Dataset Information

Perampanel efficacy and tolerability with enzyme-inducing AEDs in patients with epilepsy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Evaluate the impact of concomitant enzyme (CYP3A4)-inducer antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) on the efficacy and safety of perampanel in patients from the 3 phase-III clinical trials.

Methods

Patients with pharmacoresistant partial-onset seizures in the 3 phase-III clinical studies were aged 12 years and older and receiving 1 to 3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Following 6-week baseline, patients were randomized to once-daily, double-blind treatment with placebo or perampanel 8 or 12 mg (studies 304 and 305) or placebo or perampanel 2, 4, or 8 mg (study 306).

Results

Treatment response assessed by median percent reduction in seizure frequency and responder rates improved with perampanel compared with placebo. However, at 8 and 12 mg, the treatment response was significantly greater in patients receiving non-EIAEDs. The treatment effect (perampanel-placebo) also demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in all patients. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar regardless of the presence of EIAEDs. Occurrence of some adverse events, such as fatigue, somnolence, dizziness, irritability, was greater in patients receiving non-EIAEDs, as was discontinuation because of adverse events.

Conclusions

Perampanel shows efficacy and safety in the presence and absence of EIAEDs. As systemic exposure to perampanel increases, so does efficacy. Given the extensive metabolism of perampanel, systemic exposure is clearly reduced with concomitant administration of CYP3A4 inducers. This supports the strategy of dosing perampanel to clinical effect. Recognition of these pharmacokinetic interactions will be important in the optimization of this novel medication.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class II evidence that 2 to 12 mg/d doses of perampanel reduced seizure frequency and improved responder rate in the presence and absence of EIAEDs.

SUBMITTER: Gidal BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4433458 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perampanel efficacy and tolerability with enzyme-inducing AEDs in patients with epilepsy.

Gidal Barry E BE Laurenza Antonio A Hussein Ziad Z Yang Haichen H Fain Randi R Edelstein Jacob J Kumar Dinesh D Ferry Jim J

Neurology 20150415 19

<h4>Objective</h4>Evaluate the impact of concomitant enzyme (CYP3A4)-inducer antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) on the efficacy and safety of perampanel in patients from the 3 phase-III clinical trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with pharmacoresistant partial-onset seizures in the 3 phase-III clinical studies were aged 12 years and older and receiving 1 to 3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Following 6-week baseline, patients were randomized to once-daily, double-blind treatment with placebo or perampan ...[more]

PMID: 25878177

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives(1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre- and post-analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide.MethodsPatients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2016). Patients 4-11 years of age with any partial-onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre-post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel ("index date") marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre-index (based on ICD-9/ICD-10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation.ResultsPre- and post-perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One-year all-cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 29.5% in the follow-up. One-year epilepsy-related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 23.9% during follow-up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti-seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy-related hospitalizations decreased from the pre-index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy-related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05).SignificancePerampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one-year hospitalization risk.

Project description:IntroductionPerampanel is a first-in-class antiepileptic drug approved for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizure in patients aged 12 years or older. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) had small sample sizes, and meta-analyses have included too few studies to draw conclusive results for the assessment of tolerability, efficacy and safety of perampanel. There is a need to conduct a meta-analysis with a larger dataset and an appropriate study design.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of perampanel in the treatment of partial-onset epilepsy.MethodsElectronic and clinical trials databases were searched for RCTs of perampanel published up to March 2013. Outcomes of interest were 50 % responder rates, seizure freedom, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and incidence of withdrawal. Meta-analysis was performed to investigate the outcomes of interest.ResultsFive RCTs with a total of 1,678 subjects were included. The 50 % responder rates were significantly greater in patients receiving 4, 8 and 12 mg perampanel versus placebo, with risk ratios of 1.54 (95 % CI 1.11-2.13), 1.80 (95 % CI 1.38-2.35) and 1.72 (95 % CI 1.17-2.52), respectively. There was no statistical evidence of a difference in seizure freedom between 8 or 12 mg perampanel and placebo. Of the five commonly reported TEAEs included, both dizziness and somnolence were statistically associated with 8 mg perampanel, whilst dizziness was statistically associated with 12 mg perampanel. Incidences of withdrawal due to adverse events were significantly higher in the 8 mg and 12 mg perampanel groups versus placebo.ConclusionThe use of perampanel resulted in a statistically significant reduction of seizure frequency with respect to the 50 % responder rate in patients with partial-onset epilepsy. Perampanel is well tolerated at 4 mg and reasonably tolerated at 8 and 12 mg. Further clinical and pharmacovigilance studies are required to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of perampanel in the management of other types of epilepsy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An efficient, well tolerated, and safe emergency treatment with a rapid onset of action is needed to prevent seizure clusters and to terminate prolonged seizures and status epilepticus. OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) spray in clinical practice. METHODS:In this retrospective, multicenter observational study, we evaluated all patients with peri-ictal application of in-MDZ during video-EEG monitoring at the epilepsy centers in Frankfurt and Marburg between 2 014 and 2017. For every patient, we analyzed the recurrence of any seizure or generalized tonic-clonic seizures after index seizures with and without in-MDZ administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also evaluated. RESULTS:In-MDZ was used in 243 patients with epilepsy (mean age 35.5 years; range 5-76 years; 46.5% female) for treatment of 459 seizures. A median dose of in-MDZ 5 mg (i.e., two puffs; range 2.5-15 mg) was administered within a median time from EEG seizure onset until in-MDZ application of 1.18 min [interquartile range (IQR) 1.27], while median time from clinical seizure onset until in-MDZ administration was 1.08 min (IQR 1.19). In-MDZ was given within 1 min after EEG seizure onset in 171 seizures. An intraindividual comparison of seizures with and without application of in-MDZ was feasible in 171 patients, demonstrating that in-MDZ reduced the occurrence of any (Cox proportional-hazard model p?<?0.001) and generalized tonic-clonic seizure (Cox proportional-hazard model p?=?0.0167) over a period of 24 h. The seizure-free timespan was doubled from a median of 5.0 h in controls to a median of 10.67 h after in-MDZ administration. We additionally clustered in-MDZ administrations for the 119 patients who received in-MDZ more than once, comparing them with the index cases without in-MDZ. Even when considering subsequent seizures with in-MDZ administration, a patient receiving in-MDZ is still half as likely to incur another seizure in the upcoming 24 h as compared with when the same patient does not receive in-MDZ (hazard ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.42-0.60; p?<?0.01). In-MDZ was well tolerated without major adverse events. The most common side effects were irritation of the nasal mucosa [37 cases (8.1%)], prolonged sedation [26 cases (5.7%)], and nausea and vomiting [12 cases (2.6%)]. A decline in oxygen saturation was measured after 78 seizures (17%). CONCLUSION:We conclude that in-MDZ is a safe and efficient treatment option to prevent short-term recurrence of seizures. In-MDZ can be administered very quickly by trained staff within 1-2 min after seizure onset. No major cardiocirculatory or respiratory adverse events were observed.

Project description:ObjectiveOur study assessed perampanel monotherapy in patients (aged ≥12 years) with focal-onset seizures (FOS) with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) in Japan and South Korea.MethodsStudy 342 (NCT03201900; FREEDOM) is a single-arm, open-label, Phase III study. Patients initially received perampanel in a 32-week 4-mg/d Treatment Phase (6-week Titration; 26-week Maintenance Periods). If they experienced a seizure during the 4-mg/d Maintenance Period, they could be up-titrated to 8 mg/d across an additional 30-week Treatment Phase (4-week Titration; 26-week Maintenance Periods). Primary endpoint was the seizure-freedom rate during the Maintenance Period (4 mg/d and last evaluated dose [4 or 8 mg/d]). Secondary endpoints included time to first seizure onset and to withdrawal during Maintenance. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored.ResultsAt data cutoff (February 28, 2019), 89 patients with FOS (84 [94.4%] with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 5 [5.6%] with recurrence of epilepsy after a period of remission) had received ≥1 perampanel dose; 16 patients discontinued during the 4-mg/d Titration Period, meaning 73 patients entered the 4-mg/d Maintenance Period and were included in the primary analysis set for efficacy. Seizure-freedom rate in the 26-week Maintenance Period was 46/73 (63.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.9-74.0) at 4 mg/d and 54/73 (74.0%; 95% CI: 62.4-83.5) at 4 or 8 mg/d. Cumulative probability of seizure-onset and withdrawal rates during Maintenance was 30.8% (95% CI: 21.5-43.0) and 23.7% (95% CI: 15.4-35.3) at 4 mg/d, and 18.2% (95% CI: 11.0-29.3) and 23.3% (95% CI: 15.2-34.8) at 4 or 8 mg/d. Perampanel was generally well tolerated, and the most common TEAE was dizziness.SignificancePerampanel monotherapy (4 to 8 mg/d) was efficacious and consistent with the known safety profile up to 26 weeks in patients (≥12 years) with primarily newly diagnosed FOS with or without FBTCS.

Project description:Background and objectivesPathogenic variants in PRRT2, encoding for the proline-rich transmembrane protein 2, were identified as the main cause of self-limiting sporadic and familial infantile epilepsy. Reported data on treatment response to antiseizure medications (ASMs) in defined monogenic epilepsies are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment response of ASMs in children with monogenic PRRT2-associated infantile epilepsy.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study was conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria. Inclusion criteria were occurrence of infantile seizures and genetic diagnosis of likely pathogenic/pathogenic PRRT2 variants.ResultsTreatment response data from 52 individuals with PRRT2-associated infantile epilepsy with a total of 79 treatments (defined as each use of an ASM in an individual) were analyzed. Ninety-six percent (50/52) of all individuals received ASMs. Levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), valproate (VPA), and phenobarbital (PB) were most frequently administered. Sodium channel blockers were used in 22 individuals and resulted in seizure freedom in all but 1 child, who showed a reduction of more than 50% in seizure frequency. By contrast, treatment with LEV was associated with worsening of seizure activity in 2/25 (8%) treatments and no effect in 10/25 (40%) of treatments. LEV was rated significantly less effective also compared with VPA and PB. The retention rate for LEV was significantly lower compared with all aforementioned ASMs. No severe adverse events were reported, and no discontinuation of treatment was reported because of side effects.DiscussionIn conclusion, a favorable effect of most ASMs, especially sodium channel blockers such as carbamezepine and OXC, was observed, whereas the efficacy and the retention rate of LEV was lower in PRRT2-associated childhood epilepsy. Tolerability in these young children was good for all ASMs reported in the cohort.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that in individuals with PRRT2-associated infantile epilepsy, sodium channel blockers are associated with reduced seizure frequency but levetiracetam is not.

Dataset Information

Perampanel efficacy and tolerability with enzyme-inducing AEDs in patients with epilepsy.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Classification of evidence

Publications

Perampanel efficacy and tolerability with enzyme-inducing AEDs in patients with epilepsy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets