Dataset Information

Perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy: Interim analysis of a phase IV study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the retention rate, efficacy, safety, and dosing of perampanel administered to patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care in the retrospective phase IV, PROVE Study (NCT03208660).

Methods

Exposure, efficacy, and safety data were obtained from the medical records of patients initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, across 29 US study sites. The cutoff date for this interim analysis was October 10, 2018. The primary efficacy endpoint was retention rate. Secondary efficacy endpoints included median percent changes in seizure frequency, seizure-freedom rate, and overall investigator impression of seizure effect.

Results

All enrolled patients (N = 1121) received perampanel. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cumulative duration of exposure to perampanel was 16.6 (14.7) months; overall mean (SD) daily perampanel dose was 5.7 (2.7) mg. Perampanel uptitration occurred weekly (21.1%), biweekly (23.8%), every 3 weeks (1.5%), other (43.3%), and unknown (10.3%). Across the Safety Analysis Set (N = 1121), retention rate on perampanel at 24 months was 49.5% (n = 319/645).At 12 months, the median reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline in the small number of patients for whom data were available was 75.0% (n = 85), and 30/85 (35.3%) patients were seizure free. Based on investigator impression at the end of treatment, improvement, no change (ie, stable), or worsening of seizures was reported in 54.3%, 33.7%, and 12.0% of patients, respectively.Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 500 (44.6%) patients; the most common were dizziness (9.2%), aggression (5.4%), and irritability (4.5%). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 32 (2.9%) patients.

Significance

Favorable retention and sustained efficacy were demonstrated for ?12 months following initiation of perampanel during routine clinical care in patients with epilepsy.

SUBMITTER: Wheless J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7918328 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy: Interim analysis of a phase IV study.

Wheless James J Wechsler Robert T RT Lancman Marcelo M Aboumatar Sami S Patten Anna A Malhotra Manoj M

Epilepsia open 20201219 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the retention rate, efficacy, safety, and dosing of perampanel administered to patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care in the retrospective phase IV, PROVE Study (NCT03208660).<h4>Methods</h4>Exposure, efficacy, and safety data were obtained from the medical records of patients initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, across 29 US study sites. The cutoff date for this interim analysis was October 10, 2018. The primary efficacy endpoint was retention ra ...[more]

PMID: 33681651

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:ObjectiveTo gather real-world evidence on antiseizure medications (ASMs) treatment patterns and related outcomes in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.MethodsMedical insurance claims from the start of 2014 till the end of 2019 were used. Patient selection criteria included International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes followed by documented ASM use. Baseline patient demographics along with ASM and rescue medication use patterns and related patient outcome were documented for first (index) ASM regimen. Patients who failed the first regimen and then failed the second regimen were considered drug resistant. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify risks and other characteristics for positive or negative treatment outcomes.ResultsStudy cohort consisted of 46 474 patients with a mean age of 47.23 (SD: 16.94). Levetiracetam was the most first-encountered ASM (37.94%). At baseline, 87.14% were treated with ASMs prior to having study-confirmed diagnoses. Mental comorbidities were present in 37.86% of patients. After first-year ASM treatment, 34.61% of patients persisted on their index regimen and 5.91% were seizure-free. Patients failing first ASM regimen numbered 12 868 (27.69%). Drug-resistant patients who failed first and then second ASM regimens numbered 6335 (49.23%). Percentages of patients who had successful second treatment and seizure-free were 21.32 and 3.65, respectively. Initiating patients on lamotrigine or carbamazepine (relative to levetiracetam), baseline use of index ASM, rescue medications, and older age or male gender all lowered the risk for treatment failure. Having higher comorbidity, comorbid mental illness, headache, or neoplasty increased such a risk. Baseline use of index ASM, depressive episode, or anxiety disorder all entailed higher risk of failing second ASM treatment.SignificanceOverall, reported findings indicated that patient history at baseline and the early selection of an ASM all influenced treatment outcomes. Findings pointed to the complex nature of ASM treatment in drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients calling for additional research to identify the optimal treatment to achieve beneficial patient outcomes.

Dataset Information

Perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy: Interim analysis of a phase IV study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Significance

Publications

Perampanel in real-world clinical care of patients with epilepsy: Interim analysis of a phase IV study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets