Perampanel for Treatment of People with a Range of Epilepsy Aetiologies in Clinical Practice: Evidence from the PERMIT Extension Study

INTRODUCTION

It is important to assess the effectiveness of an antiseizure medication in treating different epilepsy aetiologies to optimise individualised therapeutic approaches. Data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) Extension study were used to assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was conducted of PERMIT Extension data from individuals with a known aetiology. Retention was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

PERMIT Extension included 1945 individuals with structural aetiology, 1012 with genetic aetiology, 93 with an infectious aetiology, and 26 with an immune aetiology. Retention rates at 12 months were 61.1% (structural), 65.9% (genetic), 56.8% (infectious) and 56.5% (immune). At the last visit, responder rates (total seizures) were 43.3% (structural), 68.3% (genetic), 37.0% (infectious) and 20.0% (immune), and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 15.8%, 46.5%, 11.1% and 5.0%, respectively. AE incidence rates were 58.0% (structural), 46.5% (genetic), 51.1% (infectious) and 65.0% (immune), and corresponding rates of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months were 18.9%, 16.4%, 18.5% and 21.7%, respectively. The types of AEs reported were generally consistent across aetiology subgroups, with no idiosyncratic AEs emerging.

CONCLUSION

Although PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice, variability in its effectiveness and tolerability across the subgroups indicates that PER may be particularly useful for individuals with specific epilepsy aetiologies.

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.

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.

A comparison of cenobamate with other newer antiseizure medications for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cenobamate with other newer anti-seizure medications (ASMs) including brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, approved for adjunctive treatment of drug-resistant focal-onset seizures (FOS) in adults with epilepsy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to obtain relevant efficacy, safety, and tolerability data for ASMs for the treatment of drug-resistant FOS. All studies were thoroughly assessed for potential sources of heterogeneity and analysed via Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). Efficacy outcomes were ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom during the maintenance period, which were modelled simultaneously using a multinomial Bayesian NMA. Safety and tolerability outcomes were the proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the proportion who experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 76 studies, of which 23 were included in the Bayesian NMAs. Cenobamate was associated with statistically significant higher rates for the ≥50 % responder rate and seizure freedom outcomes compared with all ASMs analysed. The point estimates indicated that cenobamate was associated with higher rates of experiencing at least one TEAE and at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation compared with brivaracetam, lacosamide, and zonisamide; however, no results were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Cenobamate was associated with increased efficacy compared with all ASMs analysed. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety and tolerability outcomes. The results presented corroborate the conclusions drawn from previous published NMAs, which also highlight the notable efficacy of cenobamate in comparison with other ASMs.

Perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy with genetic aetiology: Real-world evidence from the PERMIT Extension study

Genetic factors contribute to the aetiology of epilepsy in >50% of cases, and information on the use of antiseizure medications in people with specific aetiologies will help guide treatment decisions. The PERMIT Extension study pooled data from two real-world studies (PERMIT and PROVE) to investigate the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat people with focal and generalised epilepsy in everyday clinical practice. This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT Extension explored the use of PER when used to treat individuals presumed to have epilepsy with a genetic aetiology. Assessments included retention rate (evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months), effectiveness (responder and seizure freedom rates; evaluated at 3, 6, 12 months and the last visit [last observation carried forward) and tolerability (adverse events [AEs]). Of the 6822 people with epilepsy included in PERMIT Extension, 1012 were presumed to have a genetic aetiology. The most common genetic aetiologies were idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE; 58.2%), tuberous sclerosis (1.1%), Dravet syndrome (0.8%) and genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+; 0.5%). Retention rates at 3, 6 and 12 months in the total genetic aetiology population were 89.3%, 79.7% and 65.9%, respectively. In the total genetic aetiology population, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were 74.8% and 68.3%, respectively, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 48.9% and 46.5%, respectively. For the specific aetiology subgroups, responder rates at 12 months and the last visit were, respectively: 90.4% and 84.4% (IGE), 100% and 57.1% (tuberous sclerosis), 100% and 71.4% (Dravet syndrome), and 33.3% and 20.0% (GEFS+). Corresponding seizure freedom rates were, respectively: 73.1% and 64.6% (IGE), 33.3% and 22.2% (tuberous sclerosis), 20.0% and 28.6% (Dravet syndrome), and 0% and 0% (GEFS+). The incidence of AEs was 46.5% for the total genetic aetiology population, 48.8% for IGE, 27.3% for tuberous sclerosis, 62.5% for Dravet syndrome, and 20% for GEFS+. Tolerability findings were consistent with PER's known safety profile. PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used in individuals with a presumed genetic epilepsy aetiology in clinical practice. PER was effective across a wide range of genetic aetiologies.

Pilot trial of perampanel on peritumoral hyperexcitability and clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed high-grade glioma

Background Glutamatergic neuron-glioma synaptogenesis and peritumoral hyperexcitability promote glioma growth in a positive feedback loop. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and estimated effect sizes of the AMPA-R antagonist, perampanel, on intraoperative electrophysiologic hyperexcitability and clinical outcomes. Methods An open-label trial was performed comparing perampanel to standard of care (SOC) in patients undergoing resection of newly-diagnosed radiologic high-grade glioma. Perampanel was administered as a pre-operative loading dose followed by maintenance therapy until progressive disease or up to 12-months. SOC treatment involved levetiracetam for 7-days or as clinically indicated. The primary outcome of hyperexcitability was defined by intra-operative electrocorticography high frequency oscillation (HFO) rates. Seizure-freedom and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Tissue concentrations of perampanel, levetiracetam, and metabolites were measured by mass spectrometry. Results HFO rates were similar between perampanel-treated and SOC cohorts. The trial was terminated early after interim analysis for futility, and outcomes assessed in 11 patients (7 perampanel-treated, 4 SOC). Over a median 281 days of post-enrollment follow-up, 27% of patients had seizures, including 14% treated with perampanel and 50% treated with SOC. OS in perampanel-treated patients was similar to a glioblastoma reference cohort (p=0.81). Glutamate concentrations in surface biopsies were positively correlated with HFO rates in adjacent electrode contacts and were not significantly associated with treatment assignment or drug concentrations. Conclusions A peri-operative loading regimen of perampanel was safe and well-tolerated, with similar peritumoral hyperexcitability as in levetiracetam-treated patients. Maintenance anti-glutamatergic therapy was not observed to impact survival outcomes.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

Funding

None.

Phase IV PROVE study: Perampanel in real-world clinical care of pediatric patients with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

The non-interventional Phase IV PROVE study (NCT03208660) assessed retention, efficacy, safety and tolerability, and perampanel dosing in patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care. This analysis evaluated final data from patients aged <4 years and 4-<12 years.

METHODS

Data were obtained retrospectively from medical/pharmacy records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinician recommendations. Retention rate was the primary endpoint. Secondary assessments included median percent changes in seizure frequency, seizure-freedom rates, investigator impression of seizure effect, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

The Safety Analysis Set (SAS) included 41 patients (<4 years; mean maximum dose, 3.5 mg/day) and 203 patients (4-<12 years; mean maximum dose, 5.3 mg/day); 24-month retention rates were 35.7% (n = 5/14) and 42.0% (n = 47/112), respectively. In the Full Analysis Set, during Months 1-3, median percent reductions in seizure frequency were 33.3% (n = 8 [<4 years]) and 26.0% (n = 32 [4-<12 years]), and seizure-freedom rates were 12.5% in both groups (n = 1/8 and n = 4/32); patient numbers were low at later time points. Most patients showed improvements in seizure control (45.9% [<4 years] versus 52.4% [4-<12 years]) or no change (45.9% versus 34.5%) (SAS). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 12 (<4 years: 29.3%; most common, irritability [7.3%]) and 64 patients (4-<12 years: 31.5%; most common, aggression [6.9%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Perampanel was generally well tolerated with <21% of TEAEs leading to withdrawal at 24 months, had favorable retention rates (≥50% and >35% at 12 and 24 months, respectively), and sustained efficacy in pediatric patients during routine clinical care.

AMPA receptor neurotransmission and therapeutic applications: A comprehensive review of their multifaceted modulation

The neuropharmacological community has shown a strong interest in AMPA receptors as critical components of excitatory synaptic transmission during the last fifteen years. AMPA receptors, members of the ionotropic glutamate receptor family, allow rapid excitatory neurotransmission in the brain. AMPA receptors, which are permeable to sodium and potassium ions, manage the bulk of the brain's rapid synaptic communications. This study thoroughly examines the recent developments in AMPA receptor regulation, focusing on a shift from single chemical illustrations to a more extensive investigation of underlying processes. The complex interplay of these modulators in modifying the function and structure of AMPA receptors is the main focus, providing insight into their influence on the speed of excitatory neurotransmission. This research emphasizes the potential of AMPA receptor modulation as a therapy for various neurological disorders such as epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease. Analyzing these regulators' sophisticated molecular details enhances our comprehension of neuropharmacology, representing a significant advancement in using AMPA receptors for treating intricate neurological conditions.

A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study

OBJECTIVE

There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.

SIGNIFICANCE

Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

WRAPPER study: Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for people with drug-resistant epilepsy in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVE

The Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) Real-world Analysis of People with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) on PERampanel (WRAPPER) study assessed effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in people with DRE attending PWH.

METHODS

This was a prospective single-center real-world observational study involving 70 people with DRE between July 2016 and June 2021. A post hoc analysis after the initial study period of 16 weeks assessed outcomes for an extended period up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks, median dose of perampanel was 2 mg (IQR 24 mg). 50% responder rates were 40.0%, 41.5%, and 48.7% at 16, 26, and 52 weeks. Seizure freedom was 12.9%, 20.7%, and 25.6% at 16, 26, and 52 weeks. Monthly seizure frequency reduced from 3.0 (IQR 3.0-6.6) at baseline to 2.0 (IQR 2.0-6.0, p = 0.005) at 16 weeks; 2.0 (IQR 2.0-5.0, p = 0.01) at 26 weeks; and 2.0 (IQR 0.0-4.0, p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. Older age predicted 50% responders (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.048). At 16 weeks, 51.4% (36/70) had treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs). Most common was seizure exacerbation at 35.7% (25/70) followed by fatigue at 15.7% (11/70). NPI-12 and ZBI scores indicated no increase in neuropsychiatric symptoms on perampanel.

SIGNIFICANCE

Low-dose 2-4 mg adjunctive perampanel for people with DRE conferred appreciable improvements in seizure reduction without significant neuropsychiatric adverse effects in the real-world setting at a tertiary center in Hong Kong and had better antiseizure effect with advancing age.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This real-world study from Hong Kong found low-dose perampanel was effective and tolerable for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Furthermore, perampanel was also potentially more effective with advancing age.

PerSurge (NOA-30) phase II trial of perampanel treatment around surgery in patients with progressive glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma is the most frequent and a particularly malignant primary brain tumor with no efficacy-proven standard therapy for recurrence. It has recently been discovered that excitatory synapses of the AMPA-receptor subtype form between non-malignant brain neurons and tumor cells. This neuron-tumor network connectivity contributed to glioma progression and could be efficiently targeted with the EMA/FDA approved antiepileptic AMPA receptor inhibitor perampanel in preclinical studies. The PerSurge trial was designed to test the clinical potential of perampanel to reduce tumor cell network connectivity and tumor growth with an extended window-of-opportunity concept.

METHODS

PerSurge is a phase IIa clinical and translational treatment study around surgical resection of progressive or recurrent glioblastoma. In this multicenter, 2-arm parallel-group, double-blind superiority trial, patients are 1:1 randomized to either receive placebo or perampanel (n = 66 in total). It consists of a treatment and observation period of 60 days per patient, starting 30 days before a planned surgical resection, which itself is not part of the study interventions. Only patients with an expected safe waiting interval are included, and a safety MRI is performed. Tumor cell network connectivity from resected tumor tissue on single cell transcriptome level as well as AI-based assessment of tumor growth dynamics in T2/FLAIR MRI scans before resection will be analyzed as the co-primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints will include further imaging parameters such as pre- and postsurgical contrast enhanced MRI scans, postsurgical T2/FLAIR MRI scans, quality of life, cognitive testing, overall and progression-free survival as well as frequency of epileptic seizures. Further translational research will focus on additional biological aspects of neuron-tumor connectivity.

DISCUSSION

This trial is set up to assess first indications of clinical efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in recurrent glioblastoma, a repurposed drug which inhibits neuron-glioma synapses and thereby glioblastoma growth in preclinical models. If perampanel proved to be successful in the clinical setting, it would provide the first evidence that interference with neuron-cancer interactions may indeed lead to a benefit for patients, which would lay the foundation for a larger confirmatory trial in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU-CT number: 2023-503938-52-00 30.11.2023.

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

Purpose

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

Method

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

Results

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

Main findings

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

Perampanel as only add-on epilepsy treatment in elderly: A subgroup analysis of real-world data from retrospective, multicenter, observational study

INTRODUCTION

Drug management of epilepsy in the elderly presents unique but data on this population are scarce. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on to a background anti-seizure medication (ASM) in the elderly in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥65 years included in a previous 12-month multicenter study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months after PER introduction. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted.

RESULTS

The sample included 65 subjects (mean age: 75.7 ± 7.2 years), with mainly focal (73.8%) epilepsy. The mean PER daily dose was ≈4 mg during all follow-up. Retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 90.5%, 89.6%, and 79.4%ly. The baseline median normalized per 28-day seizure number significantly decreased at 3-, 6- and 12-month visits. One year after PER introduction, the responder rate (≥50% reduction in baseline seizure frequency) was 89.7%, with a seizure freedom rate of 72.4%. Adverse events occurred in 22 (34.9%) patients with dizziness and irritability being the most frequent. No major differences between early (41 patients, 63.1%), and late add-on groups were observed.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated when used as only add-on treatment in elderly people with epilepsy in clinical practice, thus representing a suitable therapeutic option in this age category.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy in adolescents: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the present meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety of perampanel (PER) for the treatment of adolescents with epilepsy were assessed.

METHODS

Keyword searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO and CNKI from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2020. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies in which PER was compared with other Anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) and/or placebo in children with epilepsy, were considered eligible studies. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the dichotomous outcome statistic was calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Three RCTs with a total of 372 adolescents' patients were included in this meta-analysis. Placebo was used as a control in these studies. Compared with placebo, PER showed better efficacy in median seizure frequency reduction from baseline per 28 days (OR = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.25-4.96, p = 0.009) and in responder rate (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.15-3.05, p = 0.01); both were considered statistically increased in PER group. Regarding adverse effects (AEs), significant differences between PER and placebo (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.92-2.41, p = 0.11) were not found, and the most common AEs of PER were dizziness (24.0%), somnolence (15.9%), headache (11.2%), nasopharyngitis (9.7%), upper respiratory tract infection (7.0%) and aggression (7.0%).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results in this study, PER showed better efficacy than placebo therapy in children with epilepsy and the AEs were similar in PER group and placebo group. PER showed good efficacy and a low risk of AEs, and might be a promising medication for the treatment of pediatric epilepsy. In the future, well-designed and large-scale RCTs are necessary to validate the present findings.

Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of perampanel by age group when used to treat people with focal and generalized epilepsy in clinical practice: The PERMIT Extension study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated in everyday clinical practice for focal and generalized seizures, both in the total cohort and by age group.

METHODS

The PERMIT Extension study was a pooled analysis of data from PWE included in two large previous clinical practice studies (PERMIT and PROVE). Retention was assessed over 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed based on total seizures and by seizure type (focal and generalized) after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment and at final follow-up (last observation carried forward; "last visit"); assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout PER treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs). All assessments were conducted for the total population and by age category (<12, ≥12 to <18, ≥18 to <65, and ≥65 years at baseline).

RESULTS

Full Analysis Set included 6,822 PWE (51.1% female; mean age, 36.9 years; mean duration of epilepsy 21.4 years) with 6,433, 4,648, and 6,233 PWE assessed for retention, effectiveness, and safety/tolerability, respectively. The majority of PWE (81.1%) were aged 18-64 at baseline, with 4.5% aged <12 years, 8.4% aged 12-17 years, and 5.9% aged ≥65 years. In the overall population, retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 88.0%, 77.6%, and 61.4%, respectively; responder rates at 12 months were 58.5% for total seizures, 54.6% for focal seizures, and 77.7% for generalized seizures, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.6%, 19.0%, and 51.3%, respectively. PER was effective regardless of age category, although effectiveness was greatest in PWE aged ≥65 years, for both focal and generalized seizures. In the overall population, the incidence of AEs was 49.2% and the most frequent AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (13.4%), somnolence (8.8%), irritability (7.3%), and behavioral disorders (5.3%); AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 18.3% of PWE over 12 months. The incidence of AEs and the discontinuation rate due to AEs increased with increasing age (55.0% and 23.9%, respectively, in PWE aged ≥65 years).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the largest pooled analysis of PER clinical practice data conducted to date, PER was shown to be effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, regardless of age category. No new or unexpected side effects emerged following long-term use in the real-world setting.

Efficacy and Safety of Five Broad-Spectrum Antiseizure Medications for Adjunctive Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Overall, up to one-third of epilepsy patients have drug-resistant epilepsy. However, there was previously no meta-analysis to support the guidelines for broad-spectrum antiseizure medication selection for the adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy. In the present meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of three second-generation broad-spectrum antiseizure medications, lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), and topiramate (TPM), and two third-generation broad-spectrum antiseizure medications, perampanel (PER) and lacosamide (LCM), for the adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to July 15, 2022. The studies included in the meta-analysis were required to meet the following criteria: (1) be randomized, double-blind clinical trials; (2) include patients aged >2 years with a clinical diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy; (3) have at least 8 weeks for the treatment period excluding the titration phase; and (4) report the outcomes of seizure response, seizure freedom and the withdrawal rate due to treatment-emergent adverse effects. Data were extracted, and the risk of bias for each study was assessed by two authors independently using RoB2 tools. We performed the network meta-analysis for each outcome through a group of programs in the mvmeta and network packages in Stata. Relative odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated as the result of the analyses. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and mean ranks were used to rank these treatments.

RESULTS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (LTG-placebo: n = 6, LEV-placebo: n = 13, TPM-placebo: n = 9, PER-placebo: n = 6, LCM-placebo: n = 7, LEV-TPM: n = 1) with 10257 participants (LTG = 569, LEV = 1626, TPM = 701, PER = 1734, LCM = 1908, placebo = 3719) were included. Levetiracetam had subequal efficacy in 50 % seizure frequency reduction to TPM [odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-1.38], and LEV had a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than LCM (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11-2.01) and PER (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24-2.29). Levetiracetam was also related to a higher proportion of seizure freedom participants than TPM (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.20-2.89), PER (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.12-4.43), and LCM (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.46-6.05). In addition, LEV was associated with a lower risk of experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) than PER (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.85) and TPM (OR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.36-0.72) and a lower proportion of patients experiencing TEAEs leading to discontinuation than PER (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.97) and TPM (OR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.27-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Third-generation drugs (PER and LCM) had no advantages in terms of efficacy and safety for adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy compared with several second-generation drugs (LEV and LTG). Levetiracetam was the priority choice for adjunctive treatment of refractory epilepsy. Perampanel and LCM had no advantages in terms of efficacy and safety among the five drugs.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number, CRD42022344153; last edited on December 23, 2022.

Perampanel's forgiveness factor in a variable medication adherence paradigm in a rat model of chronic epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Poor medication adherence contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with epilepsy and may be under-addressed in clinical practice. Ethical concerns make it impossible to study the impact of medication nonadherence in clinical trials, but our previous work emphasizes the importance of using preclinical approaches to address these questions. With over 30 clinically available antiseizure medicines (ASM's), it remains an important question to understand the relationship between poor adherence and seizure incidence across mechanistically distinct ASM's, including the broad-spectrum ASM, perampanel (PER).

METHODS

We formulated PER into chow pellets to deliver to rats in a 100% fully adherent or 50% variable nonadherent paradigm via our novel automated medication-in-food delivery system. Chronic oral dosing was initiated in male rats with chronic epilepsy while monitoring 24/7 for videoEEG evidence of seizures during a 4-week placebo baseline and 4-week treatment phase. PER concentrations were monitored in plasma at 1-week intervals and correlated with degree of seizure control. The relationship between missed doses and extended patterns of nonadherence were correlated with breakthrough seizures.

RESULTS

Fully adherent rats demonstrated a median reduction in seizure frequency of 50%, whereas nonadherent rats had a median increase of 54%. Plasma concentrations of PER were stable over the 4-week treatment period in both fully adherent and nonadherent groups, with levels being twice as high in fully adherent animals. There was no correlation between a single missed dose or series of missed doses and the incidence of breakthrough seizures. However, those animals in the nonadherent group that received PER for every meal during a 24-h period had a reduced likelihood of seizure incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

If our preclinical data is supported in the clinic, PER's favorable pharmacokinetic profile in humans, combined with a lowered risk of breakthrough seizures suggests that it may provide a certain forgiveness factor if a dose is missed within a 24-h window.

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.

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.

Five-Year Retention of Perampanel and Polytherapy Patterns: 328 Patients From a Single Center in South Korea

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Perampanel (PER) is an α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid antagonist used to treat focal and generalized epilepsy. Comprehensive data from real-world settings with long-term follow-ups are still scarce. This study aimed to determine the factors related to PER retention and the polytherapy pattern with PER.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients with epilepsy with a history of PER prescription during 2008-2017 and over a follow-up of >3 years. PER usage patterns and associated factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,655 patients in the cohort, 328 (150 females, 178 males) were enrolled. The ages at onset and diagnosis were 21.1±14.7 years and 25.6±16.1 years (mean±standard deviation), respectively. The age at the first visit to our center was 31.8±13.8 years. Seizure types were focal, generalized, and unknown onset in 83.8%, 15.9%, and 0.3% of patients, respectively. The most common etiology was structural (n=109, 33.2%). The maintenance duration of PER was 22.6±19.2 months (range=1-66 months). The initial number of concomitant antiseizure medications was 2.4±1.4 (range=0-9). The most common regimen was PER plus levetiracetam (n=41, 12.5%). The median number of 1-year seizures before PER usage was 8 (range=0-1,400). A seizure reduction of >50% was recorded in 34.7% of patients (52.0% and 29.2% in generalized and focal seizures, respectively). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year retention rates for PER were 65.3%, 50.4%, 40.4%, 35.3%, and 21.5%, respectively. A multivariate analysis indicated that lower age at onset was associated with longer retention (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PER was safely used in patients with diverse characteristics and was maintained for a long time in a real-world setting, especially in patients with a lower age at onset.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Perampanel in Children with Drug-Resistant Focal-Onset Seizures: A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. Existing antiseizure medications (ASMs) are still unable to control seizures in one-third of these patients, making the discovery of antiseizure therapies with novel mechanisms of action a necessity.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of perampanel (PER) as an adjuvant treatment for children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study of 38 epileptic pediatric patients, aged 2 to 14, at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center whose seizures were pharmaco-resistant to more than two antiseizure medications and followed for at least three months after PER adjuvant therapy initiation. Efficacy was assessed by the PER response rate at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up evaluations, and side effects were also reported.

RESULTS

Multiple seizure types were reported. Myoclonic seizures were the predominant type of epilepsy in 17 children (44.7%). At 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months of follow-up, approximately 23.4%, 23.4%, and 18.4% of the patients were seizure-free at these time points, respectively. Adverse events were documented in 14 patients (35.7%) and led to the discontinuation of PER in 26.3%, 31.6%, and 36.8% of the studied group at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The most common adverse events included dizziness or drowsiness, irritability, gait disturbance, and confusion; however, all were transient, and no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the therapeutic efficacy of adjunctive PER in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children. As an adjunctive treatment for epilepsy, perampanel demonstrated sufficient effectiveness and tolerability.

Open-label study to investigate the safety and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in pediatric patients (aged 4 to <12 years) with inadequately controlled focal-onset seizures: Japanese subgroup analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in a Japanese subpopulation of Study 311 (NCT02849626), which was a global, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study of children (aged 4 to <12 years) with inadequately controlled focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

Study 311 comprised a Core Study, Extension A, and Extension B; this report focuses on the Japanese patient subgroup in the Core Study only. In the Core Study, Japanese patients (FOS only) received adjunctive perampanel ≤12 mg/day in a 23-week Treatment Phase. Endpoints included safety/tolerability (primary) and median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline. Patients were stratified by age and concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medication (EIASM) use.

RESULTS

Of 65 enrolled Japanese patients, 56 completed the Core Study and nine withdrew. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events (AEs) (n = 4 [6.2%]). The mean (standard deviation) daily dose of perampanel in Japanese FOS patients was 5.8 (2.2) mg/day. During the Core Study, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported by 89% of Japanese patients, most commonly nasopharyngitis (28%) and somnolence (28%). The median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline was 37% and the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than 10.5%, satisfying the pre-defined efficacy criteria. Perampanel was effective regardless of age or concomitant EIASM use.

CONCLUSION

Perampanel as adjunctive therapy is generally safe, well-tolerated, and efficacious in Japanese children aged 4 to <12 years with FOS (with/without FBTCS).

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.

Perampanel add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. Approximately 30% of people with epilepsy are considered to be drug-resistant, and usually need treatment with a combination of other antiepileptic drugs. Perampanel is a newer antiepileptic drug that has been investigated as add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of perampanel as add-on therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing add-on perampanel with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. Our secondary outcomes were 2. seizure freedom, 3. treatment withdrawal due to any reason, 4. treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects, and 5.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

We used an intention-to-treat population for all primary analyses. We presented the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), except for individual adverse effects, which we reported with 99% CIs to compensate for multiple testing. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials involving 2524 participants, all aged over 12 years. The trials were double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials with treatment duration of 12 to 19 weeks. We assessed four trials at overall low risk of bias, and three trials at overall unclear risk of bias, due to risk of detection, reporting, and other biases. Compared with placebo, participants receiving perampanel were more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.95; 7 trials, 2524 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, perampanel increased seizure freedom (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.54; 5 trials, 2323 participants; low-certainty evidence) and treatment withdrawal (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.63; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants treated with perampanel were more likely to withdraw from treatment due to adverse effects compared to those receiving placebo (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.51; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence). A higher proportion of participants receiving perampanel reported one or more adverse effects when compared to participants who received placebo (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24; 7 trials, 2524 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with placebo, participants receiving perampanel were more likely to experience ataxia (RR 14.32, 99% CI 1.09 to 188.31; 2 trials, 1098 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness (RR 2.87, 99% CI 1.45 to 5.70; 7 trials, 2524 participants; low-certainty evidence), and somnolence (RR 1.76, 99% CI 1.02 to 3.04; 7 trials, 2524 participants). Subgroup analysis indicated that a larger proportion of participants who received perampanel at a dose of 4 mg/day (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.83; 2 trials, 710 participants), 8 mg/day (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.22; 4 trials, 1227 participants), or 12 mg/day (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.04; 3 trials, 869 participants) achieved a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo; however, treatment with perampanel 12 mg/day also increased treatment withdrawal (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.40; 3 trials, 869 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Add-on perampanel is effective at reducing seizure frequency and may be effective at maintaining seizure freedom for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Although perampanel was well-tolerated, there was a higher proportion of treatment withdrawals with perampanel compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis suggested that 8 mg/day and 12 mg/day are the most efficacious perampanel doses; however, the use of 12 mg/day would likely increase the number of treatment withdrawals. Future research should focus on investigating the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel with longer-term follow-up, as well as exploring an optimal dose.

Perampanel-Induced, New-Onset Thrombocytopenia in a Patient With Refractory Seizures: A Case Report

Perampanel (Fycompa) is a glutamate receptor antagonist known to be a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication; nevertheless, adverse effects are possible. This case report aims to raise the suspicion of perampanel-induced thrombocytopenia and discuss its possible pathways implicated. Here, we present the case of a 66-year-old female patient with a generalized tonic-clonic seizure initially managed with levetiracetam, valproic acid, and lacosamide; however, the patient continued to have seizures clinically as well as on the electroencephalogram. The patient was initiated on 2 mg of perampanel and reached up to 12 mg within a week, after which the seizure was controlled. Nevertheless, after perampanel initiation, a gradual platelet count reduction was observed. Upon withdrawal of perampanel, the platelet count dramatically improved reaching up to her baseline. Although perampanel is known to be a safe medication, a hematological complication such as thrombocytopenia is possible. The exact mechanism remains unclear. Further studies are required to understand the association between thrombocytopenia and perampanel to identify high-risk populations and prevent this condition sequentially.

Perampanel outcomes at different stages of treatment in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice: Evidence from the PERMIT study

Introduction

The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three or more previous antiseizure medications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs.

Results

The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p = 0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p &lt; 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p &lt; 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p &lt; 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p &lt; 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p &lt; 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p &lt; 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p &lt; 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031).

Discussion

This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures.

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.

A Single- and Multiple-Dose Pharmacokinetic Study of Oral Perampanel in Healthy Chinese Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication indicated for focal-onset seizures and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. This study investigated the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of perampanel in healthy Chinese adults.

METHODS

Study 052 (NCT03424564) was a phase I, single-center, open-label, parallel-group study. In the single-dose part of the study, subjects received a single oral dose of perampanel 2, 4, or 8 mg. In the multiple-dose part, subjects received once-daily oral perampanel 2 mg on Days 1-7 and 4 mg on Days 8-21. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined from perampanel plasma concentrations using non-compartmental analysis. Dose proportionality after single doses of perampanel was assessed. Safety and tolerability were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the single-dose part (N = 30), median time to reach maximum concentration (t_max) was 0.75-1.0 h, mean terminal elimination phase half-life (t_½) was 85.6-122 h, mean maximum observed concentration (C_max) was 77.9-276 ng/mL, and mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_(0-t)) was 4070-15100 ng·h/mL. Single-dose pharmacokinetics were linear for perampanel 2-8 mg. In the multiple-dose part (N = 12), Day 21 steady-state (4 mg/day) parameters were median time at which the highest drug concentration occurs at steady state (t_ss,max), 1.25 h; mean t_½, 109 h; mean maximum observed concentration at steady state (C_ss,max), 453 ng/mL; and mean area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval on multiple dosing (AUC_{(0- τ)}), 7540 ng·h/mL. For single- and multiple-dose perampanel, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness and somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of perampanel in healthy Chinese adults revealed rapid perampanel absorption, slow elimination, and a linear relationship with single perampanel doses of 2-8 mg. Findings were consistent with previous studies of perampanel pharmacokinetics in other ethnic/racial populations of healthy subjects. Single and multiple doses of perampanel were generally safe and well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03424564; registered February 2018.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Perampanel in Brain Tumor-Related Epilepsy: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Epilepsy is a frequent comorbidity in patients with brain tumors, in whom seizures are often drug-resistant. Current evidence suggests that excess of glutamatergic activity in the tumor microenvironment may favor epileptogenesis, but also tumor growth and invasiveness. The selective non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist perampanel (PER) was demonstrated to be efficacious and well-tolerated in patients with focal seizures. Moreover, preclinical in vitro studies suggested a potential anti-tumor activity of this drug. In this systematic review, the clinical evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of PER in brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is summarized. (2) Methods: Five databases and two clinical trial registries were searched from inception to December 2022. (3) Results: Seven studies and six clinical trials were included. Sample size ranged from 8 to 36 patients, who received add-on PER (mean dosage from 4 to 7 mg/day) for BTRE. After a 6–12 month follow-up, the responder rate (% of patients achieving seizure freedom or reduction ≥ 50% of seizure frequency) ranged from 75% to 95%, with a seizure freedom rate of up to 94%. Regarding tolerability, 11–52% of patients experienced non-severe adverse effects (most frequent: dizziness, vertigo, anxiety, irritability). The retention rate ranged from 56% to 83%. However, only up to 12.5% of patients discontinued the drug because of the adverse events. (4) Conclusions: PER seems to be efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated in patients with BTRE. Further randomized studies should be conducted in more homogeneous and larger populations, also evaluating the effect of PER on tumor progression, overall survival, and progression-free survival.

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.

Flexible realistic simulation of seizure occurrence recapitulating statistical properties of seizure diaries

OBJECTIVE

A realistic seizure diary simulator is currently unavailable for many research needs, including clinical trial analysis and evaluation of seizure detection and seizure-forecasting tools. In recent years, important statistical features of seizure diaries have been characterized. These include (1) heterogeneity of individual seizure frequencies, (2) the relation between average seizure rate and standard deviation, (3) multiple risk cycles, (4) seizure clusters, and (5) limitations on inter-seizure intervals. The present study unifies these features into a single model.

METHODS

Our approach, Cyclic Heterogeneous Overdispersed Clustered Open-source L-relationship Adjustable Temporally limited E-diary Simulator (CHOCOLATES) is based on a hierarchical model centered on a gamma Poisson generator with several modifiers. This model accounts for the aforementioned statistical properties. The model was validated by simulating 10 000 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medication to compare with 23 historical RCTs. Metrics of 50% responder rate (RR50) and median percent change (MPC) were evaluated. We also used CHOCOLATES as input to a seizure-forecasting tool to test the flexibility of the model. We examined the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for test data with and without cycles and clusters.

RESULTS

The model recapitulated typical findings in 23 historical RCTs without the necessity of introducing an additional "placebo effect." The model produced the following RR50 values: placebo: 17 ± 4%; drug 38 ± 5%; and the following MPC values: placebo: 13 ± 6%; drug 40 ± 4%. These values are similar to historical data: for RR50: placebo, 21 ± 10%, drug: 43 ± 13%; and for MPC: placebo: 17 ± 10%, drug: 41 ± 11%. The seizure forecasts achieved an AUC of 0.68 with cycles and clusters, whereas without them the AUC was 0.51.

SIGNIFICANCE

CHOCOLATES represents the most realistic seizure occurrence simulator to date, based on observations from thousands of patients in different contexts. This tool is open source and flexible, and can be used for many applications, including clinical trial simulation and testing of seizure-forecasting tools.

The safety of perampanel in different disorders and doses: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the safety of perampanel in different disorders and doses.

METHODS

Embase, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3 and R 4.2.1 software.

RESULTS

A total of 17 RCTs with 5711 subjects were included in the final analysis. The double-blind treatment phase was from 12 weeks to 48 weeks. Our results showed that 11 adverse events (aggression, ataxia, balance disorder, dizziness, fall, fatigue, irritability, rash, somnolence, vertigo, and weight increase) were statistically significantly associated with perampanel, and 4 of them (ataxia, dizziness, fatigue, and somnolence) showed a clear dose-response relationship. Psychiatric adverse events occurred most frequently among serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At 8 mg/day, seven adverse events (aggression, balance disorder, dizziness, fatigue, irritability, vertigo, and weight increase) occurred more frequently in patients with epilepsy than in patients with other disorders, whereas dose discontinuation rates due to adverse events were lower in patients with epilepsy than in patients with other disorders.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of perampanel is dependent on diseases and dose. The risk of adverse events was statistically significantly higher, with doses exceeding 4 mg/day. Despite a higher risk of adverse events, patients with epilepsy had a lower perampanel discontinuation rate than patients with other disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate for focal seizures in people with drug-resistant epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of add-on cenobamate in the UK when used to treat drug-resistant focal seizures in adults who are not adequately controlled with at least two prior antiseizure medications, including at least one used adjunctively.

METHODS

We estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for cenobamate compared to brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel in the UK National Health Service over a lifetime time horizon. We used a Markov cohort structure to determine response to treatment, using pooled data from three long-term studies of cenobamate. A network meta-analysis informed the likelihood of response to therapy with brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel relative to cenobamate. Once individuals discontinued treatment, they transitioned to subsequent treatment health states, including other antiseizure medicines, surgery, and vagus nerve stimulation. Costs included treatment, administration, routine monitoring, event management, and adverse events. Published evidence and expert opinion informed the likelihood of response to subsequent treatments, associated adverse events, and costs. Utility data were based on Short-Form six-dimension form utility. Discounting was applied at 3.5% per annum as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, cenobamate led to cost savings of £51 967 (compared to brivaracetam), £21 080 (compared to eslicarbazepine), £33 619 (compared to lacosamide), and £28 296 (compared to perampanel) and increased QALYs of 1.047 (compared to brivaracetam), 0.598 (compared to eslicarbazepine), 0.776 (compared to lacosamide), and 0.703 (compared to perampanel) per individual over a lifetime time horizon. Cenobamate also dominated the four drugs across most sensitivity analyses. Differences were due to reduced seizure frequency with cenobamate relative to comparators.

SIGNIFICANCE

Cenobamate improved QALYs and was less costly than brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, and perampanel. Therefore, cenobamate may be considered as a cost-effective adjunctive antiseizure medication for people with drug-resistant focal seizures.

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).

Global trends in research of glutamate in epilepsy during past two decades: A bibliometric analysis

Epilepsy affects more than 70 million people in the world. It is characterized by recurrent spontaneous seizures, and it is related to many neurological, cognitive, and psychosocial consequences. Glutamate neurotransmitter dysfunction has essential functions in the pathophysiology of epilepsy. In this work, bibliometric analysis was conducted to explore the trends, frontiers, and hotspots of the global scientific output of glutamate in epilepsy research in the past 20 years. The Science Citation Index Expanded of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was searched to obtain information on publications and records published between 2002 and 2021. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used to conduct bibliometric and visual analyses on the overall distribution of annual output, major countries, active institutions, journals, authors, commonly cited literature, and keywords. The impact and quality of the papers were assessed using the global citation score (GCS). Four thousand eight hundred ninety-one publications were retrieved in total. During the past two decades, the number of publications (Np) associated with glutamate in epilepsy has risen yearly. The United States has published the most papers; its H-index and number of citations are also the highest. The League of European Research Universities (LERU) was the most productive institution. In 2016, the total score of the paper written by Zhang Y was 854, ranking first. The keywords that appear most frequently are “epilepsy,” “glutamate,” “temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE),” “hippocampus,” and “seizures.” This study showed that although the publications related to epileptic glutamate fluctuated slightly, the Np increased overall. The United States is a great creator and influential country in this field. The first three authors are Eid, T., Aronica, E., and Smolders, I. “spectrum,” “animal model,” “inflammation,” “mutation,” “dysfunction,” and “prefrontal cortex” are increasing research hotspots. By recognizing the most critical indicators (researchers, countries, research institutes, and journals of glutamate release in epilepsy research), the research hotspot of glutamate in epilepsy could help countries, scholars, and policymakers in this field enhance their understanding of the role of glutamate in epilepsy and make decisions.

The role of peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1 in neuronal signaling in epilepsy

Epilepsy is a common symptom of many neurological disorders and can lead to neuronal damage that plays a major role in seizure-related disability. The peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1 has wide-ranging influences on the occurrence and development of neurological diseases. It has also been suggested that Pin1 acts on epileptic inhibition, and the molecular mechanism has recently been reported. In this review, we primarily focus on research concerning the mechanisms and functions of Pin1 in neurons. In addition, we highlight the significance and potential applications of Pin1 in neuronal diseases, especially epilepsy. We also discuss the molecular mechanisms by which Pin1 controls synapses, ion channels and neuronal signaling pathways to modulate epileptic susceptibility. Since neurotransmitters and some neuronal signaling pathways, such as Notch1 and PI3K/Akt, are vital to the nervous system, the role of Pin1 in epilepsy is discussed in the context of the CaMKII-AMPA receptor axis, PSD-95-NMDA receptor axis, NL2/gephyrin-GABA receptor signaling, and Notch1 and PI3K/Akt pathways. The effect of Pin1 on the progression of epilepsy in animal models is discussed as well. This information will lead to a better understanding of Pin1 signaling pathways in epilepsy and may facilitate development of new therapeutic strategies.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients with epilepsy: Post hoc analysis of open-label extension studies

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis of four open-label extension (OLEx) studies evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients (aged 12 to ≤17 years) with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS).

METHODS

Patients who completed one of six double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter one of four OLEx studies comprising a blinded Conversion Period (6-16 weeks) followed by a Maintenance Phase (27 to ≤256 weeks; perampanel dose: ≤12 mg/day). Exposure, retention, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed using observed case and last observation carried forward (LOCF) approaches; the latter was used to account for early dropouts.

RESULTS

The Full Analysis Set comprised 309 adolescents with FOS (FBTCS, n = 109) and 19 with GTCS, and the Safety Analysis Set comprised 311 with FOS (FBTCS, n = 110) and 19 with GTCS. Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure (weeks) was: FOS, 77.7 (58.7); FBTCS, 88.7 (63.8); and GTCS, 97.0 (35.5). Retention rates were maintained for ≤2 years (FOS, 50.0 %; FBTCS, 57.1 %; GTCS, 41.7 %). Seizure control (median percent reduction in seizure frequency/28 days) was sustained for up to 2 years; FOS (59.4 %, n = 113), FBTCS (64.6 %, n = 53), and GTCS (86.5 %, n = 17). At Year 2, 50 % responder rates were: FOS, 58.4 % (n = 66); FBTCS, 54.7 % (n = 29); and GTCS, 82.4 % (n = 14); seizure-freedom rates were: FOS, 5.3 % (n = 6); FBTCS, 24.5 % (n = 13); and GTCS, 35.3 % (n = 6). Long-term seizure control was observed even in LOCF analyses. The incidence of TEAEs was highest during Year 1 (FOS, n = 269 [86.5 %]; FBTCS, n = 95 [86.4 %]; GTCS, n = 15 [78.9 %]), compared with Years 2-4; the most common (≥10 % of patients) were dizziness, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. No new safety signals emerged with long-term treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis suggests that long-term (≤2 years) adjunctive perampanel (≤12 mg/day) is efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with FOS, with or without FBTCS, or GTCS.

The real-world effectiveness and safety of perampanel in Europe: A scoping review

In order to characterize the real-world effectiveness and safety of perampanel during clinical use in Europe, we conducted a structured literature search and scoping review of real-world studies conducted in Europe in adolescents (aged ≥ 12 years) or adults who were prescribed perampanel for focal epilepsy or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the context of idiopathic generalized epilepsy, published between January 2016 and July 2021. We identified 29 relevant studies (20 retrospective and 9 prospective) in 3608 patients; median study duration was 12 months. Most patients (76.1%) were receiving two or more antiseizure drugs (ASDs) when perampanel was initiated. The maintenance perampanel dose ranged from 2 to 16 mg/day (most commonly 6 mg/day). Retention rate at 12 months ranged from 46% to 90.5% (median 71.1%). The proportion of patients who were free of seizures during perampanel ranged from 1.8% to 84.6%, but were consistently below 20% in studies where patients had received an average of ≥5 prior ASDs and above 20% where patients had received an average of <5 prior ASDs. The proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction in seizures during perampanel ranged from 20.0% to 85.7%. Across all studies, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) ranged from 18.2% to 67.4% (median 37.1%) and discontinuation due to AEs from 6.2% to 56% (median 12.5%). Discontinuation rates tended to be higher in UK studies than in studies from Italy or Spain. The most commonly reported individual AEs were dizziness/vertigo (median incidence 13.7%), somnolence (median 11.9%), aggression (median 9.8%), irritability (median 9.1%), and cognitive deficits (median 7.0%). There was no relationship between the overall rate of AEs and perampanel dose, perampanel plasma levels, or number of concomitant medications. Our global overview of European observational studies with perampanel provides evidence that this agent is effective and safe in clinical practice in a range of countries, patients, and settings.

Imaging of Transmembrane AMPA Receptor Regulatory Proteins by Positron Emission Tomography

The transmembrane α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor regulatory protein γ-8 (TARP γ-8) constitutes an auxiliary subunit of AMPA receptors, which mediates various brain functions including learning and memory. TARP γ-8 has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for central nervous system disorders. Despite considerable efforts, previously reported TARP γ-8 PET radioligands, such as [11C]TARP-1903 and [11C]TARP-1811 series, were plagued by limited brain uptake and/or high nonspecific binding in vivo. Herein, we developed two novel 11C-labeled probes, [11C]8 and [11C]15 (also named as [11C]TARP-2105), of which the latter exhibited a reasonable brain uptake as well as specific binding toward TARP γ-8 both in vitro and in vivo, as confirmed by blocking experiments with the commercially available TARP γ-8 inhibitor, JNJ-55511118 in the TARP γ-8-rich hippocampus. Overall, [11C]15 exhibited promising tracer characteristics and proved to be a lead positron-emission tomography ligand for the non-invasive quantification of TARP γ-8 in the mammalian brain.

Impact of Antiseizure Medications on Appetite and Weight in Children

There are numerous potential factors that may affect growth in children with epilepsy, and these must be evaluated in any child with appetite and weight concerns. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) have potential adverse effects, and many may affect appetite, thus impacting normal growth and weight gain. The aim of this review is to focus on the impact of both epilepsy and ASMs on appetite and weight in children. We systematically reviewed studies using Medline assessing the impact of ASMs on appetite and weight in children. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and open-label studies (open-label extension and interventional) that targeted or included the pediatric population (0-18 years of age). Each study was classified using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Studies, and the level of evidence for impact on appetite and weight in children was graded. ASMs associated with decreased appetite and/or weight loss include fenfluramine, topiramate, zonisamide, felbamate, rufinamide, stiripentol, cannabidiol, brivaracetam and ethosuximide; ASMs with minimal impact on weight and appetite in children include oxcarbazepine, eslicarbazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, lacosamide, carbamazepine, vigabatrin and clobazam. The ASM most robustly associated with increased appetite and/or weight gain is valproic acid; however, both pregabalin and perampanel may also lead to modest weight gain or increased appetite in children. Certain ASMs may impact both appetite and weight, which may lead to increased morbidity of the underlying disease and impaired adherence to the treatment regimen.

Perampanel as First Add-On Therapy in Patients with Focal-Onset Seizures in the FAME Trial: <i>Post hoc</i> Analyses of Efficacy and Safety Related to Maintenance Dose and Background Antiepileptic Drug Therapy

Background and Purpose: FAME (Fycompa^® as first Add-on to Monotherapy in patients with Epilepsy; NCT02726074), a previously reported single-arm, phase IV study, showed that perampanel improved seizure control as first add-on to failed anti-seizure medication (ASM) monotherapy in 85 South Korean patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS) with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. We present results of three <i>post hoc</i> analyses of FAME that further assessed the efficacy and safety of perampanel.Methods: Patients were stratified by low- (4, 6 mg/day) versus high- (8, 10, 12 mg/day) dose maintenance perampanel, perampanel added to first- versus second-line ASM monotherapy, and concomitant background ASM monotherapy and perampanel dose. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in total seizure frequency during the 24-week maintenance period. Safety was assessed by the descriptive incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).Results: In <i>post hoc</i> analyses, 50% responder rates were significantly higher for low- versus high-dose maintenance perampanel (88.6% vs. 40.0%; <i>p</i><0.001) and when added to first- versus second-line ASM monotherapy (83.5% vs. 33.3%; <i>p</i>=0.013). By concomitant background ASM and perampanel maintenance dose, 50% responder rates were 100% for perampanel 4 mg/day added to carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or valproic acid, and 85% when added to levetiracetam. Add-on perampanel improved 75% and seizure-free responder rates, and median percent changes from baseline seizure frequency per 28 days. Perampanel was well tolerated when added to ASM monotherapy, with dizziness being the most common TEAE.Conclusions: <i>Post hoc</i> analyses of FAME provide supportive data for the use of perampanel as an effective and well-tolerated first add-on treatment to a broad spectrum of ASM monotherapies in patients with FOS.

Perampanel as First Adjunctive Treatment in Patients with Focal-Onset Seizures in the FAME Study: <i>Post hoc</i> Analyses of Dose-Related Efficacy, Safety and Clinical Factors Associated with Response

Background and Purpose: Perampanel is approved for the adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without secondary generalized seizures. The FAME (Fycompa^® as first Add-on to Monotherapy in patients with Epilepsy; NCT02726074) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of perampanel added to monotherapy in patients with FOS with or without secondary generalized seizures (SGS). <i>Post hoc</i> analyses of the FAME study assessed potential predictors of response and an in-depth evaluation of the safety and efficacy of perampanel.Methods: Efficacy was assessed by reduction of total seizure frequency by ≥50%, ≥75% or 100%, and safety by incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses for treatment response were performed.Results: Most patients (82/85) received perampanel doses of 4-8 mg/day during maintenance therapy and the highest efficacy rates were achieved with 4 mg/day, irrespective of efficacy outcome. Doses of 4 or 6 mg/day in patients with FOS with SGS (n=16) produced comparable efficacy outcomes. In multivariate analysis, total perampanel dose was predictive of 50% and 75% response rates; longer total perampanel administration period with 50% response; and concomitant non-anti-seizure medication with a 100% response. Patients developed a TEAE more frequently during the 12-week titration period (60.2%) than the 24-week maintenance period (28.4%), including dizziness (45.5% vs. 9.1%), somnolence (10.2% vs. 0%), and headache (4.5% vs. 3.4%).Conclusions: <i>Post hoc</i> analyses show that even low doses of perampanel may be effective and TEAEs are usually self-limited or well-tolerated.

New evidence in adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults: a critical appraisal

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) represent the pillar of the treatment of epilepsy. The rate of drug-resistant epilepsy remained substantially unchanged over time and there is still the need for new and more effective treatment options. Brivaracetam, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide and perampanel are 'third-generation' ASMs. The aim of this article is to summarize the currently available evidence about the relative efficacy and tolerability of the 'third-generation' ASMs as adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults. So far, no randomized controlled study directly compared these ASMs, and their comparative efficacy and tolerability have been indirectly evaluated by one network meta-analysis. Sixteen trials were included in the network meta-analysis. The efficacy endpoints were the rates of seizure response and seizure freedom, defined as ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline monthly seizure frequency. The tolerability endpoints were the rate of patients who developed any treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and any TEAE leading to drug discontinuation. Cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction. Brivaracetam and lacosamide had the greatest likelihood to rank as the best-tolerated treatments for the occurrence of any TEAE and TEAE leading to discontinuation. Although network meta-analyses are not substitutes of direct comparisons, they can provide valuable evidence about the hierarchy of interventions. Additional real-world data can be useful complement to characterize the clinical profile and therapeutic potentialities of third-generation ASMs.

Perampanel Reduces Brain Damage via Induction of M2 Microglia in a Neonatal Rat Stroke Model

Purpose

Ischemic stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Additionally, neonatal ischemia is a common cause of neonatal brain injury, resulting in cerebral palsy with subsequent learning disabilities and epilepsy. However, there is currently a lack of effective treatments available for patients with perinatal ischemic stroke. In this study, we investigated the effect of perampanel (PER)-loaded poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) by targeting microglia in perinatal stroke.

Methods

After formation of focal ischemic stroke by photothrombosis in P7 rats, PER-loaded PLGA was injected intrathecally. Proinflammatory markers (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, COX2, and iNOS) and M2 polarization markers (Ym1 and Arg1) were evaluated. We investigated whether PER increased M2 microglial polarization in vitro.

Results

PER-loaded PLGA nanoparticles decreased the pro-inflammatory cytokines compared to the control group. Furthermore, they increased M2 polarization.

Conclusion

PER-loaded PLGA nanoparticles decreased the size of the infarct and increased motor function in a perinatal ischemic stroke rat model. Pro-inflammatory cytokines were also reduced compared to the control group. Finally, this development of a drug delivery system targeting microglia confirms the potential to develop new therapeutic agents for perinatal ischemic stroke.

Intravenous Perampanel as an Interchangeable Alternative to Oral Perampanel: A Randomized, Crossover, Phase I Pharmacokinetic and Safety Study

Intravenous (IV) drug administration enables treatment of epilepsy when oral administration is temporarily not feasible. Perampanel is a once‐daily antiseizure medication currently available as oral formulations. Study 050 (NCT03376997) was an open‐label, randomized, single‐dose, crossover study to evaluate the interchangeability of oral and IV perampanel in healthy subjects (N = 48). Bioequivalence of single 12‐mg doses of IV (30‐, 60‐, or 90‐minute infusion) and oral perampanel, ≥6 weeks apart, was assessed. Analyses indicated bioequivalence of area under the plasma concentration–time curve extrapolated to infinity for 30‐ and 60‐minute IV infusions and oral perampanel doses (geometric mean ratio [90% confidence interval], 0.93 [0.84–1.02] and 1.03 [0.97–1.09], respectively); however, IV maximum observed drug concentration (C_max) values were 1.35‐ to 1.61‐fold higher than C_max. Simulated plasma concentration–time profiles using pooled pharmacokinetic data further supported oral and IV perampanel interchangeability in two scenarios: 12‐mg per day IV dosing during a temporary 7‐day switch from oral steady‐state maintenance therapy, and treatment initiation with 2‐mg perampanel. Thirty‐four (70.8%) subjects experienced treatment‐related adverse events. The IV perampanel safety profile was similar to that of oral perampanel without new safety concerns. Perampanel IV infusions may be a suitable temporary alternative to oral perampanel for treatment maintenance and/or initiation.