Risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects associated with perampanel therapy.

PURPOSE: To identify the risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects associated with perampanel therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the adverse effects of perampanel by reviewing clinical records from 895 Japanese patients with epilepsy (aged 1-86 years) who started perampanel therapy at National Epilepsy Center, Shizuoka, Japan, between June 2016 and December 2019. Patients were classified into 3 groups: those without adverse effects (Group I), those with psychiatric adverse effects (Group II), and those with common adverse effects (Group III). RESULTS: The number of patients assigned to each group was as follows: Group I, n = 641; Group II, n = 93; and Group III, n = 161. The mean follow-up period was 458 ±â€¯265 days (median, 511 days). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed that the median time to treatment failure was shorter in Group II than in Group III (294 vs. 392 days, respectively; log-rank test, p < 0.001). According to polytomous logistic regression, younger age (<16 years) was associated with a lower risk of common and psychiatric adverse effects. The risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects (Group II) were intellectual disability (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-4.5) and psychiatric comorbidity (AOR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.3-6.3); in patients with intellectual disability, the occurrence of psychiatric adverse effects was concentration dependent. Patients with lamotrigine use had a 0.54-fold lower risk of psychiatric adverse effects. In Group III, concomitant use of inducers was associated with a decreased risk of common adverse effects (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99). SIGNIFICANCE: We found clear differences in the risk factors for psychiatric adverse effects. In patients with intellectual disability, care must be taken when titrating perampanel, and therapeutic drug monitoring should be performed.

Pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and clinical effectiveness of perampanel in Japanese patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the influence of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on serum perampanel concentration and to correlate the concentration with clinical response and tolerability. METHODS: A total of 4224 serum samples were obtained from 763 pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients for routine therapeutic drug monitoring. We compared the extent of enzyme induction between cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inducer regimens and built a statistical model to estimate the serum perampanel concentration that considered use of CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors. To assess the tolerability and clinical effectiveness of perampanel therapy, we used the nested case-control approach. The case group was matched with the control group for age, sex, epilepsy type, and perampanel exposure periods. RESULTS: Concomitant use of the inducers phenytoin, carbamazepine, and phenobarbital dose-dependently reduced the perampanel concentration by 51 %, 67 %, and 37 %, respectively. The estimate model showed a good correlation between the predicted and measured concentrations (r2 = 0.62, p < 0.001). In 206 patients, the seizure reduction from baseline was > 50 % and the median perampanel concentration was 351 ng/mL (interquartile range, 191-603 ng/mL). Adverse events, such as somnolence, dizziness, and irritability, were experienced by 185 patients. The responder odds ratio was 5.1-fold higher in patients with a serum concentration > 600 ng/mL than in those with a serum concentration < 200 ng/mL; however, the former group had a 7.9-fold higher incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic drug monitoring is clinically useful to assess drug interactions between perampanel and CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors. We recommend that the target concentration of perampanel is initially set at 200-600 ng/mL. Serum concentrations > 600 ng/mL were associated with greater anti-seizure effects but had an increased risk of adverse events.