages helped to decrease adverse drug reactions and improved retention rate.

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.

Effects of CYP3A4 genetic polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of perampanel in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study was the first to evaluate the effect of CYP3A4 gene polymorphisms on the plasma concentration and effectiveness of perampanel (PER) in Chinese pediatric patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

We enrolled 102 patients for this investigation. The steady-state concentration was determined after patients maintained a consistent PER dosing regimen for at least 21 days. 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 check-up.

RESULTS

The CYP3A4×10 GC phenotype exhibited the highest average plasma concentration of PER at 491.1 ± 328.1 ng/mL, in contrast to the CC phenotype at 334.0 ± 161.1 ng/mL. The incidence of adverse events was most prominent in the CYP3A4×1 G TT and CYP3A4×10 GC groups, with rates of 77.8 % (7 of 9 patients) and 50.0 % (46 of 92 patients), respectively. Moreover, the percentage of patients for whom PER was deemed ineffective was least in the CYP3A4×1 G TT and CYP3A4×10 CC groups, recorded at 11.1 % (1 of 9 patients) and 10.0 % (1 of 10 patients), respectively. There was a significant correlation between PER plasma concentration and either exposure or toxicity (both with p < 0.05). We suggest a plasma concentration range of 625-900 ng/mL as a suitable reference for PER in Chinese patients with epilepsy.

CONCLUSION

The CYP3A4×10 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 CYP3A4 genetic phenotype should be factored in when prescribing PER to patients with epilepsy.

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and Safety of adjunctive Perampanel in a prospective, real-world, Phase IV study in Indian patients aged ≥12 years for Treatment of focal-onset Epilepsy: Study 508

OBJECTIVE

ESPRITE (Study 508; NCT03836924) evaluated the real-world safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in India.

METHODS

ESPRITE was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational, Phase IV study with a 6-month Treatment Period. Patients were aged ≥12 years and had been prescribed perampanel for adjunctive treatment of FOS, with or without FBTCS. Assessments included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; primary endpoint), median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, 50% responder rates, and seizure-freedom rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (199 patients in the Safety Analysis Set and 174 patients who completed all visits in the main efficacy analyses). TEAEs (all mild or moderate in severity) were reported in 18.1% (n = 36/199) of patients (the most common were dizziness [3.0%] and irritability [2.0%]). TEAEs leading to discontinuation of perampanel were reported in 2.0% of patients; no deaths or serious TEAEs occurred. At 6 months, median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 100.0%, 50% responder rate was 83.3%, and seizure-freedom rate was 49.4%.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adjunctive perampanel (at a mean daily dose of 4 mg/day) was shown to be well tolerated and effective in patients aged ≥12 years with FOS, with or without FBTCS, from India.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Many patients do not receive adequate treatment for epilepsy and need effective seizure control medications. In this 6-month clinical study, 199 patients from India, aged 12 years or older, added perampanel to the anti-seizure medications they were already taking. At 6 months, 49% of patients experienced no seizures since starting perampanel and seizure frequency was reduced by half in 83% of patients. Side effects occurred in 18% of patients (most commonly dizziness and irritability) and caused 2% to stop perampanel; no deaths were reported. Perampanel was an effective and generally safe added medication for patients with epilepsy from India.

PERPRISE: A prospective non-interventional study of PERampanel as only adjunctive treatment in patients with PRImary or SEcondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures: First interim analysis

OBJECTIVE

To report the interim results of the PERPRISE study (Study 509; NCT04202159), which is evaluating perampanel as the only adjunctive anti-seizure medication (ASM) in adults with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

PERPRISE is an ongoing 12-month multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional study of perampanel in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients are aged ≥18 years with FBTCS or GTCS due to focal or idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Perampanel, as an adjunctive therapy to ASM monotherapy ('add-on therapy') or as a substitute for one ASM in dual therapy ('substitution therapy'), is prescribed in line with its SmPC. The Interim Analysis Set comprises the first 100 patients who received ≥1 dose of perampanel and attended or discontinued prior to the ~6-month visit. Interim endpoints include retention rate, measures of effects on seizure frequency, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included in the Interim Analysis Set (add-on, n = 43 [43.0%]; substitution, n = 55 [55.0%]; unknown, n = 2). The 6-month retention rate was 78.0% (add-on, 83.7%; substitution, 72.7%). For the overall population with GTCS and/or FBTCS, seizure-freedom rate at 6 months was 58.8% (add-on, 72.2%; substitution, 47.9%) and 50% responder rate at 6 months was 82.6% (add-on, 89.2%; substitution, 76.6%). Retention rates and seizure outcomes were better with perampanel as an early-line treatment than as a late-line treatment. TEAEs were reported by 48 patients (48.0%), most commonly dizziness (n = 9), fatigue (n = 7), and irritability (n = 7). Sixteen patients (16.0%) withdrew from perampanel treatment due to TEAEs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The interim analysis of PERPRISE offers insight into the real-world use of perampanel in Germany, including for the first time, clinical practice data from patients with GTCS and switching ASMs within a dual therapy. Further data from PERPRISE will be of value to inform clinical decision-making in this patient cohort.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Patients with epilepsy often take more than one medication for seizure control. This 12month study looked at patients in Germany receiving perampanel as only add-on medication. The interim analysis shows, that at 6 months, over 70% of the 100 patients continued to use perampanel; 59% experienced no seizures during treatment with perampanel, and in 83%, seizure frequency was reduced by half. Side effects occurred in 48% of patients (most commonly dizziness, fatigue, and irritability) and caused 16% to withdraw from the study. Overall, perampanel was a suitable as only add-on medication for patients with epilepsy.

Optimizing perampanel monotherapy for surgically resected brain tumors

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

Psychiatric and behavioral concerns of perampanel with concomitant levetiracetam in children with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Perampanel (PER) is expanding the therapeutic scope for pediatric epilepsy owing to its efficacy and favorable safety profile. However, concerns about psychiatric and behavioral adverse events (PBAEs) in combination therapy with levetiracetam (LEV) continue to contribute to hesitation in its prescription. We investigated the risk profiles for PBAEs when adding PER to pediatric epilepsy treatment and analyzed the differences according to the presence of concomitant LEV.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of children aged 4-18 years with epilepsy who were prescribed PER as adjunctive therapy from March 2016 to February 2023. We compared the occurrence and management of PBAEs between the PER without LEV and PER with LEV groups. The risk factors for PBAEs were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients (53 boys and 41 girls) were included in this study. The median age of total patients at the time of adding PER was 14.9 years (12.3-16.4 years), and 53 patients (56.4 %) had concomitant LEV. Forty-seven PBAEs occurred in 34 patients (36.2 %), with no significant differences depending on whether concomitant LEV is present or not. The most common PBAEs were aggression (14.9 %), irritability (9.6 %), affect lability (7.4 %), and acute psychosis (6.4 %). PBAEs occurred at a lower dosage (2-6 mg/day) in 70.6 % of the patients. In addition, 73.5 % of patients with PBAEs continued PER treatment by follow-up observation or by reducing the PER dosage. No risk factors, such as the presence of concomitant LEV or lamotrigine, any comorbid conditions, higher PER dosage (8-12 mg/day), two or more concomitant anti-seizure medications, and younger age (<13 years) at PER add-on, showed significant associations.

CONCLUSION

When expanding the use of anti-seizure medications in pediatric patients, real-world evidence on safety issues is crucial for pediatric epileptologists. We confirmed that combination therapy with PER and LEV did not increase the risk profile of PBAEs.

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 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.

Recent Progress in the Development of New Antiepileptic Drugs with Novel Targets

Background

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder that affects approximately 50-70 million people worldwide. Epilepsy has a significant economic and social burden on patients as well as on the country. The recurrent, spontaneous seizure activity caused by abnormal neuronal firing in the brain is a hallmark of epilepsy. The current antiepileptic drugs provide symptomatic relief by restoring the balance of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters. Besides, about 30% of epileptic patients do not achieve seizure control. The prevalence of adverse drug reactions, including aggression, agitation, irritability, and associated comorbidities, is also prevalent. Therefore, researchers should focus on developing more effective, safe, and disease-modifying agents based on new molecular targets and signaling cascades.

Summary

This review overviews several clinical trials that help identify promising new targets like lactate dehydrogenase inhibitors, c-jun n-terminal kinases, high mobility group box-1 antibodies, astrocyte reactivity inhibitors, cholesterol 24-hydroxylase inhibitors, glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta inhibitors, and glycolytic inhibitors to develop a new antiepileptic drug.

Key messages

Approximately 30% of epileptic patients do not achieve seizure control. The current anti-seizure drugs are not disease modifying, cure or prevent epilepsy. Lactate dehydrogenase inhibitor, cholesterol 24-hydroxylase inhibitor, glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta inhibitors, and mTOR inhibitors have a promising antiepileptogenic effect.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Efficacy and Cognitive Impact of Perampanel Monotherapy in Patients with Self-Limited Epilepsy with Centrotemporal Spikes: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective

The third generation of antiepileptic medication (ASM) perampanel (PER), is mostly used as an add-on treatment for refractory epilepsy patients, and rarely used as a monotherapy. This study aims to observe the efficacy and assess the cognitive effects of PER monotherapy in patients with self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTS).

Patients and Methods

Through screening, 86 patients who were first diagnosed with SeLECTS and treated with PER monotherapy were included in this study. All patients were followed up at least 12 months, and Evaluated the efficacy and safety of PER by observing the seizures of patients. At the same time, we used the P300 event-related potential (ERP) component and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) to evaluate the cognitive changes in children before and after treatment with PER.

Results

Ten percent of the children experienced adverse effects, such as dizziness, gait instability, and irritability. The drug retention rate at the last follow-up was 98.83%. Further more, the P300 ERP component and WISC-IV tests were performed no significant difference before and 12 months after PER monotherapy in SeLECTS children.

Conclusion

The third-generation of ASM PER monotherapy had a clear effect in children with SeLECTS. A small dose of PER can control seizures well and has no obvious effect on cognitive development.

Effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy

Objective

To examine the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as initial monotherapy in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy who were treated with PER at the Epilepsy Center of Jinan Children's Hospital from July 2021 to July 2022. The treatment status, prognosis, and adverse reactions were followed up for a minimum of 6 months after the initiation of PER monotherapy. The effectiveness of the patients was estimated by the PER effective rate at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up evaluations and adverse reactions were also recorded. The effective rates of PER in different etiologies and epilepsy syndromes were also statistically analyzed.

Results

The effective rates of PER treatment at the different time points of evaluation were 88.7% (3 months), 79.1% (6 months), and 80.4% (12 months). With PER treatment, seizure freedom varied over time, with 61.3%, 71.0%, and 71.7% of patients at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. Among the etiologies of epilepsy, the effective rates of genetic etiology, structural etiology, and unknown etiology were generally above 50% at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Among the epilepsy syndromes, the categories with higher treatment efficacy were self-limiting epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (SeLECTs), self-limited epilepsy with autonomic seizures (SeLEAS), and childhood occipital visual epilepsy (COVE), with an effective rate of above 80%. Adverse events were documented in 22 patients (35.5%), but they were mild and tolerable. The most common adverse events comprised irritability, drowsiness, dizziness, and increased appetite.

Conclusion

PER has favorable effectiveness and tolerability as initial monotherapy for children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy, which could be a potential option for long-term medication in the treatment of focal epilepsy in children. The current study provided potential evidence for PER as initial monotherapy in children with focal epilepsy in clinical practice.

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

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

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in patients with seizures in real-world clinical practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as add-on treatment or monotherapy in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older in routine clinical practice.

Methods: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for observational studies of PER published up to 1 March 2022. The outcomes of interest were responder rates, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential factors that might affect the efficacy and safety of PER usage.

Results: A total of 56 studies, which included 10,688 patients, were enrolled. The results showed that after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, the pooled 50% responder rates in patients with epilepsy were 50.0% (95% CI: 0.41–0.60), 44.0% (95% CI: 0.38–0.50), and 39.0% (95% CI: 0.31–0.48), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 24.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.32), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.17–0.25), and 20.0% (95% CI: 0.16–0.24), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy of PER could be affected by the way in which PER is administrated. Patients in the groups where PER was used as the first add-on, primary monotherapy, or combined with non–enzyme-inducing AEDs (non-EIAEDs) displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate when compared with those in the late add-on, conversion therapy, or combined with the EIAEDs groups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment were 46% (95% CI: 0.38–0.55), 52.0% (95% CI: 0.43–0.60), and 46.0% (95% CI: 0.40–0.52), respectively. The withdrawal rates due to AEs were 8.0% (95% CI: 0.06–0.11), 16.0% (95% CI: 0.13–0.20), and 16% (95% CI: 0.11–0.21) at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed a higher withdrawal rate in the rapid (30%, 95% CI: 0.22–0.38) than in the slow (12%, 95% CI: 0.06–0.18) titration group.

Conclusion: Altogether, PER was effective and could be fairly tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage in patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, PER appeared to be more effective when PER was used as the first add-on, monotherapy, or concomitant with non-EIAEDs.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022384532.

Effect of Serum Perampanel Concentration on Sporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Progression

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Perampanel Monotherapy for Focal and Generalized Epilepsy in Clinical Practice

Objectives. To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as monotherapy to treat focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, using data from the PERMIT study. Methods. PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with focal and generalized epilepsy were treated with PER. This post hoc analysis included people with epilepsy (PWE) from PERMIT who were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Effectiveness assessments included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results. Overall, 268 PWE were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention was assessed for 168 PWE, effectiveness for 183 PWE, and safety and tolerability for 197 PWE. Retention rates were 91.1%, 87.3%, and 73.3% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. At 12 months, responder rates were 84.2% overall, 82.9% in PWE with only focal-onset seizures at baseline, and 88.0% in those with only generalized-onset seizures at baseline; corresponding freedom rates were 62.9%, 57.7%, and 80.0%, respectively. AEs were reported for 45.2% of PWE. The most frequently reported AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (16.8%), irritability (11.2%), somnolence (9.1%), and depression (6.6%). Over 12 months, 13.7% discontinued due to AEs. Conclusions. PER was effective when used as monotherapy in clinical practice, particularly in those with generalized-onset seizures, and was generally well tolerated.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Effectiveness of perampanel in the treatment of pediatric patients with focal epilepsy and ESES: A single-center retrospective study

Objective: To investigate the therapeutic effect and influencing factors of perampanel (PER) on electrical status epilepticus during sleep (ESES).

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of pediatric patients with focal epilepsy and ESES who were treated at the Epilepsy Center of Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between January 2016 and March 2022. Changes in the spike wave index (SWI) after 24 weeks of PER add-on treatment were compared. Kaplan‒Meier survival analysis, the log-rank test and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed.

Results: A total of 54 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria, including 33 males and 21 females. The mean age at the diagnosis of epilepsy was 6.41 ± 2.14 years and at ESES diagnosis was 7.58 ± 2.40 years. The mean ESES duration before add-on PER was 25.31 ± 15.12 months. The mean age of the patients at add-on PER initiation was 9.69 ± 2.12 years. The ESES resolved in 29 children after 6 months of PER add-on treatment, and the response rate was 53.7%. Univariate analysis with the log-rank test showed that the therapeutic effect of PER differed according to the age at ESES diagnosis and ESES duration before add-on PER treatment. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that only ESES duration before PER administration was a risk factor for PER treatment failure, and the other factors had no effect on the therapeutic effect.

Conclusion: PER add-on treatment has a good therapeutic effect on ESES and can be used as an alternative to corticosteroid and benzodiazepines. The therapeutic effect of PER add-on treatment was not related to the dose. A longer ESES duration results in a worse therapeutic effect. Therefore, more aggressive treatment measures should be implemented for ESES.

Perampanel and childhood absence epilepsy: A real life experience

Objectives

The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) as first add-on and as second line monotherapy in subjects with childhood absence epilepsy.

Methods

Our sample consisted of 20 patients with childhood absence epilepsy, aged between 8 and 10, already in therapy with a first antiseizure medication with incomplete seizure control. PER was added as first add-on in a dose ranging from 3 to 8 mg/die with 1- 2 mg/week increments. The patients that were seizure-free were shifted to a PER monotherapy. All patients underwent a standardized neuropsychological evaluation in order to assess non-verbal intelligence and executive functions before adding PER and after 6 months of drug therapy. All parents completed two questionnaires, in order to assess the emotional-behavioral problems and parental stress.

Results

15/20 patients responded to add-on PER and were seizure-free, in 3/20 patients we observed a reduction of seizure frequency <50%, and in the 2 remaining patients the add-on therapy with PER did not lead to a reduction in seizures frequency from baseline. The patients who were seizure-free were switched to PER monotherapy. 9/15 patients remained seizure-free in monotherapy with PER. In the first month of therapy with PER 2/20 patients (10%) reported mild, transient side effects of irritability, headache and dizziness, which did not lead to discontinuation of therapy. Adjunctive treatment with PER did not negatively affect non-verbal intelligence, executive functions, emotional/behavioral symptoms of children and parental stress levels.

Significance

Our clinical experience in real life showed that PER appears to be effective in the control of absence seizures in childhood absence epilepsy, with a favorable tolerability profile. PER would seem effective on absence seizures even in monotherapy. Further studies with larger samples, longer follow-up and controlled vs. placebo (or other first choice antiseizure medications) are needed to confirm our data.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Patients Diagnosed with Epilepsy Being Treated with Perampanel

Background

Epilepsy is a complex disorder that can affect patients’ medical, psychological, and social well-being. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), satisfaction, and adherence in adult patients diagnosed with epilepsy treated with perampanel in the United States (US).

Methods

A US-based, multicenter, observational cross-sectional survey was completed by 61 patients taking perampanel with or without other antiseizure medications (ASMs). Respondents were ≥18 years old, had a physician-confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy, used perampanel for ≥4 months, and provided informed consent. Patients responded to questions concerning their demographic characteristics, treatment history, experiences before perampanel, experiences while taking perampanel, HRQoL, treatment satisfaction, and medication adherence.

Results

Patients (N=61) were 42.8 years old on average; majority were female (63.9%) and white (75.4%). Mean time on perampanel was 2.5 years, with sodium channel blockers often (55.7%) used concomitantly with perampanel. Patients reported, on average, 5.5 (standard deviation [SD]=13.2) seizures/month after initiating perampanel, whereas these same patients reported experiencing 20.4 (SD=60.0) seizures/month prior to perampanel. When comparing their experience on perampanel with their experience with previous ASMs, more patients “strongly agreed” that perampanel allowed them to live a more normal life (36.1% vs 27.5%) and worked as intended if they missed taking a dose (16.4% vs 7.8%). Average satisfaction scores were high, with ratings of 71.8 for effectiveness, 84.0 for convenience, and 71.9 for global satisfaction (0–100 scores). Perampanel use was associated with improvements in HRQoL and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. The majority of patients were adherent (62.3%) to perampanel.

Discussion

Perampanel use was associated with reductions in number of seizures, better HRQoL, and high adherence rates. These results provide initial evidence that perampanel can be an effective, tolerable, and valid option for patients with epilepsy in the real world.

Perampanel-Induced Psychosis in a Young Woman: A Case Report

OBJECTIVES

A case of perampanel-induced psychosis in a young woman is reported, a side effect that has only rarely been reported in the literature.

METHODS

We describe a case of a young woman with epilepsy and no psychiatric history with perampanel-associated altered behavior and psychotic symptoms, requiring hospitalization in an acute psychiatry ward. We also provide a literature review on the possible neurobiological pathways implicated.

RESULTS

Perampanel is believed to block a small proportion of the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor current, retarding epileptiform discharges while sparing most normal synaptic transmission. Most common adverse events are related to central nervous system (including dizziness, drowsiness, blurred vision and imbalance) and psychiatric symptoms have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The biological vulnerability to psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions of antiepileptic drugs is multifactorial and different mechanisms and clinical predisposing factors may interact. For this reason, patients starting these antiseizure drugs need long-term and comprehensive clinical monitoring.

A retrospective, real-world experience of perampanel monotherapy in patient with first new onset focal seizure: A Thailand experience

Objective

Real‐world data on efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in treatment‐naïve patients with focal onset seizures (FOS) and/or focal‐to‐bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS) to assess efficacy effectiveness and tolerability.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of study patients with new FOS with or without FBTCS, aged ≥15 years, who had been prescribed PER as monotherapy. Treatment outcome included retention rate, responder, and seizure‐free rate at observational point 3, 6, and 12 months (OP3, OP6, and OP12). Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions were recorded.

Results

A total of 41 patients enrolled in the study (male:female; 17:22, mean age =46.1 ± 21.8 years), with new FOS and/or FBTCS. The proportions of individuals remaining on PER monotherapy at 3, 6, and 12 months were evaluated. The median PER dosage was 4 mg (range 2‐8 mg). The retention rates at OP3, OP6, and OP12 were 88%, 73%, and 61%, respectively. The seizure freedom rates at OP3, OP6, and OP12 were 78%, 80%, and 76%, respectively. About 14% had discontinued the PER monotherapy because of lack of efficacy. Sixteen individuals (41%) had TEAEs; common AEs were dizziness, somnolence, and ataxia; and only one case had depression. The AEs with somnolence and ataxia were found higher in elderly (15% and 30%) than adult patients (7% and 3%), respectively. Only 14% had intolerant adverse events, and it was found higher in elderly (23%).

Significance

Real‐world data of PER monotherapy in treatment‐naïve patients with focal onset seizures demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile at relatively low doses. By starting with low dosage and slow titration of PER help to minimize the impact of adverse effects, maximize adherence, and increase patient retention. PER has a once‐daily dosing schedule that supports patient adherence contributes to achieving seizure freedom.

Risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects associated with perampanel therapy

PURPOSE

To identify the risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects associated with perampanel therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the adverse effects of perampanel by reviewing clinical records from 895 Japanese patients with epilepsy (aged 1-86 years) who started perampanel therapy at National Epilepsy Center, Shizuoka, Japan, between June 2016 and December 2019. Patients were classified into 3 groups: those without adverse effects (Group I), those with psychiatric adverse effects (Group II), and those with common adverse effects (Group III).

RESULTS

The number of patients assigned to each group was as follows: Group I, n = 641; Group II, n = 93; and Group III, n = 161. The mean follow-up period was 458 ± 265 days (median, 511 days). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed that the median time to treatment failure was shorter in Group II than in Group III (294 vs. 392 days, respectively; log-rank test, p < 0.001). According to polytomous logistic regression, younger age (<16 years) was associated with a lower risk of common and psychiatric adverse effects. The risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects (Group II) were intellectual disability (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-4.5) and psychiatric comorbidity (AOR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.3-6.3); in patients with intellectual disability, the occurrence of psychiatric adverse effects was concentration dependent. Patients with lamotrigine use had a 0.54-fold lower risk of psychiatric adverse effects. In Group III, concomitant use of inducers was associated with a decreased risk of common adverse effects (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

SIGNIFICANCE

We found clear differences in the risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects. In patients with intellectual disability, care must be taken when titrating perampanel, and therapeutic drug monitoring should be performed.

PERMIT study: a global pooled analysis study of the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in routine clinical practice

The PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study was a pooled analysis of data from 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with epilepsy (PWE; focal and generalized) were treated with perampanel (PER). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included 50% responder rate (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit); in PWE with status epilepticus, response was defined as seizures under control. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. The Full Analysis Set included 5193 PWE. Retention, effectiveness and safety/tolerability were assessed in 4721, 4392 and 4617, respectively. Retention on PER treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months was 90.5%, 79.8%, and 64.2%, respectively. Mean retention time on PER treatment was 10.8 months. The 50% responder rate was 58.3% at 12 months and 50.0% at the last visit, and the corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively; 52.7% of PWE with status epilepticus responded to PER treatment. Overall, 49.9% of PWE reported AEs and the most frequently reported AEs (≥ 5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (15.2%), somnolence (10.6%), irritability (8.4%), and behavioral disorders (5.4%). At 12 months, 17.6% of PWEs had discontinued due to AEs. PERMIT demonstrated that PER is effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal and/or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice.

Liquid chromatographic methods for determination of the new antiepileptic drugs stiripentol, retigabine, rufinamide and perampanel: A comprehensive and critical review

The new antiepileptic drugs perampanel, retigabine, rufinamide and stiripentol have been recently approved for different epilepsy types. Being them an innovation in the antiepileptics armamentarium, a lot of investigations regarding their pharmacological properties are yet to be performed. Besides, considering their broad anticonvulsant activities, an extension of their therapeutic indications may be worthy of investigation, especially regarding other seizure types as well as other central nervous system disorders. Although different liquid chromatographic (LC) methods coupled with ultraviolet, fluorescence, mass or tandem-mass spectrometry detection have already been developed for the determination of perampanel, retigabine, rufinamide and stiripentol, new and more cost-effective methods are yet required. Therefore, this review summarizes the main analytical aspects regarding the liquid chromatographic methods developed for the analysis of perampanel, retigabine (and its main active metabolite), rufinamide and stiripentol in biological samples and pharmaceutical dosage forms. Furthermore, the physicochemical and stability properties of the target compounds will also be addressed. Thus, this review gathers, for the first time, important background information on LC methods that have been developed and applied for the determination of perampanel, retigabine, rufinamide and stiripentol, which should be considered as a starting point if new (bio)analytical techniques are aimed to be implemented for these drugs.

Optimal Use of Perampanel in Asian Patients with Epilepsy: Expert Opinion

Perampanel is a once-daily, first-in-class AMPA receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of epilepsy and exhibits broad-spectrum efficacy in a range of seizure types when used as both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Clinical studies and real-world evidence have demonstrated the advantages of initiating perampanel at low doses and utilizing a slow titration strategy. Initiating perampanel at an early stage has also been shown to be associated with better patient outcomes. However, the optimal use and place of perampanel in clinical practice has not yet been clearly defined for the Asian patient population. Use of perampanel in clinical practice varies markedly across the Asia region because of variation in knowledge, attitudes, and practice. There is currently no specific guidance on best practices for prescribing perampanel in Asian patients or how to optimize treatment strategies to maximize adherence. A group of epilepsy experts attended a virtual meeting in September 2020 to discuss their experience with using perampanel in the Asian practice setting, including their views regarding appropriate patient populations, optimal starting and maintenance doses, optimal titration regimens, key barriers to adherence, and prevention and management of adverse events. This article summarizes key clinical and real-world evidence for perampanel and consolidates the experts’ opinions on optimization of perampanel prescribing and adherence in real-world practice, providing practical strategies for clinicians to implement to improve outcomes for people with epilepsy in Asia.

Perampanel dosage in plasma samples: development and validation of a novel HPLC method with combined UV-Fluorescence detection

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a recognized method to improve the quality of use of antiepileptic drugs, such as perampanel (PRP). It is the first compound in the class of selective non-competitive antagonists of AMPA receptors approved in 2012 in Europe and United States for adjunctive therapy of partial seizures. Although several studies have recently underlined that a general reference range for PRP plasmatic concentration might be difficult to propose, TDM of this drug is important in specific clinical situations, as hepatic or renal impairment or co-administration with enzyme-inducing antiepileptics. Several methods have been described in literature for the determination of PRP in different biological matrices, which include the use of liquid chromatography methods coupled with ultraviolet, fluorescence, mass or tandem-mass spectrometry detection. Here we describe the development and validation of a novel method for the measurement of PRP in plasma samples, based on a HPLC-UV/FL double detection approach and using ketoprofen as internal standard. PRP concentration in a small subset of plasma samples of treated patients was evaluated using both our approach and a commercially available CE-IVD LC-MS/MS method. The results obtained were compared, and confirmed the possibility to use our method as an alternative to LC-MS/MS in clinical routine.

Perampanel and Visuospatial Skills in Children With Epilepsy

Introduction: Perampanel (PER) is a non-competitive AMPA glutamate receptor antagonist approved for focal and generalized seizures as add-on therapy. PER does not seem to negatively affect the cognitive profile in children and adolescents, but its influence on visuospatial abilities is still to be assessed. The aim of our study was to assess visuospatial skills through a standardized neuropsychological evaluation in adolescents taking PER for 12 months.

Methods: Our sample included 46 adolescents aged 12–18 years with focal and generalized drug-resistant epilepsy already in therapy with one or two antiseizure medications. Changes in visuospatial perception and memory were assessed by the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test at baseline (before taking PER) and after 12 months of pharmacological treatment. Executive functions and non-verbal intelligence were also assessed at baseline.

Results: After 12 months of PER therapy, the mean scores on the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test remained almost unchanged for both visuospatial perception and visuospatial memory skills. At baseline, visuospatial memory was related to executive function, and visuospatial perception was related to executive function and non-verbal intelligence.

Conclusions: Adjunctive treatment with PER did not negatively affect visuospatial skills. No adverse event effects have been reported after 12 months of follow-up, and this suggests a good tolerability in the middle-to-long term.

Behavioral adverse events with brivaracetam, levetiracetam, perampanel, and topiramate: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To understand the currently available post-marketing real-world evidence of the incidences of and discontinuations due to the BAEs of irritability, anger, and aggression in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated with the anti-seizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), as well as behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in PWE switching from LEV to BRV.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase was performed to identify retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting the incidence of irritability, anger, or aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, or TPM in PWE. The incidences of these BAEs and the rates of discontinuation due to each were categorized by ASM, and where possible, weighted means were calculated but not statistically assessed. Behavioral and psychiatric adverse events in PWE switching from LEV to BRV were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 records were identified in the searches. Of these, 44 published articles reporting 42 studies met the study criteria and were included in the data synthesis, 7 studies were identified in the clinical trial database, and 5 studies included PWE switching from LEV to BRV. Studies included a variety of methods, study populations, and definitions of BAEs. While a wide range of results was reported across studies, weighted mean incidences were 5.6% for BRV, 9.9% for LEV, 12.3% for PER, and 3.1% for TPM for irritability; 3.3%* for BRV, 2.5% for LEV, 2.0% for PER, and 0.2%* for TPM for anger; and 2.5% for BRV, 2.6% for LEV, 4.4% for PER, and 0.5%* for TPM for aggression. Weighted mean discontinuation rates were 0.8%* for BRV, 3.4% for LEV, 3.0% for PER, and 2.2% for TPM for irritability and 0.8%* for BRV, 2.4% for LEV, 9.2% for PER, and 1.2%* for TPM for aggression. There were no discontinuations for anger. Switching from LEV to BRV led to improvement in BAEs in 33.3% to 83.0% of patients (weighted mean, 66.6%). *Denotes only 1 study.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review characterizes the incidences of irritability, anger, and aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, and TPM, and it provides robust real-world evidence demonstrating that switching from LEV to BRV may improve BAEs. While additional data remain valuable due to differences in methodology (which make comparisons difficult), these results improve understanding of the real-world incidences of discontinuations due to these BAEs in clinical practice and can aid in discussions and treatment decision-making with PWE.

Clinical experience on the use of perampanel in epilepsy among child neurologists in the Philippines

BACKGROUND

Perampanel is the latest anti-seizure medication introduced in the Philippines in 2015. This was initially approved as an adjunctive treatment for focal seizures and those with secondary generalization among individuals 12 years old and above. By March 2020, it has been approved also for generalized seizures and in children 4 years and above. The general objective of this research is to describe the clinical experience of Filipino child neurologists on the use of perampanel in children.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional descriptive study that surveyed child neurologists with review of medical records of children who have received perampanel as either an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy for epilepsy.

RESULTS

There were 65 patients included in the study aged 1 to 18 years with a mean age of 10.0 ± 5.2 years and a median of 10 years. Follow-up duration were between 2 weeks to more than a year. Perampanel was started in 98.5% as an add-on treatment between 5 months and 18 years of age. The responder rate is 69.2% (45/65), seizure-free rate is 29.2% (19/65), seizure-aggravation rate is 9.2% (6/65), and perampanel retention rate is 83.1% (54/65). Treatment emergent adverse events were noted in 53.8% of the children with somnolence (20.0%), gait problems (12.3%), weight gain (10.8%) and dizziness (9.2%) as the most common events experienced. Dizziness was experienced significantly more among children 12 to 18 years of age.

CONCLUSION

Perampanel is seen to be effective and relatively safe to use among Filipino children.

Perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy: Interim analysis of a phase IV study

Objective

To assess the retention rate, efficacy, safety, and dosing of perampanel administered to patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care in the retrospective phase IV, PROVE Study (NCT03208660).

Methods

Exposure, efficacy, and safety data were obtained from the medical records of patients initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, across 29 US study sites. The cutoff date for this interim analysis was October 10, 2018. The primary efficacy endpoint was retention rate. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency, seizure-freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect.

Results

All enrolled patients (N = 1121) received perampanel. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 16.6 (14.7) months; overall mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.7 (2.7) mg. Perampanel uptitration occurred weekly (21.1%), biweekly (23.8%), every 3 weeks (1.5%), other (43.3%), and unknown (10.3%). Across the Safety Analysis Set (N = 1121), retention rate on perampanel at 24 months was 49.5% (n = 319/645).At 12 months, the median reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline in the small number of patients for whom data were available was 75.0% (n = 85), and 30/85 (35.3%) patients were seizure free. Based on investigator impression at the end of treatment, improvement, no change (ie, stable), or worsening of seizures was reported in 54.3%, 33.7%, and 12.0% of patients, respectively.Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 500 (44.6%) patients; the most common were dizziness (9.2%), aggression (5.4%), and irritability (4.5%). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 32 (2.9%) patients.

Significance

Favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ≥12 months following initiation of perampanel during routine clinical care in patients with epilepsy.

HLAs associated with perampanel-induced psychiatric adverse effects in a Korean population

Perampanel (PER) is a new-generation antiepileptic drug that has an occasional but significant shortcoming, psychiatric adverse effects (PAEs). Recently, antiepileptic drug-related adverse reactions, such as skin rash and even PAEs, have been discovered to be correlated with certain human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types. Thus, we aimed to analyze specific HLA alleles as risk factors for PER-PAEs. We prospectively enrolled 17 patients with epilepsy who were prescribed PER between May 2016 and Jul 2018 at Seoul National University Hospital and developed PAEs while taking PER. Their HLA types were analyzed compared to those of 19 patients in the PAE-tolerant group and the general Korean population. In silico docking was performed with two different computational programs, AutoDock Vina and SwissDock, to theoretically evaluate the binding affinity of PER in the grooves of the specific HLA alleles. The HLA-DQB1*06:01, DRB1*08:03, and B*54:01 alleles were significantly associated with the patients who developed PER-PAEs compared with the general Korean population (odds ratio [OR] 3.94, p = 0.008, OR 9.24, p = 0.037, and OR 3.25, p = 0.041, respectively). As a haplotype, the combination of the three alleles was significantly more frequent in the PER-PAE group than in both the PER-tolerant group and the general Korean population. DQB1*06:01 and B*54:01 also demonstrated higher docking scores with PER than other alleles. This is the first study to analyze the association of PER-PAEs with specific HLA genotypes. Our results suggest that an HLA-associated genetic predisposition and a possible immunological mechanism are involved in the occurrence of PER-PAEs.

Changes in perampanel levels during de-induction: Simulations following carbamazepine discontinuation

Objective

To evaluate the time course of changes in perampanel levels when co‐administered with carbamazepine, and following carbamazepine discontinuation, using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model.

Methods

The PBPK model was developed, verified using clinical PK data, and used to simulate the effect of abrupt discontinuation and down‐titration (75 mg twice daily [bid]/wk) of co‐administered carbamazepine 300 mg bid on the PK of perampanel once daily (qd). Perampanel dose tapering (8‐4 mg) and up‐titration (2‐6 mg) were simulated during abrupt carbamazepine 300 mg bid discontinuation to identify a titration schedule that minimizes changes in perampanel plasma concentrations.

Results

The PBPK model accurately reproduced perampanel plasma concentration‐time profiles from clinical studies in single‐ and multiple‐dose regimen simulations, including multiple‐dose carbamazepine co‐administration. The time course of return to pre‐induced perampanel levels occurred more slowly following carbamazepine down‐titration (~48 days after first down‐titration) vs abrupt discontinuation (~25 days). Perampanel dose tapering (8‐4 mg) at abrupt carbamazepine discontinuation produced minimal changes in steady‐state concentrations, which returned to the levels observed during carbamazepine co‐administration in ~15 days from the time of carbamazepine discontinuation. When perampanel was up‐titrated in the presence of carbamazepine, return to steady state occurred more slowly when carbamazepine was down‐titrated weekly (~45 days) vs abrupt discontinuation (~24 days).

Conclusion

This PBPK model simulated and predicted optimal perampanel dose tapering and up‐titration schedules for maintaining perampanel levels during conversion to monotherapy. These results may guide physicians when managing conversion from perampanel polytherapy with concomitant enzyme‐inducing anti‐seizure medications to monotherapy.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) monotherapy in routine clinical practice for the treatment of focal onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients aged ≥12 years treated with PER as primary monotherapy or converted to PER monotherapy by progressive reduction of background antiepileptic drugs. Outcomes included retention, responder, and seizure-free rate after 3, 6, and 12 months and tolerability throughout the follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 21.7 years, 51% female) with focal seizures and/or GTCS were treated with PER monotherapy for a median exposure of 14 months (range = 1-57) with a median dose of 4 mg (range = 2-10). The retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months and last follow-up were 93.8%, 89.3%, 80.9%, and 71.4%, respectively. The retention rates according to the type of monotherapy (primary vs conversion) did not differ (log-rank P value = .57). Among the 98 patients, 61.2% patients had seizures throughout the baseline period, with a median seizure frequency of 0.6 seizures per month (range = 0.3-26). Responder rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 79.6%, 70.1%, and 52.8%, respectively, and seizure freedom rates at the same points were 62.7%, 56.1%, and 41.5%. Regarding the 33 patients who had GTCS in the baseline period, 87.8% were seizure-free at 3 months, 78.1% at 6 months, and 55.1% at 12 months. Over the entire follow-up, PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated, and only 16% of patients discontinued PER due to adverse events (AEs). Female patients were found to be at a higher risk of psychiatric AEs (female vs male odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 1-8.33, P = .046).

SIGNIFICANCE

PER demonstrated good effectiveness and a good safety profile when used as primary therapy or conversion to monotherapy at relatively low doses, in a clinical setting with patients with focal seizures and GTCS.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy in patients with focal-onset seizures with newly diagnosed epilepsy or recurrence of epilepsy after a period of remission: The open-label Study 342 (FREEDOM Study)

Objective

Our study assessed perampanel monotherapy in patients (aged ≥12 years) with focal‐onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal to bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS) in Japan and South Korea.

Methods

Study 342 (NCT03201900; FREEDOM) is a single‐arm, open‐label, Phase III study. Patients initially received perampanel in a 32‐week 4‐mg/d Treatment Phase (6‐week Titration; 26‐week Maintenance Periods). If they experienced a seizure during the 4‐mg/d Maintenance Period, they could be up‐titrated to 8 mg/d across an additional 30‐week Treatment Phase (4‐week Titration; 26‐week Maintenance Periods). Primary endpoint was the seizure‐freedom rate during the Maintenance Period (4 mg/d and last evaluated dose [4 or 8 mg/d]). Secondary endpoints included time to first seizure onset and to withdrawal during Maintenance. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored.

Results

At data cutoff (February 28, 2019), 89 patients with FOS (84 [94.4%] with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 5 [5.6%] with recurrence of epilepsy after a period of remission) had received ≥1 perampanel dose; 16 patients discontinued during the 4‐mg/d Titration Period, meaning 73 patients entered the 4‐mg/d Maintenance Period and were included in the primary analysis set for efficacy. Seizure‐freedom rate in the 26‐week Maintenance Period was 46/73 (63.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.9‐74.0) at 4 mg/d and 54/73 (74.0%; 95% CI: 62.4‐83.5) at 4 or 8 mg/d. Cumulative probability of seizure‐onset and withdrawal rates during Maintenance was 30.8% (95% CI: 21.5‐43.0) and 23.7% (95% CI: 15.4‐35.3) at 4 mg/d, and 18.2% (95% CI: 11.0‐29.3) and 23.3% (95% CI: 15.2‐34.8) at 4 or 8 mg/d. Perampanel was generally well tolerated, and the most common TEAE was dizziness.

Significance

Perampanel monotherapy (4 to 8 mg/d) was efficacious and consistent with the known safety profile up to 26 weeks in patients (≥12 years) with primarily newly diagnosed FOS with or without FBTCS.

Perampanel tolerability in children and adolescents with focal epilepsy: Effects on behavior and executive functions

OBJECTIVES

Perampanel (PER) is a noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) glutamate receptor antagonist recently approved for focal and generalized epilepsies as an add-on therapy. It is well tolerated and effective as treatment of various pediatric epilepsy syndromes; PER does not seem to negatively affect the cognitive profile of children and adolescents, but its influence on executive functions is still to be assessed.

METHODS

Our sample included 37 children aged 12-18 years, with focal pharmacoresistant epilepsy already in therapy with 2 or 3 antiepileptic drug (AED); PER was added with 1 mg/week increments up to a dose of 2-4 mg/day. Changes in executive functions were assessed by the EpiTrack Junior test. Emotional and behavioral aspects were evaluated through the interview for parents Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Both tests were performed before taking PER and after 6 and 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

After 12 months of PER in 22/30 patients, global score of the EpiTrack Junior test remained almost unchanged; in 7/30 patients, this score improved. The CBCL did not show significant changes in emotional or behavioral problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive treatment with PER did not negatively affect executive functions that could also be improved. No emotional/behavioral negative effects have been reported, and this suggests a good tolerability in the middle/long term.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in patients with genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE): A retrospective, single-center study from the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

•52.4% achieved seizure freedom at six months from baseline in our cohort of PWE from the UAE.•38.1% achieved ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency at six months from baseline.•90.5% remained on perampanel treatment beyond the six-month period.•33.3% maintained perampanel monotherapy beyond six months.•9.5% discontinued perampanel treatment due to treatment-induced adverse events.

The safety of treating newly diagnosed epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is a serious chronic neurological disorder manifested by an enduring symptomatic predisposition to seizures. Newly diagnosed individuals face increased morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic costs. Anti-epileptic drug therapy is the treatment usually prescribed, which has efficacy in seizure control and mitigating long-term mortality.

AREAS COVERED

Safety of anti-epileptic drug therapy in adults with a focus in newly diagnosed patients. Areas covered include the most commonly experienced adverse drug effects, as well as those with the highest impacts on drug tolerability, quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Evidence was also reviewed to identify clinical strategies to improve the safety of anti-epileptic drug therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) are mostly effective and well tolerated. However, a lack of standardised reporting of adverse drug effects in trials and in clinical practice provides an obstacle for evaluation of which adverse drug effects need to be prioritised in management. Improvement in the reporting of cognitive and other effects, as well as improved precision medicine and pharmacogenomics to target the incidence of high-mortality idiosyncratic reactions, will help to reduce the harm of AEDs in people newly diagnosed with epilepsy.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for the clinical efficacy of perampanel in focal onset seizures

INTRODUCTION

Medical therapy is the mainstay of management of epilepsy. Despite the increasing number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), approximately one-third of epileptic patients do not have adequate control of seizures. There is still a need for the development of new AEDs with enhanced effectiveness and tolerability. Areas covered: The present manuscript is based on an Internet and PubMed search (January 2005 to August 2018). It is focused on pharmacokinetic and clinical data of perampanel (PER) for the treatment of epilepsy. Expert opinion: PER has a novel mechanism of action, which opens up new options for a rational combination therapy. Phase III trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of PER as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS) and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients aged ≥12 years. PER is also approved by FDA as monotherapy for the treatment of POS. A clinical trial is ongoing to verify the efficacy and safety of PER monotherapy in untreated patients with POS. In the future, head-to-head comparisons are needed to determine the exact position of PER relative to other AEDs. Moreover, further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PER in patients aged <12 years.

ABBREVIATIONS

4βOHC: 4β-hydroxycholesterol; AUC: area under the curve; CBZ: Carbamazepine; CLCr: creatinine clearance; Cmax: maximum plasma concentration; CYP: cytochrome P; EIAED: enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drug; EMA: European Medicines Agency; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; GI: gastrointestinal; OXC: oxcarbazepine; PER: perampanel; PGTC: primary generalized tonic-clonic; PHT: phenytoin; POS: partial-onset seizures; QD: once-daily; TEAE: treatment-emergent adverse event; Tmax: median time to reach peak concentration; UGT: uridine diphosphoglucose-glucuronosyltransferase; VPA: valproic acid.