Perampanel for the treatment of Asian people with epilepsy: Real-world evidence from the PERMIT extension study

Abstract

This post-hoc analysis of the PERMIT Extension study compared the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of perampanel (PER) between Asian and non-Asian participants. Retention rates, adverse events (AEs), seizure frequency, responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), and seizure freedom rate (no seizures since at least the prior visit) were assessed. Retention was assessed after 3, 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness assessments were evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months and the last visit by seizure type (total, focal and generalised). PERMIT Extension included 730 Asian and 1662 non-Asian individuals. Significant differences in demographic/baseline characteristics were reported for the Asian versus non-Asian subgroups including higher median age at epilepsy onset, longer median duration of epilepsy, higher mean number of previous and concomitant ASMs and lower mean monthly seizure frequency (total, focal and generalised). Retention rates were similar between the two subgroups at 3 and 12 months, but significantly lower in the Asian versus non-Asian subgroup at 6 months (65.6% vs. 71.8%; p = 0.004). At last visit, seizure freedom rate was significantly higher in the Asian versus non-Asian for total (35.9% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.001) and focal seizures (32.4% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.001) as was responder rate for both total (63.9% vs. 52.3%; p = 0.001) and focal seizures (62.2% vs. 44.7%; p < 0.001). Seizure freedom and responder rates for generalised seizures were similar between the two subgroups at the last visit. Rates of AEs were similar between the two subgroups (Asian, 47.6%; non-Asian, 45.4%). PER was effective and generally well-tolerated in Asian and non-Asian individuals.