Dataset Information

WRAPPER study: Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for people with drug-resistant epilepsy in Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) Real-world Analysis of People with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) on PERampanel (WRAPPER) study assessed effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in people with DRE attending PWH.

Methods

This was a prospective single-center real-world observational study involving 70 people with DRE between July 2016 and June 2021. A post hoc analysis after the initial study period of 16 weeks assessed outcomes for an extended period up to 52 weeks.

Results

After 16 weeks, median dose of perampanel was 2 mg (IQR 24 mg). 50% responder rates were 40.0%, 41.5%, and 48.7% at 16, 26, and 52 weeks. Seizure freedom was 12.9%, 20.7%, and 25.6% at 16, 26, and 52 weeks. Monthly seizure frequency reduced from 3.0 (IQR 3.0-6.6) at baseline to 2.0 (IQR 2.0-6.0, p = 0.005) at 16 weeks; 2.0 (IQR 2.0-5.0, p = 0.01) at 26 weeks; and 2.0 (IQR 0.0-4.0, p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. Older age predicted 50% responders (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.048). At 16 weeks, 51.4% (36/70) had treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs). Most common was seizure exacerbation at 35.7% (25/70) followed by fatigue at 15.7% (11/70). NPI-12 and ZBI scores indicated no increase in neuropsychiatric symptoms on perampanel.

Significance

Low-dose 2-4 mg adjunctive perampanel for people with DRE conferred appreciable improvements in seizure reduction without significant neuropsychiatric adverse effects in the real-world setting at a tertiary center in Hong Kong and had better antiseizure effect with advancing age.

Plain language summary

This real-world study from Hong Kong found low-dose perampanel was effective and tolerable for people with drug-resistant epilepsy. Furthermore, perampanel was also potentially more effective with advancing age.

SUBMITTER: Chan CCH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10839329 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

WRAPPER study: Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for people with drug-resistant epilepsy in Hong Kong.

Chan Charlie C H CCH Leung Ho Wan HW

Epilepsia open 20231226 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) Real-world Analysis of People with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) on PERampanel (WRAPPER) study assessed effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in people with DRE attending PWH.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a prospective single-center real-world observational study involving 70 people with DRE between July 2016 and June 2021. A post hoc analysis after the initial study period of 16 weeks assessed outcomes for an extended period up t ...[more]

PMID: 38101856

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo investigate whether there exists a statistically significant distinction between the effectiveness and tolerance of perampanel (PER) and the number of antiseizure medications (ASMs) that were tried prior to administering PER.MethodA prospective, observational study was performed at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The study included patients diagnosed with epilepsy who were prescribed PER and were monitored for a minimum of 6 months. The efficacy of PER was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month intervals by examining the retention rate and the 50% response rate. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York).ResultsA total of 1,025 patients were identified, of which 836 were included in the analysis. Seven hundred and eighty-nine patients (94.4%) were followed up for a year. The median age of the patients was 29.32 ± 14.06 years, with 45.81% of the patients being male and 17.0% being adolescents. The average duration of epilepsy was 11.22 ± 8.93 years. Overall, PER was discontinued in 49.5% of patients, with the most common reasons being inadequate therapeutic effect and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). At the 6-month follow-up, the retention rate was 54.2% (454/836), and 39.6% of patients had a 50% response. At the 12-month follow-up, the retention rate was 49.4% (340/789), and 44.5% of patients had a 50% response. Patients who received PER as monotherapy had the highest retention rates (P = 0.034) and 50% response rates (P < 0.001) at any follow-up point. TEAEs were reported in 32.0% of patients, and these led to discontinuation in 15.4% of patients. The most common TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence. There was no significant difference between subgroups (P = 0.57), but there was a significant difference between the dosage of PER and TEAEs (P < 0.001).Main findingsThe study concludes that PER is effective in treating both focal and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Patients who had fewer previous exposures to ASMs exhibited higher response rates to PER. TEAEs related to PER dosage were more prevalent during the first 3 months of treatment and tended to improve with continued use, ultimately demonstrating favorable long-term tolerability.

Project description:Objectives(1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre- and post-analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide.MethodsPatients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2016). Patients 4-11 years of age with any partial-onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre-post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel ("index date") marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre-index (based on ICD-9/ICD-10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation.ResultsPre- and post-perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One-year all-cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 29.5% in the follow-up. One-year epilepsy-related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 23.9% during follow-up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti-seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy-related hospitalizations decreased from the pre-index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy-related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05).SignificancePerampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one-year hospitalization risk.

Project description:Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as add-on treatment or monotherapy in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older in routine clinical practice. Methods: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for observational studies of PER published up to 1 March 2022. The outcomes of interest were responder rates, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential factors that might affect the efficacy and safety of PER usage. Results: A total of 56 studies, which included 10,688 patients, were enrolled. The results showed that after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, the pooled 50% responder rates in patients with epilepsy were 50.0% (95% CI: 0.41-0.60), 44.0% (95% CI: 0.38-0.50), and 39.0% (95% CI: 0.31-0.48), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 24.0% (95% CI: 0.17-0.32), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.17-0.25), and 20.0% (95% CI: 0.16-0.24), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy of PER could be affected by the way in which PER is administrated. Patients in the groups where PER was used as the first add-on, primary monotherapy, or combined with non-enzyme-inducing AEDs (non-EIAEDs) displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate when compared with those in the late add-on, conversion therapy, or combined with the EIAEDs groups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment were 46% (95% CI: 0.38-0.55), 52.0% (95% CI: 0.43-0.60), and 46.0% (95% CI: 0.40-0.52), respectively. The withdrawal rates due to AEs were 8.0% (95% CI: 0.06-0.11), 16.0% (95% CI: 0.13-0.20), and 16% (95% CI: 0.11-0.21) at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed a higher withdrawal rate in the rapid (30%, 95% CI: 0.22-0.38) than in the slow (12%, 95% CI: 0.06-0.18) titration group. Conclusion: Altogether, PER was effective and could be fairly tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage in patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, PER appeared to be more effective when PER was used as the first add-on, monotherapy, or concomitant with non-EIAEDs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022384532.

Dataset Information

WRAPPER study: Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for people with drug-resistant epilepsy in Hong Kong.

Objective

Methods

Results

Significance

Plain language summary

Publications

WRAPPER study: Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for people with drug-resistant epilepsy in Hong Kong.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets