Levetiracetam, perampanel, and the issue of aggression: A self-report study

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.

Normalization and cross-sectional validation of an extended Adverse Event Profile (E AEP) in a large cohort of patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

The Liverpool Adverse Event Profile (L AEP) is commonly used in clinical practice and pharmacological trials for the monitoring of side effects of anti-seizure medication (ASM). However potentially unrelated, additional symptoms and normative data should be considered to put patients´ complaints into perspective.

METHODS

An extended 32-item AEP (E AEP) was given to 537 healthy subjects and 1,605 patients with epilepsy as part of the Bonn ASM side effect registry. The tool was factor-analyzed, corrected for age, gender, and repeated application, and related to drug load and individual substances (with N> 100) on item and scale level (total E AEP and its subscales cognition, dizziness, energy, mood, bodily symptoms, aggression, and sexuality).

RESULTS

Compared to non-normalized results, at item level, between one and two-thirds of responses suggesting impairment were found to be unlikely to be related to ASM treatment after normalization. Binary regression analyses revealed differential effects of medication choice, but also of antidepressants and neuroleptics on complaint domains. The explained variance was better for physical than psychological domains. The results reflect both known drug side effects and indications. Patients´ explicit attribution of problems to their medications barely improved the correlation of the E AEP and treatment parameters.

CONCLUSION

Application of a norm-referenced AEP is highly recommended to avoid overestimation of treatment related problems in patients with epilepsy. It allows evaluation on item and scale level for individuals as well as groups in drug trials. Plausible relations to individual drugs and to drug load can be demonstrated. The explanatory power was better for physical than psychological domains. Drug-related complaint patterns reflect known drug side effects (e.g. perampanel and brivaracetam with aggression) as well as drug indications (e.g. lamotrigine for depression). This is likely to be particularly relevant when side effects may have affected treatment decisions. Longitudinal evaluation with repeated application of the E AEP with changes of drug treatment is in progress.

Differences in aggression as psychiatric side effect of levetiracetam and perampanel in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

Aggression is the most commonly encountered antiepileptic-drug (AED)-induced psychiatric adverse effects. Levetiracetam (LEV) is well known to be associated with increased rates of aggression, while perampanel (PER) is also recognized as a potentially aggression-promoting agent, though opinions vary. However, few studies have addressed questions regarding whether the nature of irritability-aggression differs between those drugs. The present study used a standardized rating scale to examine aggression among patient with epilepsy who received LEV or PER using specific measures to confirm the effects of the drugs.

METHODS

We enrolled 144 consecutive outpatients receiving treatment for epilepsy with LEV (n = 103) or PER (n = 41), and determined their effects regarding aggression using the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ). For analysis, total BAQ scores for the LEV and PER subjects were compared to determine whether the aggression-promoting effects of the agents differed, and which BAQ subdomains (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, hostility) were related to production of aggression in patients taking either LEV or PER. As a subsidiary analysis, clinical variables inclusive of administered AED type that showed a significant impact on BAQ scores were determined.

RESULTS

The LEV group had a significantly higher hostility score (19.4 ± 5.8) as compared to the PER group (17.2 ± 6.3) in subscale analysis (p < 0.05). In multiple regression analysis, LEV had a significant association with higher hostility score (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that while easily visible outward-directed aggression tends to be dominant in patients given PER, aggression provoked by LEV may be felt more subjectively or in an inward-directed manner, which can lead to more diverse expression and misrecognition.

The impact of perampanel on cognition: A systematic review of studies employing standardized tests in patients with epilepsy

This systematic review was conducted to reveal the cognitive effects of perampanel (PER) as assessed by objective standardized neuropsychological measures in patients with epilepsy. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed. In addition we cross-checked a list of relevant studies (based on a ProQuest search) provided by Eisai GmbH. Eligibility criteria were (1) group studies reporting the cognitive outcome of treatment with PER in patients with epilepsy (2) which employed objective cognitive tests and (3) were published in English. Of the 56 initially retrieved records, 9 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Two studies were based on the very same sample. Altogether the included studies analyzed a total of 241 patients (46% pediatric) with adjunctive PER. All studies were longitudinal with assessments before and after introduction of PER (up to 5 follow-ups and observation intervals of up to 1 year). Two studies were retrospective, 6 lacked a control condition. Neuropsychological assessments varied in extent and test selection. Overall no systematic cognitive deteriorations or improvements after introduction of PER have been reported across the analyzed studies. The only randomized placebo-controlled trial found a transient worsening in attention and speed of memory at the 19-week follow-up, and in addition a late decline in another parameter of attention at the final 52-week follow-up. This systematic review on the objective cognitive effects of PER suggests an overall neutral cognitive profile of PER with no systematic cognitive deteriorations or improvements. More controlled studies on the cognitive effects of PER would be appreciated.

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.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with epilepsy: First experiences in a German tertiary epilepsy center

INTRODUCTION

Due to the high demand for information regarding COVID-19 vaccination in people with epilepsy (PWE), we assessed the symptoms and seizure control of PWE following their COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

All adult patients who were treated at our center were asked to report on their vaccination status and, if vaccinated, about their experiences following their first COVID-19 vaccination with regard to adverse effects and seizure control.

RESULTS

Fifty-four PWE have already received their first vaccination against COVID-19 (27 female, 20% seizure free, 96<% on antiseizure medication) and were included in the study. Two-thirds tolerated the vaccines generally either very well or well. Thirty-three percent reported general vaccination adverse effects. The most frequently reported general adverse effects were, in descending order, headache, fatigue and fever, and shivering. With regard to epilepsy-related adverse effects, one patient reported increased seizure frequency one day after the first COVID-19 vaccination was administered, and one reported the occurrence of a new seizure type. None of the patients reported a status epilepticus or aggravation of preexisting adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that vaccination against COVID-19 appears to be well tolerated in PWE, supporting the recommendation of vaccination to PWE.