An Evidence-Based Review On The Use Of Perampanel For The Treatment Of Focal-Onset Seizures In Pediatric Patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dozieres-Puyravel B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6767767 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An Evidence-Based Review On The Use Of Perampanel For The Treatment Of Focal-Onset Seizures In Pediatric Patients.
Dozières-Puyravel Blandine B Auvin Stéphane S
Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment 20190924
Perampanel, a non-competitive AMPA receptor antagonist, is a once-daily oral antiepileptic drug approved for the treatment of focal seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in children 12 years of age and over. We conducted a systematic review of the data on perampanel in children and adolescents with focal-onset seizures. We found 21 published papers on the pediatric use of perampanel for focal-onset seizures, including 9 papers on clinical trials and ancillary studies of these tr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of perampanel added to monotherapy in patients with focal-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures.Materials & methodsIn this multicentre, open-label trial, enrolled patients were treated with perampanel monotherapy. During a 12-week titration period, perampanel was incrementally increased by 2 mg/d over ≥2-week intervals. Patients then entered a 24-week maintenance period. The primary objective was to investigate the 50% responder rate in total seizure frequency, with 75% and 100% responder rates as secondary objectives. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions were recorded. A post hoc analysis was performed to investigate the effect of titration speed and different concomitant AEDs on the efficacy and safety of perampanel.ResultsOf the 85 patients analysed, seizure reductions of 50%, 75% and 100% were observed in 80.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69.9-87.9), 71.8% (95% CI: 61.0-81.0) and 47.1% (95% CI: 36.1-58.2) during the maintenance period, respectively. The 50%, 75% and 100% response rates in patients with secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures were 87.5% (95% CI: 61.7-98.5), 87.5% (95% CI: 61.7-98.5) and 75.0% (95% CI: 47.6-92.7), respectively. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (50.0%), somnolence (9.8%) and headache (8.8%). The efficacy outcomes and safety profile of perampanel were more favourable with slow titration and relatively consistent when stratified by concomitant AEDs.ConclusionsPerampanel was effective and well tolerated as a first add-on to monotherapy in patients with focal-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized seizures.
| S-EPMC6973118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Assess cognitive effects of adjunctive perampanel in adolescents.In this double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01161524), patients aged 12 to <18 years with partial-onset seizures despite receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs were randomized (2:1) to perampanel or placebo. Perampanel was increased weekly in 2-mg increments to 8-12 mg/day (6-week titration; 13-week maintenance). Changes in neuropsychological outcomes were assessed at end of maintenance: Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) System Global Cognition Score (primary end point), five CDR System domain T-scores (secondary end points), letter fluency, category fluency, and Lafayette Grooved Pegboard Test (LGPT).One hundred thirty-three patients were randomized. In the full analysis set, there were no differences of perampanel (n = 79) vs. placebo (n = 44) in CDR System Global Cognition Score (least squares mean change, -0.6 vs. 1.6; p = 0.145), Quality of Working Memory (1.1 vs. 2.0; p = 0.579), or Power of Attention (-6.9 vs. -2.7; p = 0.219). There were small differences with perampanel vs. placebo in other CDR System domains: improvements in Quality of Episodic Memory (3.0 vs. -1.2; p = 0.012), and worsening in Continuity of Attention (-3.3 vs. 1.6; p = 0.013) and Speed of Memory (0.3 vs. 7.0; p = 0.032). Letter fluency, category fluency, and LGPT were not significantly different between groups. The most frequent adverse events with perampanel were dizziness (30.6%) and somnolence (15.3%).Perampanel did not differ from placebo in the global cognitive score, two of five subdomains, and four other cognitive measures. Perampanel was worse on two and better on one subdomain.
| S-EPMC4785606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess efficacy and safety of once-daily 8 or 12 mg perampanel, a noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, when added to concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of drug-resistant partial-onset seizures.MethodsThis was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00699972). Patients (≥12 years, with ongoing seizures despite 1-3 AEDs) were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily perampanel 8 mg, 12 mg, or placebo. Following baseline (6 weeks), patients entered a 19-week double-blind phase: 6-week titration (2 mg/week increments to target dose) followed by a 13-week maintenance period. Percent change in seizure frequency was the primary endpoint; 50% responder rate was the primary endpoint for EU registration.ResultsOf 388 patients randomized and treated, 387 provided seizure frequency data. Using this intent-to-treat population over the double-blind phase, the median percent change in seizure frequency was -21.0%, -26.3%, and -34.5% for placebo and perampanel 8 and 12 mg, respectively (p = 0.0261 and p = 0.0158 for 8 and 12 mg vs placebo, respectively). Fifty percent responder rates during the maintenance period were 26.4%, 37.6%, and 36.1%, respectively, for placebo, perampanel 8 mg, and perampanel 12 mg; these differences were not statistically significant for 8 mg (p = 0.0760) or 12 mg (p = 0.0914). Sixty-eight (17.5%) patients discontinued, including 40 (10.3%) for adverse events. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, irritability, headache, fall, and ataxia.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrated that once-daily, adjunctive perampanel at doses of 8 or 12 mg improved seizure control in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures. Doses of perampanel 8 and 12 mg were safe, and tolerability was acceptable.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that once-daily 8 and 12 mg doses of adjunctive perampanel are effective in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.
| S-EPMC3413761 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: China has ~6 million patients with active epilepsy every year, around 60% of whom suffer from partial-onset seizures. Perampanel (PER) is a novel anti-epileptic drug for partial-onset seizures. PER has been included in the latest Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) in 2020. However, there is still a lack of evaluation evidence on the value of PER in China. Methods: This study selected a health system perspective. A Markov model was established to simulate the lifelong transition of different response levels and calculate the number of seizures in Chinese patients. Based on the utility value and mortality risk, the life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients using PER vs. lacosamide (LCM) were estimated. Efficacy data were derived from clinical trials and the literature. Cost data (in US dollars) included drug costs and medical service costs. A lifetime horizon was adopted. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual discount rate of 5%. Deterministic sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed. The impact of the inclusion of PER in the NRDL on the medical insurance budget over 3 years (2021-2023) was also estimated. Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that 8 mg/day of PER increases QALYs by 0.054 and saves costs by $2,390 compared with 400 mg/day of LCM. 4 mg/day of PER increases QALYs by 0.010 and saves costs by $860 compared with 200 mg/day of LCM. Deterministic sensitivity analysis reveals that utility value and the extreme discount rate are the factors with the greatest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis show that the results are robust. Budget impact analysis indicates that after inclusion of PER in the NRDL, the incremental budget would be $1.28, $2.83, and $4.56 million from 2021 to 2023, respectively, but covering more eligible epileptic patients in the same time (1,918, 4,287, and 8,983, respectively). Conclusion: PER (8 or 4 mg/day) is of relatively high value as an add-on therapeutic regimen for partial-onset seizures in China because of its dominate advantage of cost-effectiveness over LCM and acceptable budget impact.
| S-EPMC8290415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS:Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom,???50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS:Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION:These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.
| S-EPMC6979440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To accelerate the process of licensing antiseizure medication (ASM) in children, extrapolation of efficacy data for focal-onset seizures from adults to children ≥2 or ≥4 years of age is now accepted. We summarized the efficacy evidence from randomized, controlled trials that was used to grant approval for the pediatric indication of focal-onset seizures for the different ASMs available in Europe. Data from high-quality randomized, controlled trials in young children are limited, especially on the use of ASMs in monotherapy. Licensure trials are typically focused on seizure type irrespective of etiology or epilepsy syndrome. We elaborate on the importance of etiology- or syndrome-driven research and treatment, illustrating this with examples of childhood epilepsy syndromes characterized by predominantly focal-onset seizures. Some of these syndromes respond well to standard ASMs used for focal-onset seizures, but others would benefit from a more etiology- or syndrome-driven approach. Advances in molecular genetics and neuroimaging have made it possible to reveal the underlying cause of a child's epilepsy and tailor research and treatment. More high-quality randomized, controlled trials based on etiology or syndrome type are needed, including those assessing effects on cognition and behavior. In addition, study designs such as "N-of-1 trials" could elucidate possible new treatment options in rare epilepsies. Broadening incentives currently in place to stimulate the development and marketing of drugs for rare diseases (applicable to some epilepsy syndromes) to more common pediatric epilepsy types and syndromes might be a means to enable high-quality trials, and ultimately allow more evidence-based treatment in children.
| S-EPMC8940242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Focal seizures are episodes of pathological brain activity that appear to arise from a localised area of the brain. The onset patterns of focal seizure activity have been studied intensively, and they have largely been distinguished into two types-low amplitude fast oscillations (LAF), or high amplitude spikes (HAS). Here we explore whether these two patterns arise from fundamentally different mechanisms. Here, we use a previously established computational model of neocortical tissue, and validate it as an adequate model using clinical recordings of focal seizures. We then reproduce the two onset patterns in their most defining properties and investigate the possible mechanisms underlying the different focal seizure onset patterns in the model. We show that the two patterns are associated with different mechanisms at the spatial scale of a single ECoG electrode. The LAF onset is initiated by independent patches of localised activity, which slowly invade the surrounding tissue and coalesce over time. In contrast, the HAS onset is a global, systemic transition to a coexisting seizure state triggered by a local event. We find that such a global transition is enabled by an increase in the excitability of the "healthy" surrounding tissue, which by itself does not generate seizures, but can support seizure activity when incited. In our simulations, the difference in surrounding tissue excitability also offers a simple explanation of the clinically reported difference in surgical outcomes. Finally, we demonstrate in the model how changes in tissue excitability could be elucidated, in principle, using active stimulation. Taken together, our modelling results suggest that the excitability of the tissue surrounding the seizure core may play a determining role in the seizure onset pattern, as well as in the surgical outcome.
| S-EPMC5417416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Study 311 (NCT02849626) was a global, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study that assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of once-daily adjunctive perampanel oral suspension in pediatric patients (aged 4 to <12 years) with focal seizures (FS) (with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures [FBTCS]) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). METHODS:In the 311 Core Study, a 4-week Pre-treatment Period (Screening/Baseline) preceded a 23-week Treatment Period (11-week Titration; 12-week Maintenance) and 4-week Follow-up. Endpoints included safety/tolerability (primary endpoint), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline (Treatment Period), and 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates (Maintenance Period). Patients were stratified by age (4 to <7; 7 to <12 years) and concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure drug (EIASD) use. RESULTS:One hundred eighty patients were enrolled (FS, n = 149; FBTCS, n = 54; GTCS, n = 31). The Core Study was completed by 146 patients (81%); the most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse event (AE) (n = 14 [8%]). Mean (standard deviation) daily perampanel dose was 7.0 (2.6) mg/day and median (interquartile range) duration of exposure was 22.9 (2.0) weeks. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs; 89%) was similar between patients with FS (with/without FBTCS) and GTCS. The most common TEAEs were somnolence (26%) and nasopharyngitis (19%). There were no clinically important changes observed for cognitive function, laboratory, or electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters or vital signs. Median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline were as follows: 40% (FS), 59% (FBTCS), and 69% (GTCS). Corresponding 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates were as follows: FS, 47% and 12%; FBTCS, 65% and 19%; and GTCS, 64% and 55%, respectively. Improvements in response/seizure frequency from Baseline were seen regardless of age or concomitant EIASD use. SIGNIFICANCE:Results from the 311 Core Study suggest that daily oral doses of adjunctive perampanel are generally safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in children age 4 to <12 years with FS (with/without FBTCS) or GTCS.
| S-EPMC7004020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCenobamate is a novel tetrazole-derived carbamate compound with a dual mechanism of action. This drug can enhance the inactivated state of voltage-gated sodium channels, preferentially inhibiting the persistent component of the sodium channel current, and acts as a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, binding at a non-benzodiazepine site.ObjectiveWe assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adult patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques.MethodsWe systematically searched (May, week 4, 2020) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blinded, add-on trials of cenobamate in adult patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures were identified. Main outcomes included the proportion of patients with ≥ 50 and 100% reduction in seizure frequency during the maintenance treatment period compared with baseline and the incidence of treatment withdrawal and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated for each outcome.ResultsTwo trials were included, overall enrolling 659 patients (442 for the add-on cenobamate group and 217 for the add-on placebo group). Seizure frequency reduction by at least 50% occurred during the maintenance phase in 50.1% of the patients randomized to cenobamate and 23.5% of the placebo-treated participants (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.67-2.85; p < 0.001). The pooled estimated RR to achieve seizure freedom for the cenobamate group in comparison with placebo was 3.71 (95% CI 1.93-7.14; p < 0.001). Withdrawal from randomized treatment occurred in 16.7 and 11.1% of participants receiving cenobamate and placebo, respectively (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85-2.09; p = 0.205). Treatment was discontinued due to AEs in 12.2 and 4.1% of the patients in the active and control arms (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.08-4.79; p = 0.031). AEs were reported in 76.9 and 66.8% of the patients during treatment with cenobamate and placebo (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.26; p = 0.021). The cenobamate-associated AEs included somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, balance disorder, and diplopia.ConclusionsAdjunctive cenobamate in adult patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures is associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency and a higher rate of AEs than placebo.
| S-EPMC7658084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrivaracetam (BRV), cenobamate (CNB), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) are antiseizure medications (ASMs) approved for adjunctive treatment of focal-onset seizures. So far, no randomised controlled trial directly compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs.ObjectiveWe estimated the comparative efficacy and safety of these ASMs for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy using a network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe systematically searched (June week 4, 2021) MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ). There were no date limitations or language restrictions. Randomised, double-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, add-on studies that compared oral BRV, CNB, ESL, LCM, and PER versus any comparator over maintenance periods of at least 12 weeks and included adult patients with focal seizures uncontrolled by concomitant ASMs were identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥ 50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes were the proportions of participants who experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and experienced at least one TEAE leading to discontinuation. Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework. The hierarchy of competing interventions was established using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsSixteen trials (BRV: n = 3, CNB: n = 1, ESL: n = 4, LCM: n = 4, PER: n = 4) were included, overall enrolling 4507 patients randomised to add-on active treatments (BRV = 803, CNB = 221, ESL =9 90, LCM = 1104, and PER = 1389) and 2246 to add-on placebo. Cenobamate was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction than BRV [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.66], ESL (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.07-3.48), LCM (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.32), and PER (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.16-3.70). There was a not statistically significant trend favouring CNB over ESL, LCM and PER for the seizure freedom outcome. Brivaracetam (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86) and LCM (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.88) were associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing TEAEs compared to ESL, and patients treated with PER were associated with a higher risk to experience at least one TEAE (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.96) than BRV. According to SUCRA, CNB had the greatest likelihood of being the best option for the ≥ 50% and 100% seizure frequency reduction, and BRV and LCM had the highest probabilities of being the best-tolerated treatments.ConclusionsCenobamate ranked best for efficacy, and BRV and LCM were best tolerated over the other comparators. Although NMAs cannot replace direct comparisons, they may support physicians in clinical decision making.
| S-EPMC8843918 | biostudies-literature