Open AccessEffectiveness of perampanel as the only add‐on: Retrospective, multicenter, observational real‐life study on epilepsy patients
Author(s) -
Gasparini Sara,
Ferlazzo Edoardo,
Neri Sabrina,
Cianci Vittoria,
Iudice Alfonso,
Bisulli Francesca,
Bonanni Paolo,
Caggia Emanuele,
D'Aniello Alfredo,
Di Bonaventura Carlo,
DiFrancesco Jacopo C.,
Domina Elisabetta,
Dono Fedele,
Gambardella Antonio,
Marini Carla,
Marrelli Alfonso,
Matricardi Sara,
Morano Alessandra,
Paladin Francesco,
Renna Rosaria,
Striano Pasquale,
Pascarella Angelo,
Ascoli Michele,
Aguglia Umberto
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
epilepsia open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.247
H-Index - 16
ISSN - 2470-9239
DOI - 10.1002/epi4.12649
Subject(s) - perampanel , tolerability , epilepsy , medicine , observational study , adverse effect , concomitant , retrospective cohort study , pediatrics , adjunctive treatment , clinical trial , randomized controlled trial , retention rate , psychiatry , computer security , computer science
Objective Perampanel (PER) is indicated as adjunctive antiseizure medication (ASM) in adolescents and adults with epilepsy. Data from clinical trials show good efficacy and tolerability, while limited information is available on the routine clinical use of PER, especially when used as only add‐on treatment. Methods We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study on people with focal or generalized epilepsy aged >12 years, consecutively recruited from 52 Italian epilepsy centers. All patients received PER as the only add‐on treatment to a background ASM according to standard clinical practice. Retention rate, seizure frequency, and adverse events were recorded at 3, 6, and 12 months after PER introduction. Subanalyses by early or late use of PER and by concomitant ASM were also conducted. Results Five hundred and three patients were included (age 36.5 ± 19.9 years). Eighty‐one percent had focal epilepsy. Overall, the retention rate was very high in the whole group (89% at 12 months) according with efficacy measures. No major differences were observed in the subanalyses, although patients who used PER as early add‐on, as compared with late add‐on, more often reached early seizure freedom at 3‐month follow‐up (66% vs 53%, P = .05). Treatment‐emergent adverse events occurred in 25%, far less commonly than in PER randomized trials. Significance This study confirms the good efficacy and safety of PER for focal or generalized epilepsy in real‐life conditions. We provide robust data about its effectiveness as only add‐on treatment even in patients with a long‐standing history of epilepsy and previously treated with many ASMs.