A post-approval observational study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perampanel as an add-on therapy in adolescent, adult, and elderly patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure medication for focal-onset seizures, with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Study 402 (NCT02033902) collected safety information on clinically important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from real-world clinical practice in patients aged ≥12 years with refractory epilepsy who were receiving perampanel as an add-on therapy. METHODS: Study 402 was a multicenter, observational, 52-week cohort study conducted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Safety data were gathered prospectively from patients at clinic visits. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically important TEAEs defined as dizziness; blurred vision; somnolence; aggression; balance disorders (including ataxia and falls); weight gain; suicidality; drug abuse, misuse, dependence, and withdrawal; skin photosensitivity; and unintended pregnancy while taking levonorgestrel-containing contraceptives. Off-label use of perampanel and outcomes associated with any suspected drug-drug interaction were also monitored and recorded. Secondary endpoints included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Clinical Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: Of 483 patients in the Safety Analysis Set, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 38.3 (15.1) years, 48.4% were female, mean (SD) time since diagnosis was 23 (14.8) years, 56.5% had focal impaired awareness seizures, and 48.7% had FBTCS. Overall, 243 (49.3%) patients treated with perampanel completed the study and 227 (46.0%) patients discontinued. The most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n = 130 [26.4%]). A total of 301 (62.3%) patients reported at least one TEAE, of which 45 (15.0%) patients had severe TEAEs and 256 (85.0%) patients had TEAEs judged as mild to moderate in severity. Overall, 51 (10.6%) patients had serious TEAEs, including two deaths that were judged as not related to perampanel, and 136 (28.2%) patients experienced a TEAE that led to treatment discontinuation. Clinically important TEAEs were reported by 153 (31.7%) patients, with the most common being dizziness (13.9%), balance disorders (5.6%), aggression (5.4%), and weight gain (5.4%). In general, the frequencies of clinically important TEAEs were lower in this study compared with previous interventional clinical studies, except for the incidence of suicidality (2.1% vs 1.0%) and aggression (5.4% vs 5.1%). Mean total HADS scores were similar at the end of the study compared with baseline; at the end of treatment, most (>60%) patients had no shift in HADS score category; ∼15% of patients moved to a worse category vs baseline and ∼20% of patients moved to an improved category vs baseline for both anxiety and depression. Based on investigator assessment, disease severity was improved in 185/415 (44.6%) patients. A subanalysis in elderly patients aged ≥65 years showed similar results to the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this observational study are consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel derived from previous interventional phase II and III clinical studies. No unusual or unexpected TEAEs were observed in this real-world clinical practice setting.

Sustained seizure freedom with adjunctive perampanel in patients with convulsive seizures: Post hoc analysis of open-label extension studies 307 and 332.

OBJECTIVE: Since increased mortality rates have been associated with convulsive seizures, it is important to achieve seizure control in these patients. Here, we report post hoc analyses to assess long-term seizure-freedom rates with adjunctive perampanel in patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with refractory focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) who participated in open-label extension (OLEx) studies. METHODS: Patients with focal-onset seizures, with/without FBTCS, who completed double-blind, Phase III Studies 304, 305, or 306 could enter OLEx Study 307 (16-week blinded Conversion; 256-week Maintenance). Patients with GTCS who completed the double-blind phase of Study 332 could enter the OLEx Phase (6-week blinded Conversion; 136-week Maintenance). Maximum perampanel dose: 12 mg/day. Seizure-freedom rates for up to 24 months were assessed in perampanel-treated patients who achieved seizure freedom during the double-blind studies to determine if their seizure-free status was maintained during the OLEx. In addition, to ensure any patients who only achieved seizure freedom during the OLEx were captured, seizure-freedom rates were also assessed in all patients who achieved and maintained a seizure-free status for a period of at least six consecutive months at any time during the double-blind and/or OLEx studies; some of these patients may have received placebo during the double-blind study but only their time on perampanel is included in the seizure-free analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictive factors for achieving seizure freedom for at least 6 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 53.8% (n = 42/78) of patients who received perampanel and were FBTCS free during the double-blind studies remained seizure free for up to 24 months during Study 307, and 31.6% (n = 6/19) of patients who were GTCS free during the double-blind phase of Study 332 remained seizure free for up to 24 months during the OLEx Phase. Over 40% (FBTCS, 41.5% [n = 197/475]; GTCS, 52.9% [n = 73/138]) of patients were seizure free for a period of at least six consecutive months. Multivariate analysis showed that the best predictors of achieving seizure freedom from FBTCS for at least 6 months were lower baseline seizure frequency (p = 0.0014) and absence of enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications at baseline (p = 0.0056); multivariate analysis was not conducted for GTCS since only one variable was identified as a significant predictor of seizure freedom in the univariate analysis (lower baseline seizure frequency). Perampanel was generally well tolerated with no new safety signals identified. The most common TEAE was dizziness. For both seizure types, 10% or fewer seizure-free patients discontinued perampanel due to TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that adjunctive perampanel may be a suitable long-term treatment option for patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with convulsive seizures to achieve and maintain seizure freedom.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients with epilepsy: Post hoc analysis of open-label extension studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of four open-label extension (OLEx) studies evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients (aged 12 to ≤17 years) with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). METHODS: Patients who completed one of six double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter one of four OLEx studies comprising a blinded Conversion Period (6-16 weeks) followed by a Maintenance Phase (27 to ≤256 weeks; perampanel dose: ≤12 mg/day). Exposure, retention, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed using observed case and last observation carried forward (LOCF) approaches; the latter was used to account for early dropouts. RESULTS: The Full Analysis Set comprised 309 adolescents with FOS (FBTCS, n = 109) and 19 with GTCS, and the Safety Analysis Set comprised 311 with FOS (FBTCS, n = 110) and 19 with GTCS. Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure (weeks) was: FOS, 77.7 (58.7); FBTCS, 88.7 (63.8); and GTCS, 97.0 (35.5). Retention rates were maintained for ≤2 years (FOS, 50.0 %; FBTCS, 57.1 %; GTCS, 41.7 %). Seizure control (median percent reduction in seizure frequency/28 days) was sustained for up to 2 years; FOS (59.4 %, n = 113), FBTCS (64.6 %, n = 53), and GTCS (86.5 %, n = 17). At Year 2, 50 % responder rates were: FOS, 58.4 % (n = 66); FBTCS, 54.7 % (n = 29); and GTCS, 82.4 % (n = 14); seizure-freedom rates were: FOS, 5.3 % (n = 6); FBTCS, 24.5 % (n = 13); and GTCS, 35.3 % (n = 6). Long-term seizure control was observed even in LOCF analyses. The incidence of TEAEs was highest during Year 1 (FOS, n = 269 [86.5 %]; FBTCS, n = 95 [86.4 %]; GTCS, n = 15 [78.9 %]), compared with Years 2-4; the most common (≥10 % of patients) were dizziness, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. No new safety signals emerged with long-term treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis suggests that long-term (≤2 years) adjunctive perampanel (≤12 mg/day) is efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with FOS, with or without FBTCS, or GTCS.

Does a psychiatric history play a role in the development of psychiatric adverse events to perampanel and to placebo?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish whether a past psychiatric history could play a role in the development of psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (PTEAEs) in patients randomized to perampanel (PER) or placebo. METHODS: The development of PTEAEs was compared between patients with/without a psychiatric history in a post hoc analysis from four randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) of PER (304/305/306/335) in patients with treatment-resistant focal epilepsy. RESULTS: Among the 2,187 patients enrolled in the RPCTs, 352 (16.1%) had a psychiatric history (PER n = 244; placebo n = 108), while 1835 patients (83.9%) did not (PER n = 1325; placebo n = 510). Compared to patients without a psychiatric history, those with a positive history reported more PTEAEs for both patients randomized to PER (11.8% vs. 29.9%, p < 0.01) or to placebo (9.2% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.01). The prevalence of PTEAEs was not higher among patients randomized to 2 mg and 4 mg/day doses than placebo in both those with and without psychiatric history. Rather, the higher prevalence rates were among subjects randomized to 8 mg (29.8%) and 12 mg (36.4%) PER doses in patients with a past psychiatric history. SIGNIFICANCE: A psychiatric history appears to increase the risk of PTEAEs in patients randomized to placebo and to PER at doses of 8 and 12 mg/day. It should be identified in all patients considered for treatment with PER, particularly when prescribed at doses above 4 mg/day.

Safety and efficacy of rufinamide in children and adults with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: A post hoc analysis from Study 022.

BACKGROUND: Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a developmental and epileptic encephalopathy with the first symptoms usually appearing during early childhood. Due to the highly variable underlying etiologies, LGS cannot be considered as one disease but as an electro-clinical entity, often challenging to diagnose early and treat accordingly. The anti-seizure medication, rufinamide, is indicated for the adjunctive treatment of patients with LGS aged ≥1 year. This post hoc analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of adjunctive rufinamide for total and tonic-atonic seizures during Study 022 in children (aged <16 years) and adults (aged ≥16 years). METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III Study 022 included patients with a diagnosis of LGS and a history of multiple seizure types (including tonic-atonic or astatic seizures and atypical absence seizures; ≥90 seizures in the month prior to baseline). Assessments included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), percent change in tonic-atonic seizure frequency/28 days during the double-blind phase relative to study baseline (a primary endpoint), and percentage of patients with ≥25%, ≥50%, or ≥75% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline. RESULTS: Of 138 enrolled patients, 74 received rufinamide (<16 years, n = 49 [66%]) and 64 received placebo (<16 years, n = 43 [67%]). Incidence of TEAEs was generally similar between age groups. The frequency (per 28 days) of tonic-atonic seizures was reduced with rufinamide (vs. placebo) in both younger and older patients: age <16 years (-41% vs. -6%), age ≥16 years (-55% vs. +16%) (p < 0.025; both age groups). In patients aged <16 years receiving rufinamide, 38% and 17% achieved ≥50% and ≥75% reductions in tonic-atonic seizure frequency vs. 18% and 3% with placebo, respectively. Corresponding responder rates for patients aged ≥16 years were 52% and 32% (rufinamide) vs. 15% and 5% (placebo), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, adjunctive rufinamide was well tolerated and improved seizure control in patients with LGS, irrespective of age.

Real-world impact of antiepileptic drug combinations with versus without perampanel on healthcare resource utilization in patients with epilepsy in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Combination regimens of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with various mechanisms of action (MOA) are commonly used in patients with refractory epilepsy. However, outcomes related to combination AEDs with novel MOA, such as perampanel (PER), are not well described. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among recipients of PER-based combinations versus recipients of other non-PER-based combinations. METHODS: This retrospective study used claims data from the Symphony Health's IDV® (Integrated Dataverse) database (August 2012 to July 2018). Patients were aged ≥12 years with epilepsy or non-febrile convulsions, were treated with AED combinations, and had ≥12 and ≥6 months pre- and post-index date, respectively (date of initiation of the second AED in the combination). AEDs were categorized based on MOA: selective non-competitive antagonist of AMPA receptors (i.e., PER), sodium channel blocker (SC), synaptic vesicle protein 2A binding (SV2), and gamma-aminobutyric acid analog (G). Patients were then classified into MOA-based cohorts: PER + SC, PER + SV2, PER + G, SC + SC, SC + SV2, SC + G, SV2 + G, and G + G. HRU outcomes were evaluated during follow-up and compared between PER-based cohorts and non-PER-based cohorts. RESULTS: On average, patients in the PER + SC (N = 3,592), PER + SV2 (N = 2,200), and PER + G (N = 1,313) cohorts were younger and had a lower Quan-Charlson comorbidity index than those in non-PER-based cohorts. PER + SC and PER + SV2 users had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations than non-PER-based users (adjusted RR range: 0.66-0.89, all P < 0.05), while PER + G recipients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations than recipients of SV2 + G and G + G (adjusted RR range: 0.92-0.94). Similar trends were observed for epilepsy-related hospitalizations. Across all comparisons, PER-based combinations were associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits relative to non-PER-based combinations (adjusted RR range: 0.69-0.86, all P < 0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: Results showed that patients treated with PER-based combinations had fewer all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations, and fewer all-cause clinic/office/outpatient visits compared with patients treated with most other non-PER-based combinations.

Quantifying the burden of generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Compared to other seizure types, generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures may be disproportionately related to increased morbidity, and reducing seizure frequency could translate into improvements across measures of morbidity in medically treated patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The primary objective of this analysis was to quantify the burden of patients with DRE who experience GTC seizures (GTC+) compared to patients with DRE who do not experience GTC seizures (GTC-). METHODS: Adult patients from the Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center-Neurological Institute from 2012-2016 with DRE with epilepsy for at least 1 year were eligible for inclusion and were divided into GTC ± groups based on whether the patient had experienced a GTC seizure in the year preceding the first visit. Epilepsy duration, comorbidities, antiepileptic drug use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and seizure type, frequency, and etiology were captured. Generalized linear models, negative binomial regression, logistic regression, and linear regression were used as appropriate for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients met inclusion criteria and had data at 1-year follow-up after their baseline visit (192 GTC+ and 187 GTC-). Although DRE patients experiencing GTC seizures had fewer seizures per day over the preceding 6 months than those not experiencing GTC seizures, seizure severity and levels of depression and anxiety were greater. GTC+ patients who reported five or more seizures in the preceding 4 weeks had 82% lower odds (1-0.18 = 0.82) of working than patients with no seizures. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with DRE experience a significant burden and decreased quality of life. Multivariate analysis is necessary to understand the complex relationship between seizure type, frequency, and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and changes over time. Effective treatments to reduce the burden for DRE patients who experience GTC seizures continue to be needed.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d for the treatment of focal seizures: A pooled post hoc analysis of four randomized, double-blind, phase III studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d received as modal dose, which may have differed from randomized dose, for treatment of focal seizures. METHODS: Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies of adjunctive perampanel in patients (aged ≥12 years) with focal seizures, with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (FBTC) seizures: studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), and 335 (NCT01618695). Efficacy assessments included median percentage reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days and seizure-freedom rates for patients receiving placebo and perampanel 4 mg/d (modal dose). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed in patients receiving perampanel 4 mg/d at their TEAE onset. Outcomes were also assessed with/without enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs). RESULTS: The full analysis set included 979 patients with focal seizures (placebo: n = 616 [235 with FBTC seizures]; perampanel 4 mg/d: n = 363 [134 with FBTC seizures]). Compared with placebo, perampanel 4 mg/d conferred significantly greater median percentage reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for focal (12.6% vs 21.1%; P = .0004) and FBTC seizures (17.4% vs 49.8%; P < .0001), and seizure-freedom rates for focal (0.8% vs 3.6%; P = .0018) and FBTC seizures (11.1% vs 18.7%; P = .0424). Seizure improvements with perampanel 4 mg/d were greater without EIASMs than with EIASMs. For assessment of TEAEs, overall 1376 patients with focal seizures received perampanel 4 mg/d at any time (FBTC seizures, n = 499). TEAEs with perampanel 4 mg/d occurred in 419 of 1376 (30.5%) and 148 of 499 (29.7%) patients with focal and FBTC seizures, respectively; most common was dizziness. The proportion of TEAEs was similar with or without EIASMs. SIGNIFICANCE: This post hoc analysis showed adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with focal seizures, with or without FBTC seizures. This dose may be a valuable treatment option in patients unable to tolerate higher perampanel doses up to 12 mg/d.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in tonic-clonic seizures: Analysis of four open-label extension studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) who entered open-label extension (OLEx) studies to receive long-term adjunctive perampanel. METHODS: Patients aged 12 years and older who completed phase II or III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter an OLEx study, each comprising a blinded conversion period followed by an open-label maintenance period (32-424 weeks; maximum perampanel dose = 12 mg/d). Exposure, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between patients with FBTCS (n = 720) and GTCS (n = 138). Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure was 102.3 (70.3) weeks (FBTCS) and 83.9 (38.4) weeks (GTCS). Retention rates were 50.0% for up to 4 years (FBTCS) and 49.2% for up to 2 years (GTCS). Across OLEx treatment durations, median reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days were 66.7% (FBTCS) and 80.6% (GTCS). Fifty percent and 75% responder and seizure-freedom rates were 59.5%, 45.3%, and 18.4%, respectively (FBTCS), and 72.5%, 51.5%, and 16.7%, respectively (GTCS). Efficacy was sustained for up to 4 years (FBTCS) and up to 3 years (GTCS), even when accounting for early dropouts. TEAE incidence was highest during Year 1 (FBTCS, 85.3%; GTCS, 86.2%); most common were dizziness and somnolence. During Year 1, serious TEAEs were reported in 81 (11.3%; FBTCS) and 10 (7.2%; GTCS) patients. TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel; no new safety signals were identified with long-term treatment. SIGNIFICANCE: This post hoc analysis suggests long-term (up to 4 years) adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/d) is efficacious and well tolerated in patients (aged 12 years and older) with FBTCS or GTCS.

Risk of hospitalization among patients with epilepsy using long versus short half-life adjunctive antiepileptic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: While antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) remain the primary treatment for epilepsy, many patients continue to have seizures. Uncontrolled seizures may be related to AED half-life, since short half-life (SHL) AEDs require more frequent dosing compared with the simplified regimens of long half-life (LHL) AEDs. Long half-life AEDs may also improve seizure control by extending missed dose forgiveness periods. The value of LHL AEDs may be assessed as reduced healthcare utilization. The study's objective was to examine the impact of adding an LHL versus SHL adjunctive AED on the risk of hospitalizations in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using the Symphony Health Solution Patient Integrated Dataverse. Patients ≥12 years old with uncontrolled epilepsy (≥2 medical claims ≥30 days apart) were identified during a study period (8/1/2012-7/31/2017). Patients were selected if they were subsequently initiated an adjunctive AED (excluding modified release formulations), and the prescription date served as the index. Patients were stratified into two mutually exclusive cohorts based on the index AED half-life (≤20 versus >20 h). Poisson regressions with robust error variances were performed for the relative risks (RRs) of all-cause, epilepsy-related, and injury-related hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 4984 patients were identified (2705 in the LHL and 2279 in the SHL cohort). Compared with those in the SHL cohort, patients in the LHL cohort were significantly younger [mean (SD, years): 43.9 (18.5) versus 49.2 (17.2), p < 0.001] and were less comorbid [mean (SD) of Charlson comorbidity index: 1.2 (1.8) versus 1.8 (2.2), p < 0.001]. In the one-year postindex date, adjusting for group differences, the risks of both all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations were significantly lower in the LHL cohort than in the SHL cohort [all-cause: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.93), p = 0.0006; epilepsy-related: 0.83 (0.73-0.94), p = 0.0046].Injury-related hospitalizations did not differ between LHL and SHL cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients with uncontrolled epilepsy who were initiated on an adjunctive AED, the choice of an LHL versus SHL was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause and epilepsy-related hospitalizations.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients with epilepsy: Post hoc analysis of six randomized studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of six randomized, double-blind, Phase II and III studies evaluated efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (2-12 mg/day) in adolescent patients (aged ≥12 to ≤17 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized (SG) seizures, or primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures. METHODS: Adolescent patients from Studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), 335 (NCT01618695), 235 (NCT01161524), and 332 (NCT01393743) were included. Efficacy assessments (split by seizure type) included median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline and seizure-freedom rates. Safety assessments (all seizure types combined) included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The Safety Analysis Set included 372 adolescent patients (placebo, n = 114; perampanel, n = 258); the Full Analysis Set included 346 patients with partial-onset seizures (placebo, n = 103; perampanel, n = 243), of whom 125 experienced SG seizures during baseline (placebo, n = 37; perampanel, n = 88), and 22 with PGTC seizures (placebo, n = 9; perampanel, n = 13). Compared with placebo, perampanel 8 and 12 mg/day conferred greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for partial-onset seizures (18.0% vs 35.9% and 53.8% [both P < 0.01]) and SG seizures (24.4% vs 72.8% [P < 0.001] and 57.8% [P < 0.01]), and greater seizure-freedom rates (partial-onset: 7.8% vs 13.2% and 11.8% [not statistically significant]; SG: 8.1% vs 40.7% [P < 0.001] and 41.7% [P < 0.01]). For PGTC seizures, and compared with placebo, perampanel 8 mg/day was also associated with greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days (29.8% vs 88.0%) and greater seizure-freedom rates (11.1% vs 23.1%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 76 (66.7%) placebo- and 192 (74.4%) perampanel-treated patients (most common: dizziness, somnolence, headache, and nasopharyngitis). Serious TEAEs occurred in 5 (4.4%) placebo- and 11 (4.3%) perampanel-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive perampanel was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with partial-onset, SG, or PGTC seizures and represents a potentially beneficial treatment option for adolescents with uncontrolled epilepsy.

Long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with refractory focal-onset seizures in Study 335 open-label extension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for the treatment of patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), from the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: Study 335 (NCT01618695) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study. Patients aged ≥12 years with refractory FOS who completed the Core Study could enter an open-label extension (OLEx) Phase (6-week Conversion and ≥46-week Maintenance Period). Endpoints included median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The Intent-to-Treat Analysis Set included 704 patients (529 received perampanel and 175 received placebo during the Core Study; all patients received perampanel during OLEx). The median percent reduction in seizure frequency and 50% responder rates in patients who received perampanel during the Core Study were maintained throughout the OLEx Phase (Week 64-75: 55.9% and 54.3%, respectively). Seizure freedom for ≥12 consecutive months at any time during perampanel treatment was achieved by 4.1% of patients with FOS and 14.2% of patients with FBTCS. Among patients treated with perampanel 4 mg/day (n = 83), median reduction in seizure frequency was lower in those who received concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications (EIASMs) than those who received non-EIASMs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (n = 318; 46.8%); 141 (20.8%) patients had TEAEs that led to study/drug withdrawal. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, long-term seizure control was achieved with adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory FOS, with or without FBTCS, in an Asia-Pacific population.

Transitioning insomnia patients from zolpidem to lemborexant: A multicenter, open-label study evaluating a next-dose transition approach to insomnia pharmacotherapy.

Objective: Few clinical studies have assessed real-world abrupt transitioning between insomnia medications. This study assessed strategies for directly transitioning patients from zolpidem tartrate (ZOL) immediate/extended release to the dual orexin receptor antagonist, lemborexant (LEM). Methods: This randomized, open-label, multicenter study (Study 312; E2006-A001-312) enrolled 53 adults age ≥18 years with insomnia disorder and ≥1-month history of intermittent (3-4 nights/week) or frequent (≥5 nights/week) ZOL use. Subjects recorded their ZOL use in a 3-week Pretreatment Phase, followed by a 2-week Treatment Phase (TRT; Titration) during which ZOL was discontinued. Intermittent ZOL users transitioned to LEM 5 mg (LEM5), Cohort 1, and frequent ZOL users were randomized 1:1 to LEM5, Cohort 2A, or LEM 10 mg (LEM10), Cohort 2B. One dose adjustment was permitted during the TRT. Subjects completing the TRT could continue LEM in the 12-week Extension Phase (EXT). The primary outcome was proportion of subjects who successfully transitioned and remained on LEM at the end of the TRT. Results: Most subjects (43 [81.1 %]) successfully transitioned to LEM (9 [90 %], 17 [81.0 %], and 17 [77.3 %] in Cohorts 1, 2A, and 2B, respectively). By the end of the EXT, 66.7 % in Cohort 1 and 60.0 % in Cohort 2A up-titrated to LEM10, whereas 41.2 % in Cohort 2B down-titrated to LEM5; 61.0 % were receiving LEM10 at study end. At the end of the TRT, more subjects taking LEM reported that it helped them return to sleep after waking, compared with those taking ZOL (71.7 % vs. 49.1 %). There were no important differences between treatments regarding how subjects reported feeling as they fell asleep. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events with LEM were mild in severity. Conclusions: Most subjects transitioned successfully to LEM from ZOL (intermittent or frequent use). LEM was well tolerated.

Phase IV PROVE study: Perampanel in real-world clinical care of pediatric patients with epilepsy.

INTRODUCTION: The non-interventional Phase IV PROVE study (NCT03208660) assessed retention, efficacy, safety and tolerability, and perampanel dosing in patients with epilepsy during routine clinical care. This analysis evaluated final data from patients aged <4 years and 4-<12 years. METHODS: Data were obtained retrospectively from medical/pharmacy records of patients in the United States initiating perampanel after January 1, 2014, according to treating clinician recommendations. Retention rate was the primary endpoint. Secondary assessments included median percent changes in seizure frequency, seizure-freedom rates, investigator impression of seizure effect, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: The Safety Analysis Set (SAS) included 41 patients (<4 years; mean maximum dose, 3.5 mg/day) and 203 patients (4-<12 years; mean maximum dose, 5.3 mg/day); 24-month retention rates were 35.7% (n = 5/14) and 42.0% (n = 47/112), respectively. In the Full Analysis Set, during Months 1-3, median percent reductions in seizure frequency were 33.3% (n = 8 [<4 years]) and 26.0% (n = 32 [4-<12 years]), and seizure-freedom rates were 12.5% in both groups (n = 1/8 and n = 4/32); patient numbers were low at later time points. Most patients showed improvements in seizure control (45.9% [<4 years] versus 52.4% [4-<12 years]) or no change (45.9% versus 34.5%) (SAS). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 12 (<4 years: 29.3%; most common, irritability [7.3%]) and 64 patients (4-<12 years: 31.5%; most common, aggression [6.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: Perampanel was generally well tolerated with <21% of TEAEs leading to withdrawal at 24 months, had favorable retention rates (≥50% and >35% at 12 and 24 months, respectively), and sustained efficacy in pediatric patients during routine clinical care.

Perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in pediatric and adult patients with epilepsy: the first United States-based phase IV open-label ELEVATE study.

ELEVATE (Study 410; NCT03288129) is the first prospective, multicenter, open-label, Phase IV study of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients aged ≥ 4 years with focal-onset seizures or generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States. The study included Screening, Titration (≤ 13 weeks), Maintenance (39 weeks), and Follow-up (4 weeks) Periods. During Titration, perampanel was initiated at 2 mg/day and up-titrated to 4 mg/day at Week 3. Depending on response and tolerability, optional up-titrations to a maximum of 12 mg/day occurred. The primary endpoint was retention rate; additional endpoints included seizure-freedom rate, 50% responder rate, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At baseline, 10 (18.5%) patients were assigned to the monotherapy group and 44 (81.5%) patients to the first adjunctive therapy group. However, due to the addition of an anti-seizure medication along with perampanel on the first day of treatment, one patient was excluded from the monotherapy subgroup analyses. The mean perampanel exposure duration was 39.8 weeks and 32 (59.3%) patients completed the study. Retention rate at 12 months (or study completion) was 63.0% (monotherapy, 77.8%; first adjunctive therapy, 59.1%). Seizure-freedom rate during the Maintenance Period was 32.7% (monotherapy, 44.4%; first adjunctive therapy, 29.5%) and the 50% responder rate was 78.7% (monotherapy, 85.7%; first adjunctive therapy, 76.9%). TEAEs and serious TEAEs were reported by 88.9% (n = 48/54) and 7.4% (n = 4/54) of patients, respectively. Overall, the efficacy and safety of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy support the use of perampanel as early-line treatment for epilepsy.

Efficacy and Safety of adjunctive Perampanel in a prospective, real-world, Phase IV study in Indian patients aged ≥12 years for Treatment of focal-onset Epilepsy: Study 508.

OBJECTIVE: ESPRITE (Study 508; NCT03836924) evaluated the real-world safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in patients aged ≥12 years with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), in India. METHODS: ESPRITE was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational, Phase IV study with a 6-month Treatment Period. Patients were aged ≥12 years and had been prescribed perampanel for adjunctive treatment of FOS, with or without FBTCS. Assessments included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; primary endpoint), median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline, 50% responder rates, and seizure-freedom rates. RESULTS: Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (199 patients in the Safety Analysis Set and 174 patients who completed all visits in the main efficacy analyses). TEAEs (all mild or moderate in severity) were reported in 18.1% (n = 36/199) of patients (the most common were dizziness [3.0%] and irritability [2.0%]). TEAEs leading to discontinuation of perampanel were reported in 2.0% of patients; no deaths or serious TEAEs occurred. At 6 months, median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 100.0%, 50% responder rate was 83.3%, and seizure-freedom rate was 49.4%. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive perampanel (at a mean daily dose of 4 mg/day) was shown to be well tolerated and effective in patients aged ≥12 years with FOS, with or without FBTCS, from India. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many patients do not receive adequate treatment for epilepsy and need effective seizure control medications. In this 6-month clinical study, 199 patients from India, aged 12 years or older, added perampanel to the anti-seizure medications they were already taking. At 6 months, 49% of patients experienced no seizures since starting perampanel and seizure frequency was reduced by half in 83% of patients. Side effects occurred in 18% of patients (most commonly dizziness and irritability) and caused 2% to stop perampanel; no deaths were reported. Perampanel was an effective and generally safe added medication for patients with epilepsy from India.

Efficacy of Lemborexant in Adults ≥ 65 Years of Age with Insomnia Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic treatments are available to treat insomnia, a common and burdensome sleep disorder, but may be contraindicated in older adults who are prone to side effects from sleep-promoting drugs. These analyses of sleep diary data from Study E2006-G000-303 (Study 303) investigated the benefits of lemborexant 5 mg (LEM5) and 10 mg (LEM10) in the subgroup age ≥ 65 years with insomnia. METHOD: Study 303, a 12-month, double-blind study of LEM5 and LEM10 in adults (age ≥ 18 years) with insomnia disorder (sleep onset and/or maintenance difficulties) assessed subject-reported (subjective) sleep-onset latency (sSOL), sleep efficiency (sSE), wake after sleep onset (sWASO), and total sleep time (sTST). Morning sleepiness/alertness, insomnia severity (Insomnia Severity Index [ISI]), fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS]), perceptions of sleep-related medication effects (Patient Global Impression-Insomnia [PGI-I] questionnaire), and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: In this subgroup of older adults (≥ 65 years; n = 262), there were significantly larger changes from baseline for sSOL, sSE, sTST, and sWASO with LEM5 and LEM10 versus placebo through month 6 (except sWASO month 1), indicating improvement; these improvements were sustained through month 12. Subject-reported increases in morning alertness were significantly greater with one or both LEM doses versus placebo through month 6 and sustained through month 12. There were significantly larger ISI total and daytime functioning score decreases (improvement) from baseline with LEM versus placebo at months 1, 3, and 6 (total score: both doses; daytime functioning: LEM5 month 1 and both doses months 3 and 6) and decreases from baseline FSS at months 1 and 3 (LEM5) and month 6 (both doses), sustained to month 12. Compared with placebo, more subjects reported that LEM (both doses) positively impacted ability to sleep, time to fall asleep, and TST through month 6, sustained to month 12, with no rebound after drug withdrawal. LEM was well tolerated to month 12; mild somnolence was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in subject-reported efficacy in LEM-treated adults age ≥ 65 years with insomnia were observed as early as the first week of treatment and sustained through end of month 12. LEM was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02952820: E2006-G000-303; Study 303; SUNRISE-2 (First posted: October 2016); EudraCT 2015-001463-39 (First posted: November 2016).

Insomnia is a common sleep disorder associated with significant difficulties, particularly in older adults. Although there are many drug treatments available, some are associated with the important risk of side effects and may not adequately treat sleep maintenance (ability to stay asleep), which is a frequent sleep complaint in older people. Lemborexant has been approved in multiple countries for the treatment of adults with insomnia based on studies that show lemborexant improved adults' ability to fall asleep and stay asleep and is well tolerated. To examine the long-term benefit of lemborexant, we investigated subject-reported benefits and safety of lemborexant in older (≥ 65 years) adults who participated in a 1-year study. The results showed that within the first few days of taking lemborexant, and lasting through 12 months of treatment, nightly lemborexant improved nighttime sleep (that is, it reduced the time it took to fall asleep, reduced the time awake during the night, and increased total sleep time) more than placebo. Morning alertness improved more in older adults who took lemborexant compared with placebo. In addition, those who took lemborexant also reported that their insomnia symptoms were less severe and they had less fatigue compared with placebo. Lemborexant was well tolerated in older adults. These results suggest that lemborexant may be a good option for older adults with insomnia disorder.

Relating relapse and T2 lesion changes to disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a systematic literature review and regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS), the most important therapeutic aim of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) is to prevent or postpone long-term disability. Given the typically slow progression observed in the majority of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients, the primary endpoint for most randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a reduction in relapse rate. It is widely assumed that reducing relapse rate will slow disability progression. Similarly, MRI studies suggest that reducing T2 lesions will be associated with slowing long-term disability in MS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between treatment effects on relapse rates and active T2 lesions to differences in disease progression (as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]) in trials evaluating patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), RRMS, and secondary progressive MS (SPMS). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO to identify randomized trials published in English from January 1, 1993-June 3, 2013 evaluating DMTs in adult MS patients using keywords for CIS, RRMS, and SPMS combined with keywords for relapse and recurrence. Eligible studies were required to report outcomes of relapse and T2 lesion changes or disease progression in CIS, RRMS, or SPMS patients receiving DMTs and have a follow-up duration of at least 22 months. Ultimately, 40 studies satisfied these criteria for inclusion. Regression analyses were conducted on RCTs to relate differences between the effect of treatments on relapse rates and on active T2 lesions to differences between the effects of treatments on disease progression (as measured by EDSS). RESULTS: Regression analysis determined there is a substantive clinically and statistically significant association between concurrent treatment effects in relapse rate and EDSS; p < 0.01. Lower treatment effects were associated with higher relative rates of disease progression. Significant associations between T2 lesion measures and EDSS measures also were found (p < 0.05), with some suggestion that the strength of the association may differ for older versus newer DMTs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment differences in relapse reduction and T2 lesions are positively related to differences in disease progression over the first two years of treatment.

Efficacy and safety of lemborexant in midlife women with insomnia disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Insomnia is common in midlife women. The efficacy and safety of lemborexant (LEM), a competitive dual orexin receptor antagonist, was assessed for 12 months in a subgroup of midlife women (age, 40-58 y) from Study E2006-G000-303 (Study 303; SUNRISE-2). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled (first 6 mo) study of adults with insomnia disorder ( N = 949). During treatment period 1 (TP1), participants received PBO or LEM 5 mg (LEM5) or 10 mg (LEM10). During TP2 (second 6 mo), LEM participants continued their assigned dose; PBO participants were rerandomized to LEM5 or LEM10. Assessments included patient-reported sleep- and fatigue-related measures and treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: The midlife female subgroup comprised 280 of 949 participants (TP1: PBO, n = 90 of 318 [28.3%]; LEM5, n = 82 of 316 [25.9%]; LEM10, n = 108 of 315 [34.3%]). At 6 months, median changes from baseline in subjective sleep-onset latency (in minutes) were -17.9, -20.7, and - 30.4 for PBO, LEM5, and LEM10 (vs PBO: LEM5, P = not significant; LEM10, P = 0.0310). At 6 months, mean changes from baseline in subjective wake after sleep onset (in minutes) were -37.0 (59.6), -50.1 (74.5), and -54.5 (65.4) for PBO, LEM5, and LEM10 (vs PBO: LEM5 and LEM10, P = not significant), with benefits sustained through 12 months. Greater decreases from baseline (improvement) in Insomnia Severity Index total score and Fatigue Severity Scale total score were seen with LEM versus PBO at 6 months; benefits continued through 12 months. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the total population, subjective sleep parameters improved, and improvement was sustained over time in midlife women. LEM was well tolerated, suggesting that LEM may be a potential treatment option for midlife women with insomnia.

Incremental health care resource use and costs among adult patients with depression and treated for insomnia with zolpidem, trazodone, or benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with insomnia treated with commonly prescribed insomnia medications among patients with depression. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases to identify adults with: (1) ≥1 ICD-9/ICD-10 code for depression; (2) ≥1 commonly prescribed medication for insomnia (zolpidem immediate release [IR], zolpidem extended release [ER], trazodone, or benzodiazepines); and (3) ≥12 months of eligibility before and after initiating insomnia medication. A 1:1 age- and sex-matched control cohort with depression but without sleep-related disorders was identified. Adjusted HCRU and costs were compared using generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 21,027 patients (mean age = 48.3 years, 69.5% female) with depression and treated insomnia (D + TI; 1.9% zolpidem ER, 32.0% zolpidem IR, 50.0% trazodone, 16.1% benzodiazepines) were matched to controls. Although mean number of inpatient visits were similar (0.1 for both), relative to controls, D + TI had a higher mean number of ED (0.2 vs 0.1, p < .001) and outpatient visits (2.2 vs 1.3, p < .001). Adjusted total costs per patient per month were higher among D + TI patients ($2450 vs $1095, p < .001). Inpatient and ED costs were higher among patients prescribed zolpidem IR, trazodone, or benzodiazepines, but not zolpidem ER. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to controls with depression but without sleep disorders, overall, health care costs for adults with D + TI were 2.2-fold higher; costs and HCRU varied by insomnia medication. Further study of the impact of newer insomnia treatments on patient outcomes in depression and comorbid insomnia is warranted.