A Russian retrospective multicenter open-label observational study based on medical documentation on the use of perampanel in everyday clinical practice

Objective: to retrospectively assess the Russian experience with perampanel (PER) in everyday clinical practice as an adjunctive medication for the treatment of patients aged 12 years or older with focal epilepsy (FE).

Patients and methods. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted, during which the physicians filled out standard questionnaires assessing the characteristics of the disease and the therapy performed. The maximum follow-up period was 12 months. Each patient was included in the study only once for the duration of the study. A total of 164 cases of pharmacoresistant FE were analyzed. The patients' mean age was 37.7 years; the male to female ratio was 1:1. The disease duration over 10 years was in 68.7% of patients; structural epilepsy was present in 68.2% (temporal and frontal lesions in 53.4 and 39.1%, respectively)

Results and discussion. Most (26.6%) patients were prescribed PER after three previous lines of therapy; before PEP administration, there was a maximum of 2 (50.9%) and 3 (29.6%) drugs, respectively, in the combination. The initial frequency of all seizure types reached 9 [3; 34] per month; that of focal-onset bilateral tonic-clonic seizures was 3 [2; 6] per month. Combined therapy including PER could lead to the disappearance of seizures in 22.7% of cases; the responders (by all seizure types) were 52.8%, whereas the remission rate of bilateral tonic-clonic seizures was 60.8% of patients, the responder rate was 27,8%. At 12 months of follow-up, the therapy retention rate reached 80.7% (95% confidence interval, 72.3—89.1). Adverse events (AEs) were noted in 31.3% of patients; the most frequent AEs were drowsiness (10.4%), aggression (9.8%), irritability (6.7%); other AEs were observed in individual cases. The average dose of PER was 8 mg.

Conclusion. PER was effective in patients with resistant PEs at a maximum follow-up of 12 months in routine clinical practice. Remission of all seizure types was achieved in 22.7% of cases, the decrease in the number of seizures >50% was seen in 52.8% of cases; the therapy retention rate was 80.7%. The drug had a therapeutic effect in all types of focal seizures and was most effective in focal-onset bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Along with its good clinical effect, PER demonstrated a predictable safety profile.

1. Rogawski MA. Revisiting AMPA receptors as an antiepileptic drug target. Epilepsy Curr. 2011 Mar;11(2):56-63. doi: 10.5698/15357511-11.2.56.

2. Hanada T, Hashizume Y, Tokuhara N, et al. Perampanel: a novel, orally active, noncompetitive AMPA-receptor antagonist that reduces seizure activity in rodent models of epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2011 Jul;52(7):1331-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03109.x. Epub 2011 Jun 2.

3. Krauss GL, Perucca E, Kwan P, et al. Final safety, tolerability, and seizure outcomes in patients with focal epilepsy treated with adjunctive perampanel for up to 4 years in an openlabel extension of phase III randomized trials: Study 307. Epilepsia. 2018 Apr;59(4):866-76. doi: 10.1111/epi.14044. Epub 2018 Mar 25.

4. French JA, Krauss GL, Wechsler RT, et al. Perampanel for tonic-clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy. A randomized trial. Neurology. 2015 Sep 15;85(11):950-7. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001930.

5. Villanueva V, Montoya J, Castillo A, et al. Perampanel in routine clinical use in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: The 12-month GENERAL study. Epilepsia. 2018 Sep;59(9):1740-52. doi: 10.1111/epi.14522. Epub 2018 Jul 31.

6. Instructions for medical use of perampanel from 29.03.2019. LP-002200.

7. Patsalos PN. Drug Interactions With the Newer Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs) - Part 1: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interactions Between AEDs. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013 Nov;52(11):927-66. doi: 10.1007/s40262-013-0087-0.

8. Karlov VA. Clinical pharmacology of AEDs. In: Epilepsiya u detei i vzroslykh zhenshchin i muzhchin. Rukovodstvo dlya vrachei [Epilepsy in children and adult women and men. Doctor's guide]. Moscow: Binom; 2019. P. 753-66.

9. Karlov VA, Belyaev OV, Vlasov PN, et al. Russian experience with perampanel in routine clinical practice. Nevrologiya neiropsikhiatriya psikhosomatika = Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics. 2016;8(1S):11-7. (In Russ.). doi: 10.14412/2074-2711-2016-1S-11-17

10. Swiderska N, Tana HJ, Rajaib A, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of Perampanel in children, adolescents and young adults with refractory epilepsy: A UK national multicentre study. Seizure. 2017 Nov;52:63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.08.014. Epub 2017 Sep 14.

11. Sierdzan K, Hodgson H. Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel in patients with refractory partial epilepsy in a tertiary epilepsy centre. Epilepsia 2014;55:137.

12. Villanueva V, Garces M, Lopez-Gonzalez FJ, et al. Safety, efficacy and outcome-related factors of perampanel over 12 months in a real-world setting: The FYDATA study. Epilepsy Res. 2016 Oct;126:201-10. doi: 10.1016/j.eplep-syres.2016.08.001. Epub 2016 Aug 4.

13. Steinhoff BJ, Hamer H, Trinka E, et al. A multicenter survey of clinical experiences with perampanel in real life in Germany and Austria. Epilepsy Res. 2014 Jul;108(5):986-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2014.03.015. Epub 2014 Mar 27.

14. Steinhoff BJ, Bacher M, Bast T, et al. First clinical experiences with perampanel - the Kork experience in 74 patients. Epilepsia. 2014 Jan;55 Suppl 1:16-8. doi: 10.1111/epi.12492.

15. Vlasov P, Karlov V, Zhidkova I, et al. Russian experience of using perampanel in daily clinical practice. Preliminary report. Journal of Epileptology. 2016;24 61-8.

16. Brodie MJ, Barry SJ, Bamagous GA, et al. Patterns of treatment response in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Neurology. 2012 May 15;78(20): 1548-54. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182563b19. Epub 2012 May 9.

17. Shah E, Reuber M, Goulding P, et al. Clinical experience with adjunctive perampanel in adult patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: a UK and Ireland multicentre study. Seizure. 2016 Jan;34:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2015.10.017. Epub 2015 Nov 10.

18. Rohracher A, Zimmermann G, Villanueva V, et al. Perampanel in routine clinical use across Europe: Pooled, multicenter, observational data. Epilepsia. 2018 Sep;59(9):1727-39. doi: 10.1111/epi.14520. Epub 2018 Jul 25.

19. Renroe B, Yang H, Williams B. Interim efficacy and safety analysis of adjunctive perampanel in the adolescent population from the extension phase of 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 (core) studies in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. 42nd Annual Meeting of the Child Neurology Society; 30 Oct-2 Nov 2013; Austin, TX, USA, 2013.

20. Mula M, Kanner AM, Schmitz B, Schachter S. Antiepileptic drugs and suicidality: An expert consensus statement from the Task Force on Therapeutic Strategies of the ILAE Commission on Neuropsychobiology. Epilepsia. 2013 Jan;54(1):199-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03688.x. Epub 2012 Sep 20.

21. Hansen CC, Ljung H, Brodtkorb E, Reimers A. Mechanisms Underlying Aggressive Behavior Induced by Antiepileptic Drugs: Focus on Topiramate, Levetiracetam, and Perampanel. Behav Neurol. 2018 Nov 15;2018: 2064027. doi: 10.1155/2018/2064027. eCollection 2018.

22. Meador KJ, Yang H, Pina-Garza JE, et al. Cognitive effects of adjunctive perampanel for partial-onset seizures: A randomized trial. Epilepsia. 2016 Feb;57(2):243-51. doi: 10.1111/epi.13279. Epub 2016 Jan 1.

23. Jaramillo JA, Estevez Maria JC, Giron Ubeda JM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of perampanel as early add-on treatment in patients with epilepsy and focal seizures in the routine clinical practice: Spain prospective study (PERADON). Epilepsy Behav. 2020 Jan;102:106655. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106655. Epub 2019 Dec 6.