Efficacy and safety of perampanel oral loading in postanoxic super-refractory status epilepticus: A pilot study

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perampanel as an Add-On Therapy in Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus and Postanoxic Encephalopathy: A Real-Life Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy of perampanel in refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and postanoxic encephalopathy (PAE) are limited; its use in such conditions is currently off-label.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with RSE, including PAE, exhibiting electroencephalographic patterns indicative of status epilepticus who were treated at our center (January 2018 to December 2022) with assessment of clinical and electroencephalographic outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were included in the study, of whom 29 had nonanoxic RSE and 7 had PAE. Within the nonanoxic RSE subgroup, 45% (13 of 29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 27-63%) of study participants were responders, 34% (10 of 29; 95% CI 17-52%) were partial responders, and 21% (6 of 29; 95% CI 6-35%) were nonresponders. In the PAE subgroup (n = 7), no patients fully responded to perampanel; 43% (3 of 7; 95% CI 6-80%) were partial responders, and 57% (4 of 7; 95% CI 20-95%) were nonresponders. Responder and nonresponder study participants exhibited overlapping baseline characteristics. No significant differences in duration of hospitalization were observed between responders and nonresponders in both subgroups. Responders in the RSE subgroup had a median discharge modified Rankin Scale score of 3 (interquartile range 3-4), and nonresponders had a median discharge modified Rankin Scale score of 5 (interquartile range 5-6).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations from the retrospective design and the small population size, this study suggests that perampanel use in nonanoxic RSE appears to yield promising results at moderate doses, including a tendency toward a better functional outcome at discharge, without significant adverse effects. However, in patients with PAE, the drug seems to show suboptimal performance. Perampanel appears to have promising efficacy as an add-on therapy in nonanoxic RSE. However, in patients with PAE, its efficacy seems to be lower. Further studies are warranted to confirm these observations.

Efficacy of Perampanel in Refractory and Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus with Suspected Inflammatory Etiology: A Case Series

(1) Background: Increasing evidence supports the anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective role of perampanel (PER), mediated by decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and by interference with apoptosis processes. Therefore, the use of PER to treat status epilepticus (SE) with suspected inflammatory etiology is appealing and deserves further investigation. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed seven patients (five F, two M; median age: 62 years) with refractory and super-refractory SE due to a probable or defined inflammatory etiology and treated with PER. (3) Results: PER was administered as the third (4/7) or fourth drug (3/7), with a median loading dose of 32 mg/day (range: 16-36 mg/day) and a median maintenance dose of 10 mg/day (range: 4-12 mg/day). In five cases, SE was focal, while in two patients, it was generalized. SE was caused by systemic inflammation in three patients, while in the other four subjects, it was recognized to have an autoimmune etiology. SE resolution was observed after PER administration in all cases, particularly within 24 h in the majority of patients (4/7, 57.1%). (4) Conclusions: Our data support the efficacy of PER in treating SE when first- and second-line ASMs have failed and suggest a possible earlier use in SE cases that are due to inflammatory/autoimmune etiology.

The broad-spectrum activity of perampanel: state of the art and future perspective of AMPA antagonism beyond epilepsy

Glutamate is the brain's main excitatory neurotransmitter. Glutamatergic neurons primarily compose basic neuronal networks, especially in the cortex. An imbalance of excitatory and inhibitory activities may result in epilepsy or other neurological and psychiatric conditions. Among glutamate receptors, AMPA receptors are the predominant mediator of glutamate-induced excitatory neurotransmission and dictate synaptic efficiency and plasticity by their numbers and/or properties. Therefore, they appear to be a major drug target for modulating several brain functions. Perampanel (PER) is a highly selective, noncompetitive AMPA antagonist approved in several countries worldwide for treating different types of seizures in various epileptic conditions. However, recent data show that PER can potentially address many other conditions within epilepsy and beyond. From this perspective, this review aims to examine the new preclinical and clinical studies-especially those produced from 2017 onwards-on AMPA antagonism and PER in conditions such as mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, idiopathic and genetic generalized epilepsy, brain tumor-related epilepsy, status epilepticus, rare epileptic syndromes, stroke, sleep, epilepsy-related migraine, cognitive impairment, autism, dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases, as well as provide suggestions on future research agenda aimed at probing the possibility of treating these conditions with PER and/or other AMPA receptor antagonists.

Perampanel in achieving status epilepticus cessation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: Prognosis and Recent Advances in Management

Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency with high morbidity and mortality. It is defined as “status epilepticus (SE) that continues or recurs 24 hours or more after the onset of anesthesia, including those cases in which SE recurs on the reduction or withdrawal of anesthesia.” This condition is resistant to normal protocols used in the treatment of status epilepticus and exposes patients to increased risks of neuronal death, neuronal injury, and disruption of neuronal networks if not treated in a timely manner. It is mainly seen in patients with severe acute onset brain injury or presentation of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE). The mortality, neurological deficits, and functional impairments are significant depending on the duration of status epilepticus and the resultant brain damage. Research is underway to find the cure for this devastating neurological condition. In this review, we will discuss the wide range of therapies used in the management of SRSE, provide suggestions regarding its treatment, and comment on future directions. The therapies evaluated include traditional and alternative anesthetic agents with antiepileptic agents. The other emerging therapies include hypothermia, steroids, immunosuppressive agents, electrical and magnetic stimulation therapies, emergent respective epilepsy surgery, the ketogenic diet, pyridoxine infusion, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, and magnesium infusion. To date, there is a lack of robust published data regarding the safety and effectiveness of various therapies, and there continues to be a need for large randomized multicenter trials comparing newer therapies to treat this refractory condition.

Pharmacologic neuroprotection in ischemic brain injury after cardiac arrest

Cardiac arrest has many implications for morbidity and mortality. Few interventions have been shown to improve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and long-term outcomes after cardiac arrest. Ischemic-reperfusion injury upon achieving ROSC creates an imbalance between oxygen supply and demand. Multiple events occur in the postcardiac arrest period, including excitotoxicity, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress and inflammation, all of which contribute to ongoing brain injury and cellular death. Given that complex pathophysiology underlies global brain hypoxic ischemia, neuroprotective strategies targeting multiple stages of the neuropathologic cascade should be considered as a means of mitigating secondary neuronal injury and improving neurologic outcomes and survival in cardiac arrest victims. In this review article, we discuss a number of different pharmacologic agents that may have a potential role in targeting these injurious pathways following cardiac arrest. Pharmacologic therapies most relevant for discussion currently include memantine, perampanel, magnesium, propofol, thiamine, methylene blue, vitamin C, vitamin E, coenzyme Q₁₀ , minocycline, steroids, and aspirin.

Efficacy of oral perampanel in status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children at a tertiary care hospital in Thailand

Status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizure (ARS) are emergency conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality in children. Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) need to terminate seizures to prevent brain damage and death. Common challenges that delay the management of SE and ARS in children at Phramongkutklao hospital are difficulty in accessing intravenous route for drug administration and inadequate number of intensive care units (which will be required in case of the use of adverse events to anesthetic ASMs). Oral, non-sedating ASMs could be a potential option to terminate seizures effectively in SE and ARS in children and further studies in this aspect are needed. We performed a prospective, descriptive study in children with SE or ARS < 18 years of age who had contraindication to or their seizures were refractory to the second-line ASMs after benzodiazepine and received oral perampanel. Demographic data, efficacy, and adverse effects of treatment were recorded. Fifteen patients with SE (13.3%) and acute repetitive seizure (86.6%) were enrolled. All patients received an oral perampanel loading dose and the maintenance dose depended on their body weight. The average loading and maintenance dose were 0.24 mg/kg/dose and 0.12 mg/kg/day, respectively. At 48 h after administration of loading dose of perampanel, eight of fifteen patients (53.3%) became seizure free, one patient had seizure reduction of >75% from baseline, and three patients had seizure reduction of 25-50% from baseline. No serious side effects were observed. These results indicate that oral perampanel may be potential treatment option for SE and ARS in children.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment of Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Review

PURPOSE

Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) presents management challenges due to the absence of randomized controlled trials and a plethora of potential medical therapies. The literature on treatment options for SRSE reports variable success and quality of evidence. This review is a sequel to the 2020 American Epilepsy Society (AES) comprehensive review of the treatment of convulsive refractory status epilepticus (RSE).

METHODS

We sought to determine the effectiveness of treatment options for SRSE. We performed a structured literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL) for studies on reported treatments of SRSE. We excluded antiseizure medications (ASMs) covered in the 2016 AES guideline on the treatment of established SE and the convulsive RSE comprehensive review of the 2020 AES. Literature was reviewed on the effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation, ketogenic diet (KD), lidocaine, inhalation anesthetics, brain surgery, therapeutic hypothermia, perampanel, pregabalin (PGB), and topiramate in the treatment of SRSE. Two authors reviewed each therapeutic intervention. We graded the level of the evidence according to the 2017 classification scheme of the American Academy of Neurology.

RESULTS

For SRSE (level U; 39 class IV studies total), insufficient evidence exists to support that perampanel, PGB, lidocaine, or acute vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is effective. For children and adults with SRSE, insufficient evidence exists to support that the KD is effective (level U; 5 class IV studies). For adults with SRSE, insufficient evidence exists that brain surgery is effective (level U, 7 class IV studies). For adults with SRSE insufficient, evidence exists that therapeutic hypothermia is effective (level C, 1 class II and 4 class IV studies). For neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, insufficient evidence exists that therapeutic hypothermia reduces seizure burden (level U; 1 class IV study). For adults with SRSE, insufficient evidence exists that inhalation anesthetics are effective (level U, 1 class IV study) and that there is a potential risk of neurotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

For patients with SRSE insufficient, evidence exists that any of the ASMs reviewed, inhalational anesthetics, ketogenic diet, acute VNS, brain surgery, and therapeutic hypothermia are effective treatments. Data supporting the use of these treatments for SRSE are scarce and limited mainly to small case series and case reports and are confounded by differences in patients' population, and comedications, among other factors.

Update on the management of status epilepticus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Randomized controlled trials investigating the initial pharmacological treatment of status epilepticus have been recently published. Furthermore, status epilepticus arising in comatose survivors after cardiac arrest has received increasing attention in the last years. This review offers an updated assessment of status epilepticus treatment in these different scenarios.

RECENT FINDINGS

Initial benzodiazepines underdosing is common and correlates with development of status epilepticus refractoriness. The recently published ESETT trial provides high-level evidence regarding the equivalence of fosphenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam as a second-line option. Myoclonus or epileptiform transients on electroencephalography occur in up to 1/3 of patients surviving a cardiac arrest. Contrary to previous assumptions regarding an almost invariable association with death, at least 1/10 of them may awaken with reasonably good prognosis, if treated. Multimodal prognostication including clinical examination, EEG, somatosensory evoked potentials, biochemical markers, and neuroimaging help identifying patients with a chance to recover consciousness, in whom a trial with antimyoclonic compounds and at times general anesthetics is indicated.

SUMMARY

There is a continuous, albeit relatively slow progress in knowledge regarding different aspect of status epilepticus; recent findings refine some treatment strategies and help improving patients' outcomes. Further high-quality studies are clearly needed to further improve the management of these patients, especially those with severe, refractory status epilepticus forms.

A retrospective, observational study of perampanel in refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of administration of Perampanel (PER) which is a β-amino-3-(5-methyl-3-oxo-1,2-oxazol-4-yl)propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and Super-refractory (SRSE) were previously reported in small cohort studies and case reports. We report efficacy and side effect results of an observational cohort of 75 patients treated with PER for RSE and SRSE.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study of patients with RSE admitted to the neurocritical care unit between April 2017 and September 2019 who received treatment with PER. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a definite response to PER, which was defined as clear resolution of the ictal pattern and/or seizures within 72 h of delivery of PER which was the last administered antiseizure medication (ASM). Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients other response types (partial responder or non-responder), as well as the rate of adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total 75 patients were included in our analysis. PER was initiated as the median sixth ASM at a median initial dose of 12 mg. For the primary outcome, 31 (41.3%; 95% confidence interval 31.0%-53.0%) patients were classified as a definite responder. Seven patients (9.3%) experienced an adverse effect that was attributed to PER, with the most common being sedation in four patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In our retrospective cohort of RSE, we observed a definite response rate of 41.3% within 72 h of PER initiation. PER was well tolerated with few documented adverse effects. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the role of PER in treating patients with RSE.

Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term 'status epilepticus' with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. "(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)". The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available.

RESULTS

There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it.

CONCLUSIONS

RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.

Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Seizures and status epilepticus are very common diagnoses in the critically ill patient and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is an abundance of research on the utility of antiseizure medications in this setting, but limited randomized-controlled trials to guide the selection of medications in these patients. This review examines the current guidelines and treatment strategies for status epilepticus and provides an update on newer antiseizure medications in the critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Time is brain applies to status epilepticus, with delays in treatment corresponding with worsened outcomes. Establishing standardized treatment protocols within a health system, including prehospital treatment, may lead to improved outcomes. Once refractory status epilepticus is established, continuous deep sedation with intravenous anesthetic agents should be effective. In cases, which prove highly refractory, novel approaches should be considered, with recent data suggesting multiple recently approved antiseizure medications, appropriate therapeutic options, as well as novel approaches to upregulate extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid channels with brexanolone.

SUMMARY

Although there are many new treatments to consider for seizures and status epilepticus in the critically ill patient, the most important predictor of outcome may be rapid diagnosis and treatment. There are multiple new and established medications that can be considered in the treatment of these patients once status epilepticus has become refractory, and a multidrug regimen will often be necessary.

Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus Treated with High Dose Perampanel: Case Series and Review of the Literature

Introduction

Acute symptomatic seizures are frequent in the critically ill patient and can be difficult to treat. The novel anticonvulsant perampanel may be effective in the treatment of status epilepticus considering its mechanism of action of being an AMPA antagonist. We present four cases of super refractory status epilepticus treated with high dose perampanel.

Method

Case report.

Cases

Four patients were treated with perampanel for their refractory status epilepticus. One patient had new onset refractory status epilepticus of unknown etiology. Three other patients had status epilepticus as a result of their cardiac arrest. Two of the cardiac arrest patients had myoclonus. In all patients, the additional of perampanel resulted in a reduction of seizure burden without affecting hemodynamics or hepatic or renal function.

Conclusion

Perampanel may be effective in the treatment of super-refractory status epilepticus of varying etiologies. A larger, prospective study is needed to further assess this therapy.