Intravenous Perampanel as an Interchangeable Alternative to Oral Perampanel: A Randomized, Crossover, Phase I Pharmacokinetic and Safety Study

Ziad Hussein, Oneeb Majid, Peter Boyd, Jagadeesh Aluri, Leock Y Ngo, Larisa Reyderman, Ziad Hussein, Oneeb Majid, Peter Boyd, Jagadeesh Aluri, Leock Y Ngo, Larisa Reyderman

Abstract

Intravenous (IV) drug administration enables treatment of epilepsy when oral administration is temporarily not feasible. Perampanel is a once-daily antiseizure medication currently available as oral formulations. Study 050 (NCT03376997) was an open-label, randomized, single-dose, crossover study to evaluate the interchangeability of oral and IV perampanel in healthy subjects (N = 48). Bioequivalence of single 12-mg doses of IV (30-, 60-, or 90-minute infusion) and oral perampanel, ≥6 weeks apart, was assessed. Analyses indicated bioequivalence of area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity for 30- and 60-minute IV infusions and oral perampanel doses (geometric mean ratio [90% confidence interval], 0.93 [0.84-1.02] and 1.03 [0.97-1.09], respectively); however, IV maximum observed drug concentration (Cmax ) values were 1.35- to 1.61-fold higher than Cmax . Simulated plasma concentration-time profiles using pooled pharmacokinetic data further supported oral and IV perampanel interchangeability in two scenarios: 12-mg per day IV dosing during a temporary 7-day switch from oral steady-state maintenance therapy, and treatment initiation with 2-mg perampanel. Thirty-four (70.8%) subjects experienced treatment-related adverse events. The IV perampanel safety profile was similar to that of oral perampanel without new safety concerns. Perampanel IV infusions may be a suitable temporary alternative to oral perampanel for treatment maintenance and/or initiation.

Keywords: antiseizure medication; bioavailability/bioequivalence; epilepsy; intravenous; perampanel.

Conflict of interest statement

Z.H., O.M., and P.B. are employees of Eisai Europe Ltd. J.A., L.Y.N., and L.R. are employees of Eisai Inc. Medical writing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Laura George, PhD, on behalf of CMC AFFINITY, McCann Health Medical Communications, funded by Eisai Inc., in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.

© 2022 Eisai Inc. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Clinical study design. EOS, end of study; IV, intravenous; R, randomization.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean (SD) plasma concentration–time profiles of perampanel following single 12‐mg IV infusions (30, 60, and 90 minutes) and 12‐mg oral tablet administration over (A) 4 hours and (B, C) 72 hours after initiation of dosing. IV, intravenous; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Simulated perampanel plasma concentration–time profiles following switching from oral steady state on day 28 to first perampanel 12‐mg IV infusion on day 29, seventh perampanel 12‐mg IV infusion on day 35, and first day of oral tablet restart on day 36 for (A) 30‐minute IV infusions, (B) 60‐minute IV infusions, and (C) 90‐minute IV infusions, all vs oral tablet at steady state on day 28. IV, intravenous.

References

    1. World Health Organization (WHO) . Epilepsy Key Facts. . Accessed October 5, 2021.
    1. GBD 2016 Stroke Collaborators . Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(5):439‐458.
    1. Harden C, Tomson T, Gloss D, et al. Practice guideline summary: sudden unexpected death in epilepsy incidence rates and risk factors: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Epilepsy Curr. 2017;17(3):180‐187.
    1. Hesdorffer DC, Tomson T, Benn E, et al. Do antiepileptic drugs or generalized tonic‐clonic seizure frequency increase SUDEP risk? A combined analysis. Epilepsia. 2012;53(2):249‐252.
    1. Asadi‐Pooya AA, Nikseresht A, Yaghoubi E, Nei M. Physical injuries in patients with epilepsy and their associated risk factors. Seizure. 2012;21(3):165‐168.
    1. Lang N, Lange M, Schmitt FC, et al. Intravenous lacosamide in clinical practice‐results from an independent registry. Seizure. 2016;39:5‐9.
    1. McTague A, Kneen R, Kumar R, Spinty S, Appleton R. Intravenous levetiracetam in acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus in children: experience from a children's hospital. Seizure. 2012;21(7):529‐534.
    1. Szaflarski JP, Sadek A, Greve B, Williams P, Varner JA, Moseley BD. Randomized open‐label trial of intravenous brivaracetam versus lorazepam for acute treatment of increased seizure activity. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;109:107127.
    1. Patel SI, Birnbaum AK, Cloyd JC, Leppik IE. Intravenous and intramuscular formulations of antiseizure drugs in the treatment of epilepsy. CNS Drugs. 2015;29(12):1009‐1022.
    1. Zaccara G, Giorgi FS, Amantini A, et al. Why we prefer levetiracetam over phenytoin for treatment of status epilepticus. Acta Neurol Scand. 2018;137(6):618‐622.
    1. Klein P, Diaz A, Gasalla T, Whitesides J. A review of the pharmacology and clinical efficacy of brivaracetam. Clin Pharmacol. 2018;10:1‐22.
    1. Kim MJ, Yum MS, HR Yeh, Ko TS, Lim HS. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of intravenous levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;58(12):1586‐1596.
    1. Baulac M, Brodie MJ, Elger CE, et al. Levetiracetam intravenous infusion as an alternative to oral dosing in patients with partial‐onset seizures. Epilepsia. 2007;48(3):589‐592.
    1. Davidson KE, Newell J, Alsherbini K, Krushinski J, Jones GM. Safety and efficiency of intravenous push lacosamide administration. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29(3):491‐495.
    1. Sirven JI, Waterhouse E. Management of status epilepticus. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(3):469‐476.
    1. Hanada T, Hashizume Y, Tokuhara N, et al. Perampanel: a novel, orally active, noncompetitive AMPA‐receptor antagonist that reduces seizure activity in rodent models of epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2011;52(7):1331‐1340.
    1. French JA, Krauss GL, Biton V, et al. Adjunctive perampanel for refractory partial‐onset seizures: randomized phase III study 304. Neurology. 2012;79(6):589‐596.
    1. French JA, Krauss GL, Steinhoff BJ, et al. Evaluation of adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory partial‐onset seizures: results of randomized global phase III study 305. Epilepsia. 2013;54(1):117‐125.
    1. Krauss GL, Serratosa JM, Villanueva V, et al. Randomized phase III study 306: adjunctive perampanel for refractory partial‐onset seizures. Neurology. 2012;78(18):1408‐1415.
    1. Abi‐Saab WM, D'Souza DC, Moghaddam B, Krystal JH. The NMDA antagonist model for schizophrenia: promise and pitfalls. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1998;31(Suppl 2):104‐109.
    1. Tabuchi H, Shiba S, Yasuda S, Ohnishi A, Shin JG. Pharmacokinetics of perampanel in healthy Korean, White, and Japanese adult subjects. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2018;7(6):613‐620.
    1. Shiba S, Sekino H, Ishiba K, et al. Bioequivalence of perampanel fine granules and tablets in healthy Japanese subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;58(12):757‐764.
    1. Patsalos PN. The clinical pharmacology profile of the new antiepileptic drug perampanel: a novel noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist. Epilepsia. 2015;56(1):12‐27.
    1. de Biase S, Gigli GL, Nilo A, Romano G, Valente M. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for the clinical efficacy of perampanel in focal onset seizures. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2019;15(2):93‐102.
    1. Yamamoto Y, Shiratani Y, Asai S, et al. Pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and clinical effectiveness of perampanel in Japanese patients with epilepsy. Seizure. 2020;83:181‐186.
    1. Gidal BE, Maganti R, Laurenza A, et al. Effect of enzyme inhibition on perampanel pharmacokinetics: why study design matters. Epilepsy Res. 2017;134:41‐48.
    1. Park KM, Kim SE, Lee BI. Antiepileptic drug therapy in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. J Epilepsy Res. 2019;9(1):14‐26.
    1. Majid O, Laurenza A, Ferry J, Hussein Z. Impact of perampanel on pharmacokinetics of concomitant antiepileptics in patients with partial‐onset seizures: pooled analysis of clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(2):422‐430.
    1. French JA, Krauss GL, Wechsler RT, et al. Perampanel for tonic‐clonic seizures in idiopathic generalized epilepsy: a randomized trial. Neurology. 2015;85(11):950‐957.
    1. Laurenza A, Hall N, Majid O, Rege B. Bioequivalence evaluation of perampanel oral suspension and tablet formulations in healthy subjects: a phase I, open‐label, crossover study (P3.240). Neurology. 2017;88(16 Supplement):P3.240.
    1. Nishida T, Lee SK, Inoue Y, Saeki K, Ishikawa K, Kaneko S. Adjunctive perampanel in partial‐onset seizures: Asia‐Pacific, randomized phase III study. Acta Neurol Scand. 2018;137(4):392‐399.
    1. Rektor I, Krauss GL, Bar M, et al. Perampanel study 207: long‐term open‐label evaluation in patients with epilepsy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;126(4):263‐269.
    1. Zaccara G, Gangemi PF, Cincotta M. Central nervous system adverse effects of new antiepileptic drugs. A meta‐analysis of placebo‐controlled studies. Seizure. 2008;17(5):405‐421.
    1. Schulze‐Bonhage A. Perampanel for epilepsy with partial‐onset seizures: a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2015;11(8):1329‐1337.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel