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.

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.

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.

Meta-analysis of drug efficacy in adult vs pediatric trials of patients with PGTC seizures.

OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of published studies was performed to determine whether the efficacy of antiseizure drugs in adults with primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) is comparable with that in the pediatric population (2-12 years of age). METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of PGTCS in adults and children 2-12 years of age. Neurologists used standardized search and study evaluations to select eligible trials. Median percent reduction in seizure frequency from baseline and ≥50% responder rates were used to compare drug efficacy in adults and children. RESULTS: Among 7 adjunctive-therapy PGTCS trials in adults and children (2-12 years of age) that met evaluation criteria, effect sizes were consistent between adults and children for lamotrigine and topiramate. The baseline-subtracted median percent seizure reduction in seizure frequency ranged from 50.0% to 79.7% in children and 57.0% to 64.0% in adults. The ≥50% responder rate was similar between children and adults in a topiramate study (50% in children compared with 58% in adults). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports the use of drug response from antiseizure drug clinical trials for PGTCS in adults to predict comparable treatment response in children 2-12 years of age with PGTCS.

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.

Adjunctive Perampanel Oral Suspension in Pediatric Patients From ≥2 to <12 Years of Age With Epilepsy: Pharmacokinetics, Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy.

Study 232, an open-label pilot study with an extension phase, evaluated the pharmacokinetics and preliminary safety/tolerability and efficacy of adjunctive perampanel oral suspension (≤0.18 mg/kg/d) in epilepsy patients aged ≥2 to <12 years. Patients were grouped into cohorts 1 (aged ≥7 to <12 years) and 2 (aged ≥2 to <7 years). The Core Study included pretreatment (≤2 weeks) and treatment phases (7-week titration; 4-week maintenance; 4-week follow-up [for those not entering the extension]). The extension phase consisted of 41-week maintenance and 4-week follow-up periods. Pharmacokinetic data were pooled with adolescent pharmacokinetic data from phase II/III studies. Population pharmacokinetic analysis showed that perampanel pharmacokinetics was independent of age, weight, or liver function, suggesting age- or weight-based dosing is not required and that the same dose can be given to adults and children to achieve exposures shown to be efficacious. Perampanel was well tolerated and efficacious for ≤52 weeks.

Potential protein-binding displacement interactions with perampanel: An in vitro analysis.

Plasma protein binding and effects on volume of distribution and pharmacologically active, circulating-drug concentrations are complex issues. Protein-binding displacement often underlies drug-drug interactions. Perampanel is a once-daily oral anti-seizure drug for focal seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Perampanel is also indicated for monotherapy use for focal seizures in the United States. Perampanel is extensively but slowly metabolized via CYP3A4. Its elimination t½ is about 100 h, and it displays substantial plasma protein binding (>95%). Here, we examine perampanel's potential to displace highly bound anti-seizure drugs and the ability of warfarin, a standard highly protein-bound drug, to displace perampanel. Protein binding of perampanel, phenytoin, valproate, and warfarin was assessed using equilibrium dialysis. Plasma samples containing each compound were dialyzed against phosphate buffered saline. For phenytoin, valproate, and warfarin, plasma samples were also dialyzed in the presence of perampanel. After 24 h equilibrium dialysis, amounts of test compounds were analyzed to calculate plasma protein binding. At clinically relevant concentrations, perampanel did not displace other highly bound drugs or vice versa. Protein-binding displacement may confound therapeutic drug monitoring of extensively protein-bound medications. Without empirical data, clinicians might be concerned that addition of perampanel could alter unbound concentrations of other medications, resulting in adverse effects. Our data indicate perampanel has low potential for drug interactions resulting from protein-binding displacement.

Evaluation of perampanel as monotherapy for focal seizures: Experience from open-label extension studies.

Perampanel, a selective, non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, is approved for adjunctive treatment of focal seizures, with or without secondarily generalized seizures, and for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 12 years. Perampanel was recently approved for monotherapy use for focal seizures in the U.S.A. Anti-seizure drug monotherapy may be preferable to polytherapy, which is generally associated with increased toxicity, non-compliance, and cost. Here, we report cases where patients had converted to perampanel monotherapy during open-label extension (OLEx) portions of 9 Phase II and III studies. Of 2245 patients who enrolled in the OLEx studies, we identified 7 patients with drug-resistant focal seizures who discontinued all non-perampanel anti-seizure drugs and were maintained on perampanel monotherapy for ≥ 91 days until the end of data cut-off. Patients received perampanel monotherapy for up to 1099 days (157 weeks), most at a modal dose of 12 mg. Seizure data were available for 6 patients, of whom 5 had a ≥ 90% reduction in overall seizure frequency between baseline and their last 13-week period of monotherapy (3 were seizure-free). Perampanel monotherapy was generally well tolerated and the safety profile during perampanel monotherapy was consistent with clinical and post-marketing experience in the adjunctive setting. This analysis included a small proportion of patients with highly drug-resistant focal seizures who converted to monotherapy during OLEx studies. While these limited data are encouraging in suggesting that perampanel might be useful as a monotherapy, further studies are required to explore outcomes in a less drug-resistant population, where a larger proportion of patients might benefit from monotherapy.

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.

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.

A retrospective, multicentre study of perampanel given as monotherapy in routine clinical care in people with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Perampanel is approved for adjunctive treatment of focal seizures, with or without secondarily generalised seizures, and for primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures in people with epilepsy aged ≥12 years. Perampanel was recently approved for monotherapy use for partial seizures in the United States. This study provides insight into the feasibility of perampanel monotherapy in real-world settings. METHODS: This retrospective, non-interventional, multicentre study (NCT02736162) was conducted between January 2013 and March 2016 in specialist epilepsy centres in Europe and Russia. Eligible individuals had a diagnosis of epilepsy and received perampanel primary or secondary monotherapy as routine clinical care. The primary endpoint was proportion of individuals remaining on perampanel monotherapy, after conversion from perampanel adjunctive treatment, at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (retention rate). RESULTS: Sixty individuals were in the safety set (female, 63%; white, 97%; aged 18 to <65 years, 73%). Most (85%) received secondary monotherapy with perampanel. At study cut-off, 68% of individuals were continuing on perampanel monotherapy (secondary monotherapy: 55%). The median duration of retention was not calculable due to the high number of individuals ongoing on monotherapy. Twelve individuals had treatment-emergent adverse events that started during perampanel monotherapy, the most frequent was dizziness (5%). One serious treatment-emergent adverse event was reported (pneumonia during adjunctive perampanel treatment). CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective study of individuals who received perampanel monotherapy, the majority maintained monotherapy. Perampanel monotherapy may be an achievable option in some people with epilepsy.

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.

Effect of enzyme inhibition on perampanel pharmacokinetics: Why study design matters.

OBJECTIVES: Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist, is indicated as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients with epilepsy aged 12years and older. In vitro studies and Phase I trials indicate that perampanel is metabolized almost exclusively by CYP3A, with an elimination half-life (t1/2) averaging approximately 105h. Understanding of pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions-enzyme inhibition or induction-and anticipating their occurrence are important for management of patients with epilepsy. Here we report PK results from a Phase I drug-drug interaction (DDI) study (Study 005) combining perampanel with the CYP3A inhibitor ketoconazole, as well as supplementary in silico predictions further exploring this interaction. METHODS: A Phase I, randomized, open-label, two-period, two-treatment, two-way crossover study was conducted in 26 healthy adult male volunteers. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences. In one period, subjects received a single 1-mg fasting dose of perampanel (Day1); in the other period, subjects received ketoconazole 400mg once daily for 10days with a single 1-mg perampanel dose while fasting (Day3). Blood samples were drawn at multiple time points up to 288h after the perampanel dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters of perampanel were calculated by noncompartmental analysis, and safety was recorded. An integrated, physiologically based PK model built in Simcyp® provided additional insight into this interaction. Drug-drug interaction intensity was measured by the ratio of systemic exposure (area under plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]) of perampanel in the presence or absence of concomitant ketoconazole. RESULTS: Single oral doses of 1mg perampanel and once-daily oral doses of ketoconazole 400mg were safe and well tolerated. Maximum perampanel plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to Cmax showed no apparent differences when perampanel was administered alone versus with ketoconazole. Ketoconazole co-administration resulted in an approximate 20% increase in perampanel AUC (P<0.001). This increase, although statistically significant, was a<2.0-fold AUC change and alone would suggest a modest effect of ketoconazole. To further explore these results, DDI simulations were performed to query the findings and test additional study conditions. Using the actual trial conditions of Study 005, the simulations also predicted an AUC ratio increase <2-fold, providing verification of the simulation assumptions and the modest effect of ketoconazole for 10days. Simulations further suggested that an interaction effect of ketoconazole on perampanel exposure (>2-fold) of potential clinical significance could be predicted when using larger doses of ketoconazole (e.g., 200mg every 6h) coadministered for a greater time period (e.g., 30days), with AUC ratio as high as 3.36. Additionally, simulations suggested that a significant interaction with co-administration of perampanel and an inhibitor more potent than ketoconazole (such as itraconazole) could not be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Selecting an appropriate study design is critical to fully characterize the PK interaction for drugs such as perampanel that have a long t1/2. Although a negligible effect on perampanel PK was observed following co-administration of ketoconazole 400mg/day for 10days, this is likely due in part to the relatively brief co-administration period of ketoconazole and perampanel (<3 times the t1/2 of perampanel). While short-term administration of a CYP3A inhibitor may not significantly increase perampanel exposure, such increases may be expected following chronic and larger dosing or with a more potent inhibitor.

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.

Pharmacokinetics, exposure-cognition, and exposure-efficacy relationships of perampanel in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial-onset seizures.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize, in adolescents aged 12-17, the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of perampanel, the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on PK, and the relationships between perampanel exposure and cognitive function, seizure frequency, and responder status. METHODS: Population PK analysis used plasma concentration data from Phase II study 235 (NCT01161524), in which adolescents with inadequately controlled POS despite treatment with 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were randomized to receive once daily oral placebo or perampanel (8-12mg/day) for 19 weeks, pooled with data from adolescent patients in perampanel Phase III studies 304, 305, 306. Exposure-cognition and exposure-efficacy relationships were modelled using data from study 235. RESULTS: Population PK results from 152 adolescent patients revealed a perampanel apparent clearance of 0.729L/h, consistent with previous analyses in adolescents and adults. Clearance was increased with coadministration of inducing AEDs (carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin), and was slightly higher in females. The PK/pharmacodynamics (PD) analysis for cognition (n=110) showed that increasing perampanel exposure had no significant effect on overall cognition, measured by the Cognitive Drug Research global cognition score. The PK/PD analysis for efficacy (n=123) showed a significant decrease in seizure frequency and significant increased probability of being a responder, as perampanel concentration increased - both in the presence and absence of inducing AEDs. Carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin reduced perampanel exposure in adolescents, but reduced the magnitude of seizure frequency reduction and responder probability to a lesser extent. SIGNIFICANCE: Pharmacokinetics of perampanel are similar in adolescents to adults. Increasing perampanel exposure reduces seizure frequency and increases probability of being a responder regardless of concomitant inducers. The lack of relationship between perampanel exposure and cognitive function suggests a benign cognitive profile for this AED in adolescents. We await results from long-term exposure.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunct perampanel based on number of antiepileptic drugs at baseline and baseline predictors of efficacy: A phase III post-hoc analysis.

Perampanel is a selective, noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist with demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in partial seizures in patients aged ≥ 12 years in Phase III studies. Post-hoc analysis of these studies was conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel based on the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) at baseline, as well as to examine which baseline characteristics, if any, were predictors of efficacy. Efficacy parameters were based on the number of baseline AEDs, and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association of demographic and baseline clinical factors with probability of ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Patients on 1 AED at baseline were significantly more likely to have reduced seizure frequency (P<0.02) and improved 50% responder rate (P<0.02) than patients on 3 AEDs at baseline. Secondarily generalized seizures at baseline, unknown etiology, and use of concomitant non-inducer AEDs were also established as positive predictors of efficacy (50% responder rate; P<0.01). Patients with more AEDs at baseline were associated with greater use of inducers (P<0.01), which may result in decreased exposure of perampanel in these patients and lower efficacy. Patients with 1 AED at baseline had a significantly shorter time since diagnosis compared with patients in the 3 (P<0.01) AEDs group, as well as a lower median seizure frequency at baseline compared to patients on 3 AEDs (P<0.05), suggesting that the reduced efficacy of perampanel with 3 AEDs may also be associated with the greater severity of seizures in the patient groups. The incidence of adverse events in perampanel-treated patients was similar regardless of the number of AEDs at baseline. Greater efficacy is predicted for patients receiving fewer concomitant AEDs when starting perampanel, as well as for those receiving concomitant treatment with AEDs that are not CYP3A4 enzyme-inducers, compared to patients treated with multiple concomitant AEDs. The results of this study provide additional information for clinicians considering adding perampanel to their patients' treatment regimen earlier rather than later, and offer evidence regarding the potential for increased efficacy with a decreased medication burden.