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

Abstract

IntroductionThe PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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 < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031).DiscussionThis 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 safety of perampanel as early add-on therapy in Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures: a multicenter, open-label, single-arm study

“…Patients in our study had a 67.9 50% responder rate and a 30.5% seizure-freedom rate during the 6-month maintenance, these results were in line with previous studies on perampanel early add-on ( 35 , 37 – 39 ). In addition, consistent with previous studies reporting higher efficacy of perampanel add-on in patients with FBTCS compared to those without FBTCS ( 14 , 19 , 38 , 40 ), we also found that perampanel was especially effective in patients with FBTCS, with a 50% responder rate of 96.0% and seizure-freedom rate of 76.0% during maintenance.…”

Adverse Event Profiles of Antiseizure Medications and the Impact of Coadministration on Drug Tolerability in Adults with Epilepsy

“…3 ) and the results of the descriptive analysis (Fig. 2 a), several publications highlight psychobehavioral symptoms in addition to dizziness, unsteadiness, and concentration problems as frequently reported AEs and reasons for therapy discontinuation [ 11 , 52 – 58 ]. Analogous to other ASMs, the occurrence and severity of AEs associated with PER appear to be dose-dependent [ 59 ].…”

The cenobamate KORK study—A prospective monocenter observational study investigating cenobamate as an adjunctive therapy in refractory epilepsy, with comparisons to historical cohorts treated with add‐on lacosamide, perampanel, and brivaracetam

“…However, if we had considered all PWE lost to follow‐up as discontinuers, as was sometimes done in other studies, 48 the retention rate would still have been 71.5%, which is well within the range of other ASMs and the retrospective real‐world studies about CNB therapy. 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 …”