Chen-Jui Ho1, Chih-Hsiang Lin1, Yan-Ting Lu1, Fu-Yuan Shih2, Che-Wei Hsu1, Wan-Chen Tsai1, Meng-Han Tsai3,4. 1. Department of Neurology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, 123, Dapi Road, Niaosung District, Kaohsiung, 83301, Taiwan. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Department of Neurology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, 123, Dapi Road, Niaosung District, Kaohsiung, 83301, Taiwan. menghan@cgmh.org.tw. 4. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. menghan@cgmh.org.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Perampanel is a novel anti-epileptic drug (AED) which acts as a non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist to reduce glutamate-mediated postsynaptic excitation. Previous animal studies and a few case reports/series have suggested that it may be effective to treat refractory status epilepticus (RSE). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 67 consecutive patients with RSE, of whom 22 received perampanel. The clinical features, epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus, status epilepticus severity score, seizure control, functional outcome, RSE etiology, and electroencephalogram findings were collected. Responder to perampanel was defined as seizure resolution within 4 days of therapy with perampanel being the last AED used plus no recurrence during hospitalization. RESULTS: Eight of the 22 (36.4%) RSE patients fulfilled the definition of responder to perampanel. An additional 1 patient responded to perampanel after 4 days of treatment. In total, perampanel was the last AED in 9 (40.1%) patients. Among the 8 responders to perampanel, 5 had convulsive SE, 1 had non-convulsive SE, and 2 had focal motor SE. The responders accounted for both of the patients with focal motor SE (100%), 5 (33.3%) of the 15 patients with convulsive SE, and 1 (20%) of the 5 patients with non-convulsive SE. The ictal and inter-ictal activities also decreased after perampanel therapy, and three patients (13.6%) had preferable outcomes at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Perampanel may be an effective add-on treatment for RSE even in patients who failed multiple AEDs. Our study suggests that perampanel may be more effective for focal motor SE and convulsive SE than non-convulsive SE. As most previous studies have focused on non-convulsive SE, further studies are warranted to clarify the effectiveness of perampanel for different subtypes of SE.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Perampanel is a novel anti-epileptic drug (AED) which acts as a non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor antagonist to reduce glutamate-mediated postsynaptic excitation. Previous animal studies and a few case reports/series have suggested that it may be effective to treat refractory status epilepticus (RSE). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 67 consecutive patients with RSE, of whom 22 received perampanel. The clinical features, epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus, status epilepticus severity score, seizure control, functional outcome, RSE etiology, and electroencephalogram findings were collected. Responder to perampanel was defined as seizure resolution within 4 days of therapy with perampanel being the last AED used plus no recurrence during hospitalization. RESULTS: Eight of the 22 (36.4%) RSE patients fulfilled the definition of responder to perampanel. An additional 1 patient responded to perampanel after 4 days of treatment. In total, perampanel was the last AED in 9 (40.1%) patients. Among the 8 responders to perampanel, 5 had convulsive SE, 1 had non-convulsive SE, and 2 had focal motor SE. The responders accounted for both of the patients with focal motor SE (100%), 5 (33.3%) of the 15 patients with convulsive SE, and 1 (20%) of the 5 patients with non-convulsive SE. The ictal and inter-ictal activities also decreased after perampanel therapy, and three patients (13.6%) had preferable outcomes at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Perampanel may be an effective add-on treatment for RSE even in patients who failed multiple AEDs. Our study suggests that perampanel may be more effective for focal motor SE and convulsive SE than non-convulsive SE. As most previous studies have focused on non-convulsive SE, further studies are warranted to clarify the effectiveness of perampanel for different subtypes of SE.
Entities:
Keywords:
AMPA; Intensive care unit; Perampanel; Prognosis; Refractory status epilepticus; Status epilepticus