Perampanel in routine clinical use across Europe: Pooled, multicenter, observational data.

OBJECTIVE: To pool observational data on the routine use of perampanel to obtain information on real-world outcomes and data in populations typically underrepresented in clinical trials. METHODS: Individual-level data of people with epilepsy treated with perampanel at 45 European centers were merged into a single dataset. Prespecified outcomes were: 1-year retention rate, 1-year seizure freedom rate (duration ≥6 months), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). In addition, relationships were explored with logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The full analysis set comprised 2396 people: 95% had focal seizures; median epilepsy duration was 27 years; median number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was 2; and median prior AEDs was 6. One-year retention rate was 48% (1117/2332; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46-50%), and 1-year seizure-free rate (≥6-month duration) was 9.2% (74/803; 95% CI 7-11%). Median treatment duration was 11.3 months (1832 patient-years); median dose was 8 mg. In 388 individuals with available data at 3, 6, and 12 months, responder rates were 42%, 46%, and 39%, respectively. During the first year, TEAEs were reported in 68% of participants (1317/1497; 95% CI 66-70%). Logistic regression found higher age at perampanel initiation was associated with higher seizure-free rate, and higher number of prior AEDs with lower seizure-free rate and lower rates of somatic TEAEs. In 135 individuals aged ≥65 years, 1-year retention rate was 48% and seizure-free rate was 28%. SIGNIFICANCE: Across a large, treatment-resistant population, add-on perampanel was retained for ≥1 year by 48% of individuals, and 9% were seizure-free for ≥6 months. TEAEs were in line with previous reports in routine clinical use, and less frequent than in the clinical trial setting. No new or unexpected TEAEs were seen. Despite the limitations of observational studies, our data indicate that some individuals may derive a marked benefit from the use of perampanel.

Eslicarbazepine acetate and carotid intima-media thickness in epileptic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate if eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in combination with other non-inducer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of epilepsy may represent a positive impact in the cardiovascular risk profile. METHODS: multicentre, retrospective, observational, non-interventional, real-life study comparing patients treated with cytochrome P450 (CYP) inducer vs. ESL plus non-inducer AEDs. Primary endpoint: Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) measured following the Manheim Consensus criteria. RESULTS: Patients included: 163. The main demographic, clinical and vascular risk parameters were comparable between the two groups except for duration of the disease, prevalence of dyslipidemia and use of lipid-lowering drugs (significantly higher in the inducers group) and number of previous antiepileptic drugs (significantly higher in the non-inducers group). Bivariate analysis of the main endpoint showed almost significant differences (p=0.05) in CIMT measures favourable to non-inducers (average 0.617mm+SD=0.148) vs. inducers (average 0.663mm+SD=0.147). Other variables reaching statistical significance were: age >50 years (p<0.001), high blood pressure (p<0.01) and dyslipidemia (p<0.05). A multivariate analysis including these variables and biochemical vascular risk factors showed a predictor model including two variables: inducers group (p=0.031; Coefficient ß=0.234) and age >50 years (p=0.001; Coefficient ß=0.387). Regarding gender, the mean CIMT in males was significantly higher in the inducers (0.693mm; SD=0.139) than in the non- inducers groups (0.628mm; SD=0.151; p<0.05). In females the differences were not significant. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of CYP inducer AEDs is associated with a significant increase in CIMT as compared with ESL and other non-inducer AEDs. The study shows a decrease in the vascular risk measured by ultrasound criteria in male patients treated with ESL compared with patients treated with inducer AEDs.

Síndrome de Lance-Adams tras endocarditis infecciosa / Lance-Adams syndrome after infective endocarditis

No disponible

One-year clinical experience of perampanel in Spain: a multicentre study of efficacy and tolerability.

Perampanel, a non-competitive antagonist of the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid receptors, is the most recent antiepileptic drug available in Spain, marketed in January 2014. It was initially approved by the European Medicines Agency as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures in patients 12 years and older, but recently also for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Although clinical trials provide essential information about the drug, they do not reflect daily clinical practice. This retrospective study shows the initial experience with perampanel in 11 Spanish hospitals during its first year post-commercialisation. All patients who started perampanel treatment were included, but efficacy and tolerability were only assessed in those patients with a minimum follow-up period of six months. In total, 256 patients were treated with perampanel before September 2014, and 253 had an observational period of one year. After six months, 216/256 patients (84%) continued on perampanel and 180/253 (71.1%) completed one year of treatment. The mean number of previous antiepileptic drugs used was 6.83 and the median number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs was 2. The mean perampanel dose was 7.06 mg and 8.26 mg at six and 12 months, respectively. The responder rate was 39.5% and 35.9% at both follow-up points, respectively. Adverse events were experienced by 91/253 (35.5%) and resulted in withdrawal in 37 (14.6%). The most common adverse events were somnolence, dizziness, and irritability. We found no significant differences between concomitant use of enzyme-inducing and non-inducing antiepileptic drugs, regarding efficacy, adverse effects, or withdrawals. Irritability was not influenced by concomitant use of levetiracetam, relative to other drugs, but was more frequently observed in patients with a history of psychiatric problems or learning disabilities.