Search

Objective: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) associated with high rates of seizure freedom and acceptable tolerability in patients with focal seizures. To achieve the optimal cenobamate dose for maximal potential effectiveness while avoiding or minimizing drug‐related adverse events (AEs), the administration of cenobamate with other ASMs must be managed through concomitant ASM load reduction. A panel of Spanish epilepsy experts aimed to provide a Spanish consensus on how to adjust the dose of concomitant ASMs in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) in order to improve the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate. Methods: A three‐stage modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken, including six Spanish epileptologists with extensive experience using cenobamate. Based on current literature and their own expert opinion, the expert panel reached a consensus on when and how to adjust the dosage of concomitant ASMs during cenobamate titration. Results: The expert panel agreed that tailored titration and close follow‐up are required to achieve the best efficacy and tolerability when initiating cenobamate in patients receiving concomitant ASMs. When concomitant clobazam, phenytoin, phenobarbital, and sodium channel blockers are taken at high dosages, or when the patient is receiving two or more sodium channel blockers, dosages should be proactively lowered during the cenobamate titration period. Other concomitant ASMs should be reduced only if the patient reports a moderate/severe AE at any stage of the titration period. Significance: Cenobamate is an effective ASM with a dose‐dependent effect. To maximize effectiveness while maintaining the best tolerability profile, co‐medication management is needed. The recommendations included herein provide practical guidance for proactive and reactive management of co‐medication in cenobamate‐treated patients with DRE and a high drug load. Plain Language Summary: Patients with epilepsy may continue to have seizures even after treatment with several different antiseizure medications (ASMs). Cenobamate is an ASM that can reduce seizures in these patients. In this study, six Spanish experts in epilepsy discussed the best way to use cenobamate in drug‐resistant epilepsy. They provide practical guidance on when and how the dose of other ASMs might be adjusted to reduce side effects and optimize the use of cenobamate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is important to assess the effectiveness of an antiseizure medication in treating different epilepsy aetiologies to optimise individualised therapeutic approaches. Data from the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) Extension study were used to assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice. Methods: A post hoc analysis was conducted of PERMIT Extension data from individuals with a known aetiology. Retention was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness assessments included responder rate (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation. Results: PERMIT Extension included 1945 individuals with structural aetiology, 1012 with genetic aetiology, 93 with an infectious aetiology, and 26 with an immune aetiology. Retention rates at 12 months were 61.1% (structural), 65.9% (genetic), 56.8% (infectious) and 56.5% (immune). At the last visit, responder rates (total seizures) were 43.3% (structural), 68.3% (genetic), 37.0% (infectious) and 20.0% (immune), and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 15.8%, 46.5%, 11.1% and 5.0%, respectively. AE incidence rates were 58.0% (structural), 46.5% (genetic), 51.1% (infectious) and 65.0% (immune), and corresponding rates of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months were 18.9%, 16.4%, 18.5% and 21.7%, respectively. The types of AEs reported were generally consistent across aetiology subgroups, with no idiosyncratic AEs emerging. Conclusion: Although PER was effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat individuals with a range of epilepsy aetiologies in clinical practice, variability in its effectiveness and tolerability across the subgroups indicates that PER may be particularly useful for individuals with specific epilepsy aetiologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. People with drug-resistant epilepsy are potential candidates for epilepsy surgery, a subset of whom requires intracranial video-EEG monitoring (IVEM) to determine the seizure onset zone (SOZ). The purpose of this study is to investigate noninvasive predictors of SOZ focality and surgical outcome in order to optimise case selection for this procedure. Materials and Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent IVEM at our centre from January 2006 to July 2021. We applied a multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the effect of potential noninvasive data as influencing factors for both SOZ focality and surgical outcome. A focal SOZ included a sublobar onset on IVEM, and a good surgical outcome was defined as Engel class I. Results. A total of 783 underwent a presurgical evaluation, 102 of them with IVEM. Ninety-seven patients were included in the SOZ focality analysis, and 64 were included in the surgical outcome analysis. The presence of focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (p = 0.03) and generalised interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) during scalp EEG (p = 0.02) predicted a nonfocal SOZ. A weekly (p = 0.01) or daily seizure frequency (p < 0.01), focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (p = 0.01), nonlesional MRI (p < 0.01), and multifocal (p = 0.02) or generalised IEDs (p < 0.01) were associated with a poor surgical outcome. Conclusions. A high seizure frequency, positive history of focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, nonlesional MRI, and generalised and multifocal IEDs are noninvasive factors that may aid in selecting candidates for IVEM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Real-world evidence studies of brivaracetam (BRV) have been restricted in scope, location, and patient numbers. The objective of this pooled analysis was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) in routine practice in a large international population. Methods: EXPERIENCE/EPD332 was a pooled analysis of individual patient records from multiple independent non-interventional studies of patients with epilepsy initiating BRV in Australia, Europe, and the United States. Eligible study cohorts were identified via a literature review and engagement with country lead investigators, clinical experts, and local UCB Pharma scientific/medical teams. Included patients initiated BRV no earlier than January 2016 and no later than December 2019, and had ≥ 6 months of follow-up data. The databases for each cohort were reformatted and standardised to ensure information collected was consistent. Outcomes included ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency, seizure freedom (no seizures within 3 months before timepoint), continuous seizure freedom (no seizures from baseline), BRV discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients with missing data after BRV discontinuation were considered non-responders/not seizure free. Analyses were performed for all adult patients (≥ 16 years), and for subgroups by seizure type recorded at baseline; by number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) at index; by use of BRV as monotherapy versus polytherapy at index; for patients who switched from levetiracetam to BRV versus patients who switched from other ASMs to BRV; and for patients with focal-onset seizures and a BRV dose of ≤ 200 mg/day used as add-on at index. Analysis populations included the full analysis set (FAS; all patients who received at least one BRV dose and had seizure type and age documented at baseline) and the modified FAS (all FAS patients who had at least one seizure recorded during baseline). The FAS was used for all outcomes other than ≥ 50% seizure reduction. All outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics. Results: Analyses included 1644 adults. At baseline, 72.0% were 16–49 years of age and 92.2% had focal-onset seizures. Patients had a median (Q1, Q3) of 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) prior antiseizure medications at index. At 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, ≥ 50% seizure reduction was achieved by 32.1% (n = 619), 36.7% (n = 867), and 36.9% (n = 822) of patients; seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 17.9% (n = 1165), and 14.9% (n = 1111); and continuous seizure freedom rates were 22.4% (n = 923), 15.7% (n = 1165), and 11.7% (n = 1111). During the whole study follow-up, 551/1639 (33.6%) patients discontinued BRV. TEAEs since prior visit were reported in 25.6% (n = 1542), 14.2% (n = 1376), and 9.3% (n = 1232) of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions: This pooled analysis using data from a variety of real-world settings suggests BRV is effective and well tolerated in routine clinical practice in a highly drug-resistant patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate perampanel (PER) when used under real‐world conditions to treat people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) included in the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study. Methods: The multinational, retrospective, pooled analysis PERMIT explored the use of PER in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice across 17 countries. This subgroup analysis included PERMIT participants with IGE. Time points for retention and effectiveness measurements were 3, 6, and 12 months (last observation carried forward, defined as "last visit," was also applied to effectiveness). Effectiveness was evaluated by seizure type (total seizures, generalized tonic–clonic seizures [GTCS], myoclonic seizures, absence seizures) and included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (defined as no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was monitored throughout PER treatment and evaluated by documenting the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including psychiatric AEs and those leading to treatment discontinuation. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 544 people with IGE (51.9% women, mean age = 33.3 years, mean epilepsy duration = 18.1 years). At 3, 6, and 12 months, 92.4%, 85.5%, and 77.3% of participants were retained on PER treatment, respectively (Retention Population, n = 497). At the last visit, responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 74.2% and 54.6% (total seizures), 81.2% and 61.5% (GTCS), 85.7% and 66.0% (myoclonic seizures), and 90.5% and 81.0% (absence seizures) (Effectiveness Population, n = 467). AEs occurred in 42.9% of patients and included irritability (9.6%), dizziness/vertigo (9.2%), and somnolence (6.3%) (Tolerability Population, n = 520). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was 12.4% over 12 months. Significance: This subgroup analysis of the PERMIT study demonstrated the effectiveness and good tolerability of PER in people with IGE when administered under everyday clinical practice conditions. These findings are in line with clinical trial evidence, supporting PER's use as broad‐spectrum antiseizure medication for the treatment of IGE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The PERMIT study is the largest pooled analysis of perampanel (PER) clinical practice data conducted to date. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of PERMIT investigated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of PER when used as early add-on therapy (after failure of one or two previous antiseizure medications) in comparison with late add-on therapy (after failure of three ormore previous antiseizuremedications). Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months, and at the last visit (last observation carried forward). Effectiveness was assessed by seizure type (total seizures, focal seizures, generalized tonic-clonic seizures [GTCS]) and assessments included seizure freedom rate and responder rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results: The Full Analysis Set included 1184 and 2861 PWE treated with PER as early and late add-on therapy, respectively. Compared to the late add-on subgroup, the early add-on subgroup was characterized by later mean age at epilepsy onset, shorter mean duration of epilepsy, lower rates of intellectual disability and psychiatric comorbidity, and lower frequency of seizures per month, suggesting a less severe form of epilepsy in this subgroup. After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in the early versus late add-on subgroup (67.7% vs. 62.4%; p=0.004). At the last visit, responder rates in the early versus late add-on subgroup were significantly higher for total seizures (68.2% vs. 39.3%; p < 0.001), focal seizures (65.0% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.001) and GTCS (83.7% vs. 67.2%; p < 0.001), as were seizure freedom rates (total seizures, 35.9% vs. 11.9% [p < 0.001]; focal seizures, 29.4% vs. 8.7% [p < 0.001]; GTCS, 69.0% vs. 48.1% [p < 0.001]). Incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the early versus late add-on subgroup (42.1% vs. 54.7%; p < 0.001), as was the rate of discontinuation due to AEs over 12 months (15.0% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.031). Discussion: This study demonstrated that PER was effective and generally well tolerated when initiated as early or late add-on therapy, but it was significantly more effective and better tolerated when initiated early. These findings support PER's use as a broad-spectrum, early add-on therapy for use in PWE with focal and generalized seizures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To investigate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as monotherapy to treat focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, using data from the PERMIT study. Methods. PERMIT was a pooled analysis of 44 real-world studies from 17 countries, in which people with focal and generalized epilepsy were treated with PER. This post hoc analysis included people with epilepsy (PWE) from PERMIT who were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Effectiveness assessments included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit). Safety and tolerability were assessed by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. Results. Overall, 268 PWE were treated with PER monotherapy at baseline. Retention was assessed for 168 PWE, effectiveness for 183 PWE, and safety and tolerability for 197 PWE. Retention rates were 91.1%, 87.3%, and 73.3% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. At 12 months, responder rates were 84.2% overall, 82.9% in PWE with only focal-onset seizures at baseline, and 88.0% in those with only generalized-onset seizures at baseline; corresponding freedom rates were 62.9%, 57.7%, and 80.0%, respectively. AEs were reported for 45.2% of PWE. The most frequently reported AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (16.8%), irritability (11.2%), somnolence (9.1%), and depression (6.6%). Over 12 months, 13.7% discontinued due to AEs. Conclusions. PER was effective when used as monotherapy in clinical practice, particularly in those with generalized-onset seizures, and was generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Dravet syndrome (DS) and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) are rare treatment‐resistant childhood epilepsies classed as developmental and epileptic encephalopathies. ELEKTRA investigated the efficacy and safety of soticlestat (TAK‐935) as adjunctive therapy in children with DS or LGS (NCT03650452). Methods: ELEKTRA was a phase 2, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of soticlestat (≤300 mg twice daily, weight‐adjusted) in children (aged 2–17 years) with DS, demonstrating three or more convulsive seizures/month, or with LGS, demonstrating four or more drop seizures/month at baseline. The 20‐week treatment period comprised an 8‐week dose‐optimization period and a 12‐week maintenance period. Efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in seizure frequency versus placebo. Safety assessments included incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: ELEKTRA enrolled 141 participants; 126 (89%) completed the study. The modified intent‐to‐treat population included 139 participants who received one or more doses of study drug and had one or more efficacy assessments (DS, n = 51; LGS, n = 88). ELEKTRA achieved its primary endpoint: the combined soticlestat‐treated population demonstrated a placebo‐adjusted median reduction in seizure frequency of 30.21% during the maintenance period (p =.0008, n = 139). During this period, placebo‐adjusted median reductions in convulsive and drop seizure frequencies of 50.00% (p =.0002; patients with DS) and 17.08% (p =.1160; patients with LGS), respectively, were observed. TEAE incidences were similar between the soticlestat (80.3%) and placebo (74.3%) groups and were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Serious TEAEs were reported by 15.5% and 18.6% of participants receiving soticlestat and placebo, respectively. TEAEs reported in soticlestat‐treated patients with ≥5% difference from placebo were lethargy and constipation. No deaths were reported. Significance: Soticlestat treatment resulted in statistically significant, clinically meaningful reductions from baseline in median seizure frequency (combined patient population) and in convulsive seizure frequency (DS cohort). Drop seizure frequency showed a nonstatistically significant numerical reduction in children with LGS. Soticlestat had a safety profile consistent with previous studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We conducted a post hoc analysis of two randomized controlled trials, GWPCARE1 (NCT02091375) and GWPCARE2 (NCT02224703), to estimate the time to onset of cannabidiol (CBD) treatment effects (seizure reduction and adverse events [AEs]) in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS). Methods: Patients received either plant‐derived highly purified CBD (Epidiolex in the United States; 100 mg/ml oral solution) 10 mg/kg/day (CBD10; GWPCARE2) or 20 mg/kg/day (CBD20; GWPCARE1&2), or matching placebo for 14 weeks. Treatment started at 2.5 mg/kg/day, reached 10 mg/kg/day on Day 7, and went up to 20 mg/kg/day on Day 11 during the 14‐day titration period. Percentage change from baseline in convulsive seizure frequency was calculated by cumulative day (i.e., including all previous days). Time to onset and resolution of AEs were also evaluated. Results: Overall, 124 patients received placebo and 194 received CBD (CBD10, n = 64; CBD20, n = 130). Mean age was 9.5 years (range = 2.2–18.9). Patients had discontinued a median of four antiepileptic drugs (range = 0–26) and were currently taking a median of three (range = 1–5). Differences in convulsive seizure reduction between placebo and CBD emerged during titration and became nominally significant by Day 12 for CBD20 (p =.02) and Day 13 for CBD10 (p =.03). Additionally, differences in the 50% responder rate between placebo and CBD became apparent during titration. Onset of the first reported AE occurred during the titration period in 48.4% of placebo patients and 54.1% of CBD patients. The three most common AEs of somnolence, decreased appetite, and diarrhea resolved within 4 weeks of onset in the majority of CBD‐treated patients (56.3%–72.9%). Significance: The therapeutic effect of CBD in DS may start within 2 weeks of treatment in some patients. Although AEs lasted longer for CBD than placebo, most resolved within the 14‐week study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients included in the Euro‐Esli study who had focal seizures associated with post‐stroke epilepsy (PSE). Materials and Methods: Euro‐Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness assessments (evaluated after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at final follow‐up ["last visit"]) included rates of response (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), seizure freedom (no seizures since at least the prior visit) and retention. Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout ESL treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. A post hoc analysis was conducted of patients with PSE versus patients without PSE ("non‐PSE"). Results: Of 1656 patients included in the analysis, 76 (4.6%) had PSE and 1580 (95.4%) had non‐PSE. Compared with non‐PSE patients, PSE patients were significantly older, had significantly shorter epilepsy duration, significantly lower total baseline seizure frequency, and were treated with significantly fewer prior and concomitant antiepileptic drugs (P <.001 for all). At the last visit, the responder rate was significantly higher in PSE versus non‐PSE patients (72.9% vs 60.6%; P =.040), as was the seizure freedom rate (48.6% vs 31.7%; P =.003). After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in PSE versus non‐PSE patients (87.8% vs 77.4%; P =.035). The incidence of AEs was similar for PSE versus non‐PSE patients (36.0% vs 35.8%; P =.966). Conclusions: These findings suggest that ESL may be an effective and well‐tolerated treatment option for patients with focal seizures due to PSE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinical practice studies help guide antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy in patient groups routinely excluded from clinical trials, such as the elderly. The Euro-Esli study investigated the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) when used in everyday clinical practice in Europe. A subanalysis of data from elderly patients (≥ 60 years) included in the Euro-Esli study was conducted to assess these aspects of ESL use in this population. Methods: Euro-Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness parameters included responder (≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction) and seizure freedom rates after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment and at last visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the follow-up by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs, respectively. Data were compared for patients aged ≥ 60 versus those aged < 60 years at study entry. Results: Euro-Esli included 2058 patients (mean age 44.0 years). Age at study entry was known for 2057 patients, of whom 358 (17.4%) and 1699 (82.6%) were aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years, respectively. Mean maximum ESL dose was 882.0 and 1008.2 mg/day in patients aged ≥ 60 and < 60 years, respectively (p < 0.001). At all timepoints, responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 60 versus < 60 years; for example, at 12 months, responder rates were 83.9 and 73.7%, respectively (p = 0.002), and seizure freedom rates were 58.5 and 37.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). The incidence of AEs was significantly higher in patients aged ≥ 60 versus < 60 years (41.4 vs. 32.5%; p = 0.001), but the rate of discontinuation due to AEs was comparable between age groups (16.2 vs 13.1%; p = not significant). The safety/tolerability of ESL in patients aged ≥ 60 years was consistent with its known profile. Conclusion: Eslicarbazepine acetate was efficacious and generally well tolerated when used to treat elderly patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with no new or unexpected safety signals emerging in this setting. Funding: Eisai Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Intravenous brivaracetam for urgent seizures was effective and well-tolerated in our study. • 77.6% of patients responded to IV BRV, with a sustained response in 62.8% of them. • A high loading dose of 163.0 ± 73.0 mg was given and fast bolus infusion was related with a better response. • A prior use of IV LEV in the acute episode was related with a worse outcome. • An early use of IV BRV could be recommended although studies with larger series of patients are needed. Urgent seizures are a medical emergency for which new therapies are still needed. This study evaluated the use of intravenous brivaracetam (IV-BRV) in an emergency setting in clinical practice. BRIV-IV was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study. It included patients ≥18 years old who were diagnosed with urgent seizures (including status epilepticus (SE), acute repetitive seizures, and high-risk seizures) and who were treated with IV-BRV according to clinical practice in 14 hospital centers. Information was extracted from clinical charts and included in an electronic database. Primary effectiveness endpoints included the rate of IV-BRV responder patients, the rate of patients with a sustained response without seizure relapse in 12 h, and the time between IV-BRV administration and clinical response. Primary safety endpoints were comprised the percentage of patients with adverse events and those with adverse events leading to discontinuation. A total of 156 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 57.7 ± 21.5 years old with a prior diagnosis of epilepsy for 57.1% of patients. The most frequent etiologies were brain tumor-related (18.1%) and vascular (11.2%) epilepsy. SE was diagnosed in 55.3% of patients. The median time from urgent seizure onset to IV treatment administration was 60.0 min (range: 15.0–360.0), and the median time from IV treatment to IV-BRV was 90.0 min (range: 30.0–2400.0). Regarding dosage, the mean bolus infusion was 163.0 ± 73.0 mg and the mean daily dosage was 195.0 ± 87.0 mg. A total of 77.6% of patients responded to IV-BRV (66.3% with SE vs. 91% other urgent seizures) with a median response time of 30.0 min (range: 10.0–60.0). A sustained response was achieved in 62.8% of patients. However, adverse events were reported in 14.7%, which were predominantly somnolence and fatigue, with 4.5% leading to discontinuation. Eighty-six percent of patients were discharged with oral brivaracetam. IV-BRV in emergency settings was effective, and tolerability was good for most patients. However, a larger series is needed to confirm the outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Objective: To analyze the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel across different seizure types in routine clinical care of patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, 1‐year observational study collected data from patient records at 21 specialist epilepsy units in Spain. All patients who were aged ≥12 years, prescribed perampanel before December 2016, and had a confirmed diagnosis of IGE were included. Results: The population comprised 149 patients with IGE (60 with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, 51 generalized tonic–clonic seizures [GTCS] only, 21 juvenile absence epilepsy, 10 childhood absence epilepsy, 6 adulthood absence epilepsy, and one Jeavons syndrome). Mean age was 36 years. The retention rate at 12 months was 83% (124/149), and 4 mg was the most common dose. At 12 months, the seizure‐free rate was 59% for all seizures (88/149); 63% for GTCS (72/115), 65% for myoclonic seizures (31/48), and 51% for absence seizures (24/47). Seizure frequency was reduced significantly at 12 months relative to baseline for GTCS (78%), myoclonic (65%), and absence seizures (48%). Increase from baseline seizure frequency was seen in 5.2% of patients with GTCS seizures, 6.3% with myoclonic, and 4.3% with absence seizures. Perampanel was effective regardless of epilepsy syndrome, concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and prior AEDs, but retention and seizure freedom were significantly higher when used as early add‐on (after ≤2 prior AEDs) than late (≥3 prior AEDs). Adverse events were reported in 50% of patients over 12 months, mostly mild or moderate, and irritability (23%), somnolence (15%), and dizziness (14%) were most frequent. Significance: In routine clinical care of patients with IGE, perampanel improved seizure outcomes for GTCS, myoclonic seizures, and absence seizures, with few discontinuations due to adverse events. This is the first real‐world evidence with perampanel across different seizure types in IGE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Euro-Esli study was an exploratory pooled analysis of data from 14 European clinical practice studies, which was conducted to audit the real-world effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures. Retention and effectiveness were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months of ESL treatment, and at the final visit. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout ESL treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and ESL discontinuation due to AEs. Data from 2058 patients (52.1% male; mean age 44.0 years) were included. All 2058 patients were assessed for safety and 1975 (96.0%) patients were assessed for effectiveness. After 12 months, retention, responder (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), and seizure freedom rates were 73.4, 75.6, and 41.3%, respectively. AEs were reported for 34.0% of patients and led to discontinuation in 13.6% of patients. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness (6.7% of patients), fatigue (5.4%), and somnolence (5.1%). No unexpected safety signals emerged over a median duration of follow-up of >5 years. Subgroup analyses revealed that ESL was significantly more effective in patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years, in patients who were not receiving treatment with other sodium channel blockers versus those who were receiving treatment with other sodium channel blockers, and in patients who were receiving <2 versus ≥2 concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. Euro-Esli is the largest ESL clinical practice study conducted to date. This study provides strong and reassuring evidence of ESL's safety profile, and complements the data from clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Cenobamate represents the most efficacy ASM vs third-generation ASMs. • Cenobamate at DDD represents the most efficient ASM vs third-generation ASMs. • Determining efficiency in terms of cost per NNT helps to inform decision-making. Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, approximately 40% of patients suffer from Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) despite the availability of the latest options called third-generation Anti-Seizure Medications(ASMs). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. The introduction of a new drug increases the number of therapeutic options available, making it important to compare it with existing alternatives in terms of clinical benefit and efficiency. This study aimed to compare the clinical benefit, in terms of the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), and the efficiency, in terms of Cost per NNT (CNT), associated with cenobamate versus third-generation ASMs used in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of FOS in patients with DRE. The Number Needed to Treat data was calculated based on the ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom endpoints (defined as the percentage of patients achieving 50% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively), obtained from pivotal clinical trials performed with cenobamate, brivaracetam, perampanel, lacosamide, and eslicarbazepine acetate. The NNT was established as the inverse of the treatment responder rate minus the placebo responder rate and was calculated based on the minimum, mid-range Daily Defined Dose (DDD), and maximum doses studied in the pivotal clinical trials of each ASM. CNT was calculated by multiplying the annual treatment cost by NNT values for each treatment option. In terms of NNT, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest values at all doses for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom compared with the alternatives. In terms of CNT, for ≥50% responder rate, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest CNT values at DDD and lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate at the minimum and maximum dose, respectively. For seizure freedom, cenobamate was associated with the lowest CNT value at DDD and the maximum dose and lacosamide at the minimum dose. Cenobamate could represent the most effective ASM in all doses studied compared to the third-generation ASMs and the most efficient option at DDD for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom. This study could represent an important contribution towards informed decision-making regarding the selection of the most appropriate therapy for FOS in adult patients with DRE from a clinical and economical perspective in Spain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Post hoc analysis of four open-label extension studies of adjunctive perampanel. • Evaluation of long-term perampanel in adolescent patients with epilepsy. • Seizure control up to 2 years: focal-onset and generalized tonic-clonic seizures. • Long-term perampanel was generally well tolerated and no new safety signals emerged. • Perampanel may be a viable long-term treatment option for adolescents with epilepsy. This post hoc analysis of four open-label extension (OLEx) studies evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients (aged 12 to ≤17 years) with focal-onset seizures (FOS), with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). Patients who completed one of six double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter one of four OLEx studies comprising a blinded Conversion Period (6–16 weeks) followed by a Maintenance Phase (27 to ≤256 weeks; perampanel dose: ≤12 mg/day). Exposure, retention, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed using observed case and last observation carried forward (LOCF) approaches; the latter was used to account for early dropouts. The Full Analysis Set comprised 309 adolescents with FOS (FBTCS, n = 109) and 19 with GTCS, and the Safety Analysis Set comprised 311 with FOS (FBTCS, n = 110) and 19 with GTCS. Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure (weeks) was: FOS, 77.7 (58.7); FBTCS, 88.7 (63.8); and GTCS, 97.0 (35.5). Retention rates were maintained for ≤2 years (FOS, 50.0 %; FBTCS, 57.1 %; GTCS, 41.7 %). Seizure control (median percent reduction in seizure frequency/28 days) was sustained for up to 2 years; FOS (59.4 %, n = 113), FBTCS (64.6 %, n = 53), and GTCS (86.5 %, n = 17). At Year 2, 50 % responder rates were: FOS, 58.4 % (n = 66); FBTCS, 54.7 % (n = 29); and GTCS, 82.4 % (n = 14); seizure–freedom rates were: FOS, 5.3 % (n = 6); FBTCS, 24.5 % (n = 13); and GTCS, 35.3 % (n = 6). Long-term seizure control was observed even in LOCF analyses. The incidence of TEAEs was highest during Year 1 (FOS, n = 269 [86.5 %]; FBTCS, n = 95 [86.4 %]; GTCS, n = 15 [78.9 %]), compared with Years 2–4; the most common (≥10 % of patients) were dizziness, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. No new safety signals emerged with long-term treatment. This post hoc analysis suggests that long-term (≤2 years) adjunctive perampanel (≤12 mg/day) is efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with FOS, with or without FBTCS, or GTCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Status epilepticus (SE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARSs) frequently result in emergency visits. Wide variations in response are seen with standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Oral and intravenous (IV) formulations of lacosamide are approved as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults and adolescents. The aim of the retrospective multicenter observational study (LACO-IV) was to analyze data from a large cohort of patients with SE or ARSs of varying severity and etiology, who received IV lacosamide in the emergency setting. Patient clinical data were entered into a database; lacosamide use and efficacy and tolerability variables were analyzed. In SE, IV lacosamide tended to be used mainly in nonconvulsive status epilepticus as second- or third-line treatment. The proportion of patients with no seizures when IV lacosamide was the last drug administered was 76.5% (70.9% SE and 83.7% ARSs). The rate of seizure cessation ≤24 h after IV lacosamide administration was 57.1% (49.1% SE and 67.4% ARSs). Of the factors analyzed, a shorter latency from seizure onset to IV lacosamide infusion influenced treatment response significantly. A nonsignificant tendency towards a higher response was seen with lacosamide dose >200 mg versus ≤200 mg. Analysis of response according to mechanism of action showed no significant differences in response to IV lacosamide in patients receiving prior sodium channel blocker (SCB) or non-SCB AEDs in the overall or SE population; however, in ARSs, a tendency towards a higher response was observed in those receiving non-SCB AEDs. The frequency and nature of adverse events observed were in line with those reported in other studies (somnolence being the most frequent). In the absence of randomized prospective controlled studies of IV lacosamide, our observations suggest that IV lacosamide may be a potential alternative for treatment of SE/ARSs when seizures fail to improve with standard AEDs or when AEDs are contraindicated or not recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a severe condition. • Drug-resistant epilepsy affects approximately 40% of epileptic patients. • Drug-resistant epilepsy represents an important burden for patients and caregivers. • In Spain, drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with important unmet needs. • Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis helps to assess value in drug-resistant epilepsy. Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. Approximately 40% of patients with epilepsy are pharmacoresistant after their seizures failed at least two antiseizure medications (ASMs). Adult patients experiencing focal-onset seizures (FOS) account for approximately 60% of all patients with epilepsy and they are more likely to become drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) than those with generalized onset. Drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with mortality, morbidity, and reduced quality of life. The information available on the clinical management, health outcomes, and unmet needs of the disease within the Spanish healthcare environment is very limited. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) allows determination of what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The aim of this study was to identify the burden of DRE (clinical, quality of life, and economic) and the unmet needs in Spain and to determine what represents value in the treatment of FOS in DRE patients from the perspective of Spanish epileptologists. The steps taken to carry out the MCDA were based on previously published good methodological practices. A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and gray literature sources) was performed between March and April 2020. Results were reviewed and validated with three epileptologists in June 2020 and used to develop a MCDA value framework, adapted for FOS in DRE, composed of 12 quantitative criteria and 3 contextual criteria. A group of six Spanish epileptologists from four Spanish regions were trained in MCDA methodology before individually validating value criteria (and their definitions based on literature review findings) and assigned relative weights using an ordinal 6-points scale. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology. Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem with important unmet needs affecting a considerably sized population. While safety and impact on quality of life of available ASMs are considered adequate, efficacy remains insufficient for patients to achieve seizure freedom and maintain it over time. Hence, the therapeutic benefit of pharmacological treatments currently used is regarded as suboptimal. Drug-resistant epilepsy management is associated with moderate pharmacological, relevant direct medical and high indirect costs. Quality of evidence available for current treatments is moderate. It is considered that DRE does not currently stand as a key priority for the Spanish healthcare system. Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem associated with relevant unmet needs. These include the lack of availability of specific treatment protocols, the need to improve early diagnosis by increasing the number of referrals to specialized epilepsy units and the availability of specific ASMs with improved efficacy and safety profiles, allowing to reach treatment objectives. Reflective MCDA provided a standardized, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria ascertaining what represents value from a holistic point of view and from the perspective of clinical experts, facilitating decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Perampanel was assessed in 6,822 people with epilepsy treated in clinical practice. • At 12 months, 59% of participants responded to treatment and 24% were seizure free. • No new or unexpected adverse events were observed following long-term treatment. • Perampanel was effective and generally well tolerated regardless of age category. • Perampanel's effectiveness and tolerability were best in subjects aged ≥65 years. To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated in everyday clinical practice for focal and generalized seizures, both in the total cohort and by age group. The PERMIT Extension study was a pooled analysis of data from PWE included in two large previous clinical practice studies (PERMIT and PROVE). Retention was assessed over 12 months. Effectiveness was assessed based on total seizures and by seizure type (focal and generalized) after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment and at final follow-up (last observation carried forward; "last visit"); assessments included responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline) and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout PER treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs). All assessments were conducted for the total population and by age category (<12, ≥12 to <18, ≥18 to <65, and ≥65 years at baseline). Full Analysis Set included 6,822 PWE (51.1% female; mean age, 36.9 years; mean duration of epilepsy 21.4 years) with 6,433, 4,648, and 6,233 PWE assessed for retention, effectiveness, and safety/tolerability, respectively. The majority of PWE (81.1%) were aged 18–64 at baseline, with 4.5% aged <12 years, 8.4% aged 12–17 years, and 5.9% aged ≥65 years. In the overall population, retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 88.0%, 77.6%, and 61.4%, respectively; responder rates at 12 months were 58.5% for total seizures, 54.6% for focal seizures, and 77.7% for generalized seizures, and corresponding seizure freedom rates were 23.6%, 19.0%, and 51.3%, respectively. PER was effective regardless of age category, although effectiveness was greatest in PWE aged ≥65 years, for both focal and generalized seizures. In the overall population, the incidence of AEs was 49.2% and the most frequent AEs (≥5% of PWE) were dizziness/vertigo (13.4%), somnolence (8.8%), irritability (7.3%), and behavioral disorders (5.3%); AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 18.3% of PWE over 12 months. The incidence of AEs and the discontinuation rate due to AEs increased with increasing age (55.0% and 23.9%, respectively, in PWE aged ≥65 years). In this study, the largest pooled analysis of PER clinical practice data conducted to date, PER was shown to be effective and generally well tolerated when used to treat people with focal or generalized epilepsy in everyday clinical practice, regardless of age category. No new or unexpected side effects emerged following long-term use in the real-world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the relative contribution of factors non-directly related to seizures such as negative affectivity, social support, somatic symptoms and memory performance on quality of life (QOL) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. Seventy patients with drug-resistant epilepsy were consecutively recruited from the inpatient Epilepsy Unit, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, between April 2015 and October 2017. Medical history provided demographic characteristics of the patients (sex, age, and educational level), and clinical data (age at epilepsy onset, duration of epilepsy in years, frequency of seizures per month, type of seizures and number of AEDs). Pre-surgical assessment included diagnosis of the type of epilepsy and the lateralization of the epileptogenic area. All the patients underwent a neuropsychological assessment in which QOL (QOLIE-31), negative affectivity, social support, somatic symptoms, and memory were evaluated.Results: Negative affectivity (including anxiety-trait and depression), social support, neurosensory symptoms, and long-term verbal memory were significantly related to QOL composite score (for all, p < .009), subscales of QOL showing different sensitivities to them. Even after controlling for negative affectivity, neurosensory symptoms and long-term verbal memory significantly contribute to QOL composite score (p = .0001).Conclusion: Results suggest that clinical management of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy should consider the treatment of verbal memory impairments at an early stage. Recognition of negative affectivity, poor social support and high somatic symptoms would also lead health professionals to develop different strategies to improve the QOL of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cannabidiol has been used for treatment-resistant seizures in patients with severe early-onset epilepsy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of cannabidiol added to a regimen of conventional antiepileptic medication to treat drop seizures in patients with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, a severe developmental epileptic encephalopathy.Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 30 clinical centers, we randomly assigned patients with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (age range, 2 to 55 years) who had had two or more drop seizures per week during a 28-day baseline period to receive cannabidiol oral solution at a dose of either 20 mg per kilogram of body weight (20-mg cannabidiol group) or 10 mg per kilogram (10-mg cannabidiol group) or matching placebo, administered in two equally divided doses daily for 14 weeks. The primary outcome was the percentage change from baseline in the frequency of drop seizures (average per 28 days) during the treatment period.Results: A total of 225 patients were enrolled; 76 patients were assigned to the 20-mg cannabidiol group, 73 to the 10-mg cannabidiol group, and 76 to the placebo group. During the 28-day baseline period, the median number of drop seizures was 85 in all trial groups combined. The median percent reduction from baseline in drop-seizure frequency during the treatment period was 41.9% in the 20-mg cannabidiol group, 37.2% in the 10-mg cannabidiol group, and 17.2% in the placebo group (P=0.005 for the 20-mg cannabidiol group vs. placebo group, and P=0.002 for the 10-mg cannabidiol group vs. placebo group). The most common adverse events among the patients in the cannabidiol groups were somnolence, decreased appetite, and diarrhea; these events occurred more frequently in the higher-dose group. Six patients in the 20-mg cannabidiol group and 1 patient in the 10-mg cannabidiol group discontinued the trial medication because of adverse events and were withdrawn from the trial. Fourteen patients who received cannabidiol (9%) had elevated liver aminotransferase concentrations.Conclusions: Among children and adults with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, the addition of cannabidiol at a dose of 10 mg or 20 mg per kilogram per day to a conventional antiepileptic regimen resulted in greater reductions in the frequency of drop seizures than placebo. Adverse events with cannabidiol included elevated liver aminotransferase concentrations. (Funded by GW Pharmaceuticals; GWPCARE3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224560 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Euro-Esli is the largest eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) clinical practice study. • Post-hoc analysis of Euro-Esli examined baseline factors predictive of ESL response. • ESL effectiveness was most associated with factors indicating early disease course. • These findings may help clinicians when choosing individualised treatment plans. Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a once-daily antiseizure medication (ASM) that is approved in Europe and the USA for the treatment of focal-onset seizures. The Euro-Esli study, which included over 2000 patients, investigated the real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability of ESL when used in everyday clinical practice in Europe. This post-hoc analysis of Euro-Esli employed univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses to investigate the relationship between demographic and baseline characteristics (including epilepsy- and treatment-related factors) and the likelihood of seizure freedom, response and retention in adult patients with focal seizures after 12 months of ESL treatment in the real-world setting. Multivariate analysis revealed that the factors associated with seizure freedom and response at 12 months (N = 1054) were generally those characterising patients who were relatively early in their disease course and/or less refractory to treatment, such as older age at onset of epilepsy, absence of seizures at baseline and lower number of concomitant ASMs at baseline. Although it was not possible to construct a multivariate model to predict retention on ESL treatment at 12 months, when the univariate regression model was adjusted for age and epilepsy duration, the factors found to be significantly associated with retention at 12 months (N = 1559) comprised shorter duration of epilepsy, absence of any seizures at baseline, lower baseline seizure frequency (<5 vs. ≥ 5 seizures/month), lower number of previous ASMs, lower number of concomitant ASMs, and the absence of concomitant use of lamotrigine at baseline. These findings therefore identify baseline characteristics that are predictive of the effectiveness of ESL treatment in clinical practice, which may help clinicians choose appropriate ASM therapy for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This post hoc analysis of six randomized, double-blind, Phase II and III studies evaluated efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (2–12 mg/day) in adolescent patients (aged ≥ 12 to ≤ 17 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized (SG) seizures, or primary generalized tonic–clonic (PGTC) seizures. Adolescent patients from Studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), 335 (NCT01618695), 235 (NCT01161524), and 332 (NCT01393743) were included. Efficacy assessments (split by seizure type) included median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline and seizure-freedom rates. Safety assessments (all seizure types combined) included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The Safety Analysis Set included 372 adolescent patients (placebo, n = 114; perampanel, n = 258); the Full Analysis Set included 346 patients with partial-onset seizures (placebo, n = 103; perampanel, n = 243), of whom 125 experienced SG seizures during baseline (placebo, n = 37; perampanel, n = 88), and 22 with PGTC seizures (placebo, n = 9; perampanel, n = 13). Compared with placebo, perampanel 8 and 12 mg/day conferred greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for partial-onset seizures (18.0% vs 35.9% and 53.8% [both P < 0.01]) and SG seizures (24.4% vs 72.8% [ P < 0.001] and 57.8% [ P < 0.01]), and greater seizure-freedom rates (partial-onset: 7.8% vs 13.2% and 11.8% [not statistically significant]; SG: 8.1% vs 40.7% [ P < 0.001] and 41.7% [ P < 0.01]). For PGTC seizures, and compared with placebo, perampanel 8 mg/day was also associated with greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days (29.8% vs 88.0%) and greater seizure-freedom rates (11.1% vs 23.1%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 76 (66.7%) placebo- and 192 (74.4%) perampanel-treated patients (most common: dizziness, somnolence, headache, and nasopharyngitis). Serious TEAEs occurred in 5 (4.4%) placebo- and 11 (4.3%) perampanel-treated patients. Adjunctive perampanel was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with partial-onset, SG, or PGTC seizures and represents a potentially beneficial treatment option for adolescents with uncontrolled epilepsy. • Post hoc analysis of adjunctive perampanel in adolescents (aged ≥ 12 to ≤ 17 years) • Perampanel was efficacious for partial-onset and PGTC seizures vs placebo. • Perampanel was generally well tolerated in adolescent patients. • Perampanel may be a suitable treatment option for adolescent patients with epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]