A phase 1 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of TAK-041 in healthy participants and patients with stable schizophrenia.

AIMS: TAK-041 (NBI-1065846), an orally available, investigational, small molecule agonist of GPR139, an orphan G-protein-coupled receptor, has shown promise in preclinical studies for the treatment of symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Here, we report the results from a phase 1 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of TAK-041 in healthy adults and exploratory efficacy assessment of TAK-041 as adjunctive therapy to antipsychotics in adults with stable schizophrenia (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02748694). METHODS: The study comprised 4 parts: parts 1-3 were undertaken in healthy adults and part 4 in patients with stable schizophrenia. Part 1 was a single-rising-dose study, part 2 was a multiple-rising-dose study that assessed plasma exposure and accumulation, part 3 evaluated the bioavailability of tablet formulation versus oral suspension, and part 4 was a repeat multiple-dose study in patients with stable schizophrenia. RESULTS: No serious adverse events were reported. TAK-041 had a nearly linear pharmacokinetics profile, with rapid absorption and long half-life of 170-302 hours across all doses tested. Bioavailability was similar between the tablet formulation and oral suspension, and no meaningful food effect was detected. Systemic exposure was 22-30% lower for patients with schizophrenia than for healthy volunteers. A potential signal of improvement was detected in the anxiety-depression scale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (P = .0002, not corrected for multiplicity) and the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale in patients with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: TAK-041 was generally well tolerated in healthy volunteers and adults with schizophrenia. Further investigation of TAK-041 in individuals with schizophrenia is supported.

In Vitro Metabolism of Slowly Cleared G Protein-Coupled Receptor 139 Agonist TAK-041 Using Rat, Dog, Monkey, and Human Hepatocyte Models (HepatoPac): Correlation with In Vivo Metabolism.

Hepatic metabolism of low-clearance compound TAK-041 was studied in two different in vitro model systems using rat, dog, monkey, and human suspended cryopreserved hepatocytes and HepatoPac micropatterned coculture model primary hepatocytes. The aim of this work was to investigate the most appropriate system to assess the biotransformation of TAK-041, determine any notable species difference in the rate and in the extent of its metabolic pathways, and establish correlation with in vivo metabolism. TAK-041 exhibited very low turnover in suspended cryopreserved hepatocyte suspensions for all species, with no metabolites observed in human hepatocytes. However, incubations conducted for up to 14 days in the HepatoPac model resulted in more robust metabolic turnover. The major biotransformation pathways of TAK-041 proceed via hydroxylation on the benzene ring fused to the oxotriazine moiety and subsequent sulfate, glucuronide, and glutathione conjugation reactions. The glutathione conjugate of TAK-041 undergoes further downstream metabolism to produce the cysteine S-conjugate, which then undergoes N-acetylation to mercapturic acid and/or conversion to ß-lyase-derived thiol metabolites. The minor biotransformation pathways include novel ring closure and hydrolysis, hydroxylation, oxidative N-dealkylation, and subsequent reduction. The HepatoPac model shows a notable species difference in the rate and in the extent of metabolic pathways of TAK-041, with dogs having the fastest metabolic clearance and humans the slowest. Furthermore, the model shows its suitability for establishing correlation with in vivo metabolism of low-turnover and extensively metabolized compounds such as TAK-041, displaying an extensive and unusual downstream sequential ß-lyase-derived thiol metabolism in preclinical species and human. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study investigated the most appropriate in vitro system to assess the biotransformation of the low-turnover and extensively metabolized compound TAK-041, determine any notable species difference in the rate and in the extent of its metabolic pathways, and establish correlation with in vivo metabolism. The HepatoPac model was identified and showed its suitability for species comparison and establishing correlation, with in vivo metabolism displaying an extensive and unusual downstream sequential ß-lyase-derived thiol metabolism in preclinical species and human.

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.

Open-label study to investigate the safety and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel in pediatric patients (4 to <12 years) with inadequately controlled focal seizures or generalized tonic-clonic seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Study 311 (NCT02849626) was a global, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study that assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of once-daily adjunctive perampanel oral suspension in pediatric patients (aged 4 to <12 years) with focal seizures (FS) (with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures [FBTCS]) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). METHODS: In the 311 Core Study, a 4-week Pre-treatment Period (Screening/Baseline) preceded a 23-week Treatment Period (11-week Titration; 12-week Maintenance) and 4-week Follow-up. Endpoints included safety/tolerability (primary endpoint), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline (Treatment Period), and 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates (Maintenance Period). Patients were stratified by age (4 to <7; 7 to <12 years) and concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure drug (EIASD) use. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients were enrolled (FS, n = 149; FBTCS, n = 54; GTCS, n = 31). The Core Study was completed by 146 patients (81%); the most common primary reason for discontinuation was adverse event (AE) (n = 14 [8%]). Mean (standard deviation) daily perampanel dose was 7.0 (2.6) mg/day and median (interquartile range) duration of exposure was 22.9 (2.0) weeks. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs; 89%) was similar between patients with FS (with/without FBTCS) and GTCS. The most common TEAEs were somnolence (26%) and nasopharyngitis (19%). There were no clinically important changes observed for cognitive function, laboratory, or electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters or vital signs. Median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days from Baseline were as follows: 40% (FS), 59% (FBTCS), and 69% (GTCS). Corresponding 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates were as follows: FS, 47% and 12%; FBTCS, 65% and 19%; and GTCS, 64% and 55%, respectively. Improvements in response/seizure frequency from Baseline were seen regardless of age or concomitant EIASD use. SIGNIFICANCE: Results from the 311 Core Study suggest that daily oral doses of adjunctive perampanel are generally safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in children age 4 to <12 years with FS (with/without FBTCS) or GTCS.

Final safety, tolerability, and seizure outcomes in patients with focal epilepsy treated with adjunctive perampanel for up to 4 years in an open-label extension of phase III randomized trials: Study 307.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive perampanel in the open-label extension (OLEx) Study 307 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00735397). METHODS: Patients could enter the OLEx after completing one of the double-blind, phase III studies. Safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes (median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, and 50% responder and seizure freedom rates) were analyzed during the OLEx in cohorts with the same minimum perampanel exposure for all focal seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS). An additional sensitivity analysis accounted for early dropouts from the OLEx. RESULTS: Of 1480 patients randomized across the double-blind studies, 1218 enrolled in the OLEx. The majority of patients (65.4%-80.9%) received a last daily dose of perampanel 12 mg and completed long-term assessment on the same, or one fewer, concomitant antiepileptic drug compared with baseline. The long-term safety/tolerability profile was consistent with the double-blind studies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to discontinuation in >1% of patients were dizziness, irritability, and fatigue; TEAEs of clinical interest were stable for 4 years. In all cohorts, seizure outcome improvements were sustained over time. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days reached 62.0% and 70.6% for patients with ≥3 (n = 436) or ≥4 (n = 78) years of exposure, respectively; corresponding 50% responder rates were 59.6% and 67.9%. The largest median percent seizure reduction per 28 days occurred in SGS for patients with SGS at baseline: 88.0% and 100.0% for patients with ≥3 (n = 190) or ≥4 (n = 28) years of exposure, respectively; in these cohorts 40.0% and 53.6% of patients, respectively, attained freedom from SGS. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days were similar when early dropouts were accounted for. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term (≤4 years) adjunctive perampanel treatment did not raise new safety/tolerability signals and was associated with markedly improved seizure control, particularly in patients with SGS at baseline.

Long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition in adolescents with partial seizures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition, efficacy, growth, safety, and tolerability in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial seizures. METHODS: Study 235, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase II study with an open-label extension phase (NCT01161524), was primarily designed to assess the effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition. Patients (aged ≥12 to <18years) had a diagnosis of epilepsy with inadequately controlled partial seizures, with or without secondary generalization, despite receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs. During the double-blind phase, adjunctive perampanel or placebo was administered over a 6-week titration period and a 13-week maintenance period up to 12mg/day. During the extension phase, all patients received perampanel. Data from the extension phase are presented here. Study endpoints included change from baseline in Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) measures of cognition, seizure frequency, growth, development, the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and laboratory values. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients entered the extension phase (prior double-blind treatment: placebo, n=41; perampanel, n=73). Perampanel had no effect on the CDR system global cognition score, continuity of attention, quality of episodic memory, quality of working memory, or speed of memory but was associated with a significant decline in power of attention at end of treatment compared with baseline (p=0.03). There were no effects on language skills or manual dexterity from baseline to end of treatment. At Weeks 40-52, median reduction in seizure frequency was 74.1%, and 50% responder rate was 66.0%. There were no clinically relevant effects of perampanel on growth or development at end of treatment compared with baseline. Overall, 84.2% of patients experienced at least one TEAE and 70.2% experienced at least one treatment-related TEAE. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (29.8%) and somnolence (19.3%). The TEAEs resulted in the discontinuation of treatment in 6.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with the 19-week double-blind phase, long-term adjunctive treatment with perampanel did not have any significant overall effects on the CDR system global cognition score in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Similar trends were observed across the individual CDR system domains. Adjunctive perampanel showed sustained long-term seizure control and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that observed in prior clinical studies.

Analysis of falls in patients with epilepsy enrolled in the perampanel phase III randomized double-blind studies.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze occurrence of falls among patients with partial seizures, with/without secondarily generalized seizures (SGS), and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in the perampanel phase III clinical studies. METHODS: Studies 304, 305, and 306 randomized subjects (≥12 years) with drug-resistant partial seizures (with/without SGS) to perampanel 2, 4, 8, or 12 mg or placebo for double-blind treatment. The adverse event (AE) of falls was analyzed in the Safety Analysis Set (N = 1480). Study 332 randomized subjects aged ≥12 years with a diagnosis of PGTCS into perampanel 8 mg or placebo groups for double-blind treatment. In a systematic review of reported falls in the study 332 Safety Analysis Set (N = 163), falls were queried to establish whether each was seizure related; subjects with falls resulting from a seizure were not included in this analysis. RESULTS: For studies 304/305/306, treatment-emergent falls occurred in 5.1% perampanel-treated versus 3.4% placebo-treated subjects with partial seizures. Exposure-adjusted rate for falls (falls/subject-month of exposure) was greater for total perampanel than for placebo (0.0175 vs. 0.0093) and was dose related for those receiving perampanel. In subjects with SGS, incidence of treatment-emergent falls was 4.3% in perampanel and 4.0% in placebo groups. Exposure-adjusted rates were 0.0169 and 0.0097 falls per subject-month of exposure in perampanel and placebo, respectively. For study 332, 2.5% perampanel-treated and 1.2% placebo-treated subjects with PGTCS had treatment-emergent falls that were not part of a seizure. Exposure-adjusted rates were 0.0169 and 0.0032 falls per subject-month of exposure in perampanel and placebo, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Results of the perampanel studies suggest that patients with epilepsy should be monitored due to the common risk of falls.

Perampanel with concomitant levetiracetam and topiramate: Post hoc analysis of adverse events related to hostility and aggression.

In 4 Phase III registration trials (3 in patients with partial seizures, N=1480; 1 in patients with PGTCS, N=163), perampanel administered to patients already receiving 1-3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) demonstrated statistically superior efficacy compared to placebo in reducing seizure frequency. However, use of perampanel in these studies was associated with a risk of psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions, including aggression, hostility, irritability, anger, and homicidal ideation and threats. The present study is a post hoc analysis of pooled data from these 4 trials to determine if concomitant treatment with levetiracetam and/or topiramate increased the risk of hostility- and aggression-related AEs. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were determined using a "Narrow & Broad" search based on the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) standard MedDRA query (SMQ) for hostility- and aggression-related events. The rate of hostility- and aggression-related TEAEs was observed to be similar among perampanel-treated patients: a) receiving levetiracetam (N=340) compared to those not receiving levetiracetam (N=779); b) receiving topiramate (N=223) compared to those not receiving topiramate (N=896); and c) receiving both levetiracetam and topiramate (N=47) compared to those not receiving levetiracetam and topiramate (N=1072). Severe and serious TEAEs related to hostility and aggression were rare and occurred at a similar rate regardless of concomitant levetiracetam and/or topiramate therapy. Taken together, these results suggest that concomitant treatment with levetiracetam and/or topiramate has no appreciable effect on the occurrence of hostility- or aggression-related TEAEs in patients receiving perampanel.

Adjunctive perampanel in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial-onset seizures: A randomized study evaluating behavior, efficacy, and safety.

OBJECTIVE: The noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist perampanel was shown in phase III trials to be an effective and well-tolerated adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures. In adolescents, it is necessary to characterize cognitive, neuropsychological, and behavioral side effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The current analysis focuses on behavioral outcomes, efficacy, and safety of perampanel in adolescents. METHODS: Adolescents (12-17 years) on a stable regimen of 1-3 AEDs for partial-onset seizures were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive up to 12 mg/day perampanel or placebo. Alongside efficacy, cognitive, and neuropsychological assessments, behavioral outcomes were measured with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) before and after a 19-week titration and maintenance phase. RESULTS: Of the randomized patients, 85 received perampanel and 48 received placebo. Median reduction in seizure frequency from baseline was 58.0% for perampanel and 24.0% for placebo (p = 0.079). More patients had seizure frequency reduced by 50% after perampanel (n = 49 [59.0%]) than placebo (n = 17 [37.0%]; p = 0.0144). Changes in behavior were minimal, and there were no differences between groups on competency (p = 0.619) or problems (p = 0.174). A greater proportion of placebo patients were classified in the CBCL "clinical" range for competency at end of treatment, whereas the number in the perampanel group remained unchanged. The overall safety profile was similar to that reported previously for perampanel; most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were dizziness (26 patients [30.6% vs. 14.6% placebo]), somnolence (13 patients [15.3% vs. 4.2%]), and headache (nine patients [10.6% vs. 14.6%]). Aggression was reported in seven patients receiving perampanel (8.2% vs. 2.1% placebo); two of these were serious AEs, with neither requiring treatment discontinuation. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive perampanel is efficacious and well tolerated in adolescents with partial-onset seizures, and appears to have no clinically important impact on behavior measured using the CBCL.

Cognitive effects of adjunctive perampanel for partial-onset seizures: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Assess cognitive effects of adjunctive perampanel in adolescents. METHODS: In this double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01161524), patients aged 12 to <18 years with partial-onset seizures despite receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs were randomized (2:1) to perampanel or placebo. Perampanel was increased weekly in 2-mg increments to 8-12 mg/day (6-week titration; 13-week maintenance). Changes in neuropsychological outcomes were assessed at end of maintenance: Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) System Global Cognition Score (primary end point), five CDR System domain T-scores (secondary end points), letter fluency, category fluency, and Lafayette Grooved Pegboard Test (LGPT). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients were randomized. In the full analysis set, there were no differences of perampanel (n = 79) vs. placebo (n = 44) in CDR System Global Cognition Score (least squares mean change, -0.6 vs. 1.6; p = 0.145), Quality of Working Memory (1.1 vs. 2.0; p = 0.579), or Power of Attention (-6.9 vs. -2.7; p = 0.219). There were small differences with perampanel vs. placebo in other CDR System domains: improvements in Quality of Episodic Memory (3.0 vs. -1.2; p = 0.012), and worsening in Continuity of Attention (-3.3 vs. 1.6; p = 0.013) and Speed of Memory (0.3 vs. 7.0; p = 0.032). Letter fluency, category fluency, and LGPT were not significantly different between groups. The most frequent adverse events with perampanel were dizziness (30.6%) and somnolence (15.3%). SIGNIFICANCE: Perampanel did not differ from placebo in the global cognitive score, two of five subdomains, and four other cognitive measures. Perampanel was worse on two and better on one subdomain.

Impact of perampanel on pharmacokinetics of concomitant antiepileptics in patients with partial-onset seizures: pooled analysis of clinical trials.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of perampanel and demographics on clearance of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: Pooled data from three Phase III clinical studies with adjunctive perampanel were used. Blood samples for evaluation of 11 concomitant AEDs were taken during baseline (before perampanel initiation), and at weeks 10, 14, and 19 during the maintenance phase of perampanel treatment (2-12 mg/day, once daily at bedtime). Models estimating apparent clearance of each concomitant AED were fitted to the data, and the effects of perampanel and demographic variables on clearance were determined. Final models were assessed with goodness of fit plots including population predictions and individual predictions against observations. RESULTS: No significant impact of perampanel on clearance was found for clonazepam (n = 81), levetiracetam (n = 330), phenobarbital (n = 54), phenytoin (n = 90), topiramate (n = 226) or zonisamide (n = 93). Statistically significant, but small and not clinically relevant increases in model-predicted clearance were detected for carbamazepine (+4.3% with 12 mg perampanel; n = 379), clobazam (+3.4% males, +7.7% females, 12 mg; n = 114), lamotrigine (+9.3%, 12 mg; n = 356), and valproic acid (+5.0%, 12 mg; n = 349). Oxcarbazepine clearance was reduced (26%; n = 200), but the clinical relevance is unclear as levels of the active metabolite (the monohydroxy derivative of oxcarbazepine) were not measured. CONCLUSIONS: Population PK data show that perampanel (2-12 mg/day, once daily at bedtime) has no relevant impact on the clearance of the most commonly used concomitant AEDs.

Perampanel efficacy and safety by gender: Subanalysis of phase III randomized clinical studies in subjects with partial seizures.

The antiepileptic drug (AED) perampanel is approved in ≥40 countries as adjunctive therapy for drug-resistant partial seizures in patients with epilepsy. This post hoc analysis of pooled data from three phase III, double-blind, randomized studies of perampanel examines between-gender differences in perampanel efficacy and safety. Of the 1,478 subjects in the pooled analysis (719 male, 759 female), 1,109 were included in the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. Perampanel oral clearance was 17% lower in female than in male patients not receiving enzyme-inducing AEDs. Pooled efficacy analysis revealed that seizure frequency was reduced with perampanel treatment regardless of gender; a greater numerical reduction in seizure frequency and increased responder rates occurred in female participants at perampanel doses of 4, 8, and 12 mg. Tolerability was similar between groups, although common adverse events such as dizziness and headache occurred more frequently in female subjects. Modest elevations in perampanel exposure in female patients may result in meaningful between-gender differences in efficacy and safety; therefore, dosing should be individualized and clinical response monitored.

Psychiatric and behavioral adverse events in randomized clinical studies of the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist perampanel.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) glutamate receptor antagonist, is indicated for adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in patients ≥12 years based on three phase III clinical studies. The perampanel U.S. Prescribing Information includes a boxed warning for serious psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions. To provide context for this warning, detail on psychiatric and behavioral safety data from perampanel clinical studies is presented. METHODS: An analysis of pooled safety data from three phase III studies in patients with partial seizures is presented. Data from phase I and phase II studies in patients with and without epilepsy were also analyzed. Psychiatric and behavioral treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms, using "narrow" and "narrow-and-broad" standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) for TEAEs suggestive of hostility/aggression. RESULTS: From the three phase III partial-seizure studies, the overall rate of psychiatric TEAEs was higher in the 8 mg (17.2%) and 12 mg (22.4%) perampanel groups versus placebo (12.4%). In the "narrow" SMQ, hostility/aggression TEAEs were observed in 2.8% for 8 mg and 6.3% for 12 mg perampanel groups, versus 0.7% of placebo patients. "Narrow-and-broad" SMQs for hostility/aggression TEAE rates were 12.3% for 8 mg and 20.4% for 12 mg perampanel groups, versus 5.7% for placebo; rates for events resulting in discontinuation were perampanel = 1.6% versus placebo = 0.7%. For events reported as serious AEs (SAEs), rates were perampanel = 0.7% versus placebo = 0.2%. In nonepilepsy patients, psychiatric TEAEs were similar between patients receiving perampanel and placebo. In phase I subjects/volunteers, all psychiatric TEAEs were mild or moderate. These analyses suggest that psychiatric adverse effects are associated with use of perampanel. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients and caregivers should be counseled regarding the potential risk of psychiatric and behavioral events with perampanel in patients with partial seizures; patients should be monitored for these events during treatment, especially during titration and at higher doses.

Perampanel in the treatment of partial seizures: Time to onset and duration of most common adverse events from pooled Phase III and extension studies.

Perampanel (PER) is a novel noncompetitive AMPA-receptor antagonist approved in over 40 countries for treatment of partial seizures. The safety and tolerability of PER have been well-documented in three double-blind, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase III studies and an open-label extension (OLE). This post hoc analysis evaluated the occurrence and characteristics of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with PER. Results from the Phase III studies were pooled; post hoc analyses on the double-blind phase and up to 1 year of the OLE were performed on the four most common TEAEs for which incidence was higher for PER than PBO. The four most common TEAEs were dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and irritability. For most subjects in the Phase III double-blind studies, these TEAEs were observed during 6-week titration and were mild or moderate in severity. For severe AEs, no dose-response relationship was observed. Patients in the PBO group during Phase III (who therefore received their first PER treatment during OLE) experienced these TEAEs with incidence and timing similar to that of PER-treated patients in Phase III. The first onset of these TEAEs occurred during the early weeks of PER conversion in the OLE. After 6months and up to 1 year of PER treatment, low to no incidence of the first onset of the four TEAEs was observed. Post hoc analyses of data from pooled Phase III studies provide greater insight into occurrence/duration of TEAEs. Phase III double-blind and OLE data showed that dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and irritability were the most common TEAEs reported by patients taking PER. Additionally, these results suggest consistency between studies in patient responses to onset of these TEAEs. Although concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) might be predicted to affect development of TEAEs in patients taking PER, an effect was not observed in this analysis. The low incidence of TEAEs in these studies provides additional support for long-term PER treatment.

Perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures: a pooled dose-response analysis of phase III studies.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relationship between efficacy and perampanel dose, integrated actual (last) dose data from three phase III trials and an extension study (blinded Conversion Period; open-label Maintenance Period) were analyzed. METHODS: Seizure frequency data were analyzed in patients who were randomized to and completed the 13-week Maintenance Period of the phase III studies on perampanel 8 mg, and who received an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during (1) the extension 16-week blinded Conversion Period or (2) weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period. Due to a treatment-by-region interaction (p = 0.042), analyses excluded patients from the Latin America region (n = 162/1,480; 10.9% of the treated cohort). RESULTS: Of 372 patients randomized to 8 mg in the phase III studies, 273 completed the Maintenance Period at 8 mg and 267 entered the extension study. In patients who then had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during the extension blinded Conversion Period (n = 217), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -32.4% (8 mg, phase III Maintenance Period) to -44.2% (12 mg, extension blinded Conversion Period); 50% responder rates increased slightly from 37.3% to 42.9%. In patients who completed the phase III studies on 8 mg and had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period (n = 181), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -34.1% (phase III Maintenance Period) to -46.0% (weeks 1-13 extension Maintenance Period); 50% responder rates were 39.2% and 46.4%. Seizure control remained substantially unchanged in patients who completed the phase III studies at 12 mg and continued on that dose during the extension. SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing perampanel dose from 8 to 12 mg can produce additional benefits in seizure control in at least some patients who tolerate the higher dose.

The practical impact of altered dosing on perampanel plasma concentrations: pharmacokinetic modeling from clinical studies.

RATIONALE: Perampanel is a selective AMPA receptor antagonist approved for adjunctive therapy in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. Perampanel is metabolized primarily via CYP3A4, yet it has a relatively long half-life of 105h; it is, therefore, recommended that perampanel be given once daily (preferably at bedtime). Many patients occasionally have less-than-perfect adherence to their drug regimen, and given the known pharmacokinetic interactions of perampanel with commonly used enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs), we explored the effects of a missed dose on steady-state perampanel plasma concentrations and the ramifications of "make up" doses in these patients. Although perampanel is approved for once-daily dosing, some clinicians may elect to give perampanel as a divided dose (i.e., twice daily), so we also sought to examine the pharmacokinetic impact of twice- versus once-daily dosing. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic simulations were performed using validated perampanel pharmacokinetic parameters, derived from 19 phase I studies in 606 subjects, to investigate the effect on perampanel plasma concentration of (1) missing a dose of perampanel followed by delayed replacement of the missed dose, (2) missing a dose followed by resumption of scheduled therapy, and (3) missing a dose in the presence/absence of carbamazepine. Simulations were done for a typical patient receiving an 8-mg once-daily or a 4-mg twice-daily dose using the nonlinear mixed effects program, NONMEM v7.2, in conjunction with PDx-pop v5. RESULTS: Our results corroborate that given the pharmacokinetic characteristics of perampanel, a missed dose is unlikely to cause as much fluctuation in plasma concentration as would be expected for a drug with a short half-life. Importantly, simulations suggest that supplementing a missed dose 6-12h later, followed by continuation of the regular schedule, may not result in any significant "spikes" in perampanel plasma concentrations. Simulations demonstrated that twice-daily dosing offered little advantage in further flattening the concentration-time profile of perampanel in the adherent patient. However, fluctuations in plasma concentrations are minimized by twice-daily dosing in patients receiving concomitant EIAEDs. CONCLUSIONS: These pharmacokinetic simulations suggest that the long half-life of perampanel may be advantageous in conferring a relatively smooth concentration-time profile with a once-daily or twice-daily dosing, even in the presence of concomitant EIAEDs. However, the results of the present study suggest that perampanel replacement is recommended for patients taking an EIAED to mitigate the potential risks associated with reduced exposure. Confirmation of the ultimate clinical impact of these findings will require further study.

Evaluation of adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures: results of randomized global phase III study 305.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily doses of perampanel 8 and 12 mg when added to 1-3 concomitantly administered, approved antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures. METHODS: Study 305 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients aged 12 years and older with ongoing seizures despite prior therapy with at least two AEDs, and currently receiving 1-3 AEDs. Equal randomization to once-daily oral perampanel 8 or 12 mg, or placebo was performed. Patients entered a 19-week double-blind treatment phase comprising a 6-week titration period, with weekly 2-mg dose increments, followed by a 13-week maintenance period. Primary efficacy end points were the responder rate (proportion of patients who had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency during treatment per 28 days relative to baseline), and the percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days relative to pre-perampanel baseline. A secondary end point was percent change in the frequency of complex partial plus secondarily generalized seizures. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study. KEY FINDINGS: Three hundred eighty-six patients were randomized and treated with study medication. Of these, 321 patients completed the study. The 50% responder rates (intent-to-treat analysis) were 14.7%, 33.3%, and 33.9%, respectively, for placebo, perampanel 8 mg, and perampanel 12 mg, with significant improvements over placebo for both perampanel 8 mg (p = 0.002) and 12 mg (p < 0.001). The median percent change from baseline in seizure frequency per 28 days (intent-to-treat analysis) was -9.7%, -30.5%, and -17.6% for placebo, 8 mg, and 12 mg, respectively, with significant reductions compared with placebo for both 8 mg (p < 0.001) and 12 mg (p = 0.011). For complex partial seizures plus partial seizures that secondarily generalized, the median percent change in frequency was -32.7% (8 mg), -21.9 (12 mg), and -8.1% (placebo), with significant reductions for both 8 mg (p < 0.001) and 12 mg (p = 0.005). The most frequent (occurring in ≥10% of patients in any treatment group) treatment-emergent AEs were dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and headache, with an apparent dose effect suggested for all except headache. SIGNIFICANCE: This phase III trial demonstrated that adjunctive treatment with once-daily perampanel at 8 mg and 12 mg was effective in improving seizure control in patients 12 years and older with refractory partial-onset seizures. These study results also demonstrated that once-daily doses of 8 mg and 12 mg were safe and acceptably tolerated in this study. Perampanel demonstrated a favorable risk/benefit ratio in this population.

Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist, as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial-onset seizures: interim results from phase III, extension study 307.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and seizure outcome data during long-term treatment with once-daily adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/day) in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: Study 307 was an extension study for patients completing the double-blind phase of three pivotal phase III trials (studies 304, 305, and 306). The study consisted of two phases: an open-label treatment phase (including a 16-week blinded conversion period and a planned 256-week maintenance period) and a 4-week follow-up phase. Patients were blindly titrated during the conversion period to their individual maximum tolerated dose (maximum 12 mg/day). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study and seizure frequency recorded. The interim data cutoff date for analyses was December 1, 2010. KEY FINDINGS: In total, 1,218 patients were enrolled in the study. At the interim cutoff date, 1,186 patients were in the safety analysis set; 1,089 (91.8%) patients had >16 weeks of exposure to perampanel, 580 (48.9%) patients had >1 year of exposure, and 19 (1.6%) patients had >2 years of exposure. At the interim analysis, 840 (70.8%) patients remained on perampanel treatment. The large majority of patients (n = 1,084 [91%]) were titrated to 10 mg or 12 mg/day. Median (range) duration of exposure was 51.4 (1.1-128.1) weeks. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 87.4% of patients. The most frequent were dizziness (43.9%), somnolence (20.2%), headache (16.7%), and fatigue (12.1%). Serious AEs were reported in 13.2% of patients. In the intent-to-treat analysis set (n = 1,207), the frequency of all seizures decreased over the first 26 weeks of perampanel treatment in patients with at least 26 weeks of exposure to perampanel (n = 1,006 [83.3%]); this reduction was maintained in patients with at least 1 year of exposure (n = 588 [48.7%]). The overall median percent changes in seizure frequency in patients included in each 13-week interval of perampanel treatment were -39.2% for weeks 14-26 (n = 1,114), -46.5% for weeks 40-52 (n = 731), and -58.1% for weeks 92-104 (n = 59). Overall responder rates in patients included in each 13-week interval of perampanel treatment were 41.4% for weeks 14-26 (n = 1,114), 46.9% for weeks 40-52 (n = 731), and 62.7% for weeks 92-104 (n = 59). During the blinded conversion period, the reduction in seizure frequency in patients previously randomized to placebo (-42.4%, n = 369) was similar to that in patients previously randomized to perampanel (-41.5%, n = 817). SIGNIFICANCE: Consistent with pivotal phase III trials, these interim results demonstrated that perampanel had a favorable tolerability profile in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures over the longer term. The decrease in seizure frequency was consistent and maintained in those patients over at least 1 year of perampanel exposure.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel for the treatment of refractory partial seizures: a pooled analysis of three phase III studies.

PURPOSE: Three phase III studies (304 [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00699972], 305 [NCT00699582], 306 [NCT00700310]) evaluated perampanel, an α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, as adjunctive therapy for refractory partial seizures. We report post hoc analyses of pooled study data by randomized dose. METHODS: Patients with partial seizures despite receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs were randomized to once-daily placebo, perampanel 8 or 12 mg (studies 304, 305), or placebo, perampanel 2, 4, or 8 mg (study 306). Studies included a 6-week baseline period and double-blind treatment phase (6-week titration; 13-week maintenance). Primary end points were median change in partial seizure frequency (baseline vs. double-blind phase) and percentage of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency (baseline vs. maintenance). Here, these end points, together with secondary, exploratory, and safety end points, were assessed using pooled study data. KEY FINDINGS: The pooled intent-to-treat analysis set (randomized, treated patients with any seizure data) included 1,478 patients. Median changes in partial seizure frequency were greater with perampanel than placebo (perampanel 4 mg, -23.3%; 8 mg, -28.8%; 12 mg, -27.2%; placebo, -12.8%; p < 0.01, each dose vs. placebo), as were 50% responder rates (perampanel 4 mg, 28.5%; 8 mg, 35.3%; 12 mg, 35.0%; placebo, 19.3%; p < 0.05, each dose vs. placebo). In addition, median changes in complex partial plus secondary generalized seizure frequency were also greater with perampanel than placebo (perampanel 4 mg, -31.2%; 8 mg, -35.6%; 12 mg, -28.6%; placebo, -13.9%). Perampanel was generally well tolerated. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Most TEAEs were mild/moderate; relatively few patients experienced severe TEAEs (placebo, 5.4%; perampanel, 8.9%) or serious TEAEs (placebo, 5.0%; perampanel, 5.5%). There were no deaths and no clinically important mean changes in laboratory values, electrocardiography (ECG) findings, or vital signs. SIGNIFICANCE: Perampanel reduced partial seizure frequency and improved responder rates compared with placebo, with an acceptable tolerability profile.

A multivariable prediction model of a major treatment response for focal-onset seizures: A post-hoc analysis of Phase III trials of perampanel.

OBJECTIVE: Although 50 % reduction in seizure frequency is a common efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), 75 % or greater reductions may be required to improve patients' health-related quality of life. Identification of clinical factors that are associated with high responder rates may help to inform clinicians on which patients may optimally benefit from treatment. We evaluated potential predictive factors for achieving major treatment responses (≥75 % reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from study baseline) in patients with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures, with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (FBTC) seizures in perampanel trials designed for regulatory approval. METHODS: Univariate analyses using logistic regression were performed using data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III studies of adjunctive perampanel (Studies 304 [NCT00699972], 305 [NCT00699582], 306 [NCT00700310]), and their open-label extension study (OLEx; Study 307 [NCT00735397]). For the double-blind studies, baseline seizure frequency, number of baseline AEDs, baseline seizure type, baseline concomitant enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs), baseline carbamazepine, lamotrigine, or valproic acid, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, etiology, and perampanel plasma concentration were included individually with study treatment. The same factors were included for the OLEx analysis except for plasma concentration and treatment. Variables found to be significant predictors for a major treatment response in univariate analyses were subsequently included in multivariable analyses using backwards and forwards selection. RESULTS: In the double-blind studies, 175/1374 patients had a major response to placebo (n = 25) or perampanel (n = 150). The best predictors of a major treatment response in multivariable models with forwards and backwards selection were: the presence of FBTC seizures during baseline (P = 0.0002), higher perampanel plasma concentration (P < 0.0001), older age at diagnosis (P = 0.0024 and 0.0045, respectively), and lower baseline seizure frequency (P = 0.0364 and 0.0127, respectively). In the OLEx, 217/1090 patients had a major treatment response. The best predictors of a major treatment response in the final multivariable model, regardless of backwards or forwards selection, were a lower baseline seizure frequency (P = 0.0022), the absence of focal impaired awareness seizures during baseline (P = 0.0011), the presence of FBTC seizures during baseline (P = 0.0164), lower number(s) of baseline AEDs (P = 0.0002), the absence of EIAEDs during baseline (P = 0.0059), an older age at diagnosis (P = 0.0054), and absence of structural etiologies (P = 0.0138). SIGNIFICANCE: These analyses of placebo-controlled and long-term extension trial data identified a number of potential predictive factors for patients with focal-onset seizures achieving a major treatment response. These factors may help guide clinicians when predicting a patient's response to treatment and optimizing individual treatment regimens.