Adjunctive perampanel for partial‐onset seizures

B. Steinhoff
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12905
2018-04-01
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
Abstract:Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive, AMPA receptor antagonist, is approved in >50 countries for adjunctive treatment of partialonset seizures (POS), with or without secondarily generalized seizures, and for primary generalized tonicclonic seizures in patients with epilepsy aged ≥12 years. In the United States, perampanel was recently approved for monotherapy use for POS in patients with epilepsy aged ≥12 years.1 Approvals for POS were based on three randomized, doubleblind, placebocontrolled phase III studies (Studies 304, 305, and 306), in which adjunctive perampanel 412 mg/d reduced the frequency of POS compared with placebo.2-4 Study 335 (NCT01618695), a randomized, doubleblind, placebocontrolled phase III trial, evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel (412 mg/d) in an AsiaPacific population with refractory POS. This study provided an opportunity to explore regional similarities and differences compared with the predominantly Caucasian populations who had participated in Studies 304, 305, and 306.2-4 Efficacy and safety outcomes from Study 335 were similar to the previous phase III studies, supporting a consistent profile for perampanel across different populations with POS. In Studies 304 and 305, perampanel 12 mg/d did not appear to offer additional efficacy benefits compared with 8 mg/d,2,3 despite the loglinear relationship between perampanel exposure and efficacy.5 Therefore, Study 335 explored the perampanel doseresponse relationship stratified by use of concomitant enzymeinducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs), which are known to reduce perampanel exposure.5 Study 335 demonstrated a magnitude of efficacy that was similar to the previous phase III studies for the 8 mg/d dose but greater for the 12 mg/d dose.2,3 The ceiling effect observed in Studies 304 and 305 may be attributable to an imbalance in the number of patients taking EIAEDs across the perampanel dose groups or due to efficacy outcomes being confounded by patients not achieving and remaining on their target randomized dose.6 For example, a greater tolerability in Study 335 may have enabled patients to achieve and remain on their target randomized dose, as discontinuation rates due to treatmentemergent adverse events in patients receiving perampanel 12 mg/d were lower in Study 335 (13.9%) than in Studies 304 (19.4%2) and 305 (19.0%3). In Study 335, adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d was not associated with significant reductions in seizure frequency compared with placebo, whereas this dose was significant in Study 306.4 This may be due to a more refractory population in Study 335, as highlighted by the greater proportion of patients taking three concomitant AEDs at baseline, or it may reflect the higher proportion of patients in Study 335 taking EIAEDs. In keeping with this, and for those patients in Study 335 who received perampanel 4 mg/d and were only taking concomitant nonEIAEDs, there was a similar reduction in seizure frequency to that observed in a previous analysis.7 Furthermore and in realworld clinical practice where the dose of perampanel can be titrated according to individual clinical needs, it has been shown that some patients do respond favorably to lower doses of perampanel, including the 4 mg/d dose.8,9 As the design of Study 335 was similar to Studies 304, 305, and 306, data could be pooled to explore the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of perampanel in patients with POS. The population PK analysis also included data from a phase II cognition study involving adolescent patients (aged ≥12 to ≤17 years) with POS.10 Data from these analyses demonstrated no effect of a variety of intrinsic factors on perampanel exposure and further clarified that concomitant EIAED use may require administration of a higher perampanel dose depending upon patient tolerability and within the approved dose range. Such clarification will guide clinicians when integrating perampanel into their clinical practice and demonstrate that PK parameters and covariates are similar between adult and adolescent patients. Whilst consistent with previous analyses,5,7 these two articles provide a complementary perspective on the activity of adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory POS across a broad dose range (412 mg/d). Furthermore, data from Study 335 provide additional efficacy, safety, and PK data for adjunctive perampanel in patients with POS by increasing the relative weight of previously underrepresented groups.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?