An evaluation of the effectiveness of perampanel in people with epilepsy who have previously undergone resective surgery and/or implantation of a vagal nerve stimulator.

About 30% of people with epilepsy (PWE) are drug-resistant. Those with focal seizures may be suitable for epilepsy surgery. Those not amenable to resective surgery can be considered for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). However, after operative procedures, around 50% of patients continue to experience seizures. A multi-center retrospective study assessing perampanel effectiveness and tolerability for PWE who have undergone surgical resection and/or VNS implantation was performed. The primary outcome was ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency while secondary outcomes included side effects (SEs), dose-related effectiveness, and toxicity. The median perampanel dose was 6 mg. Only one PWE became seizure free. A ≥50% decrease in seizure frequency was observed in 52.8% of the post-resection group and 16.9% of the VNS group (p < 0.001), while SEs were seen in 44.8% and 41.1%, respectively. Perampanel doses greater than 8 mg led to better response in both groups, especially in the post-VNS cohort. SEs were not dose-related and the safety profile was similar to previous observational studies. Perampanel can be beneficial in these two super-refractory epilepsy groups, particularly in PWE with seizures after surgical resection. Doses of more than 8 mg appear to be well tolerated and may be more effective than lower doses in PWE after surgical interventions.

An evaluation of the psychosocial impact of epilepsy on marriage in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to measure the psychosocial burden for persons with epilepsy (PWEs) and for their spouses and to compare and correlate this with the clinical burden of seizures. A secondary objective was to examine the presence of gender-specific differences in the perception of psychosocial burdens by both PWE and their spouses, as well as in the factors that may influence this perception. We also sought to delineate differences in perceived stigmatization if the onset of epilepsy was within matrimony or if seizure onset was prior to marriage. METHODS: A questionnaire was constructed from previously validated instruments to measure stigma and was administered to 50 PWE-spouse pairs. A copy was applied to the PWE, and another was administered separately to the spouse. The medical notes were scrutinized by a Consultant Neurologist to enable an assessment of seizure severity for each type of seizure that the PWE experienced. Pearson correlation significance was examined at 95% level of significance. RESULTS: Higher seizure severity over the month prior to data collection correlated with smaller reporting differences in psychosocial outcome between spouses and the PWE (p = 0.005), an effect that maintained significance when the period over which seizure severity was evaluated was extended to one year (p = 0.021). Regarding gender-specific differences, low mood over the month prior to administration of the questionnaire was associated with worse psychosocial scores in females only (p = 0.001). Significant impairment in driving was correlated with worse outcomes in males only (p = 0.008). Male spouses' judgment on the 'overall health' of their wife correlated to seizure severity (p = 0.003). However, the psychosocial scores reported by male spouses were inversely correlated to those of the PWE (p = 0.042). Finally, in PWE with seizure onset within marriage, a high degree of perceived stigmatization (p = 0.025) and low mood (p = 0.004) was correlated to worse psychosocial functioning. This group also tended to be more anxious when the PWE was experiencing severe seizures (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Although severe seizures in this sample of couples were correlated with a smaller discrepancy in perceived seizure burden, gender-specific differences in perception of epilepsy-related psychosocial burden exist. This is true for both PWE and their spouses. Irrespective of gender, onset of epilepsy within matrimony was correlated with higher levels of anxiety and stigma. These factors need to be considered during efforts to reduce epilepsy-related stigmatization, as well as in tailoring therapies that aim to support the spouse as well as the PWE.

Perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy; Longitudinal actuarial analysis and dose responses based on monthly outcomes.

PURPOSE: To explore the retention rates and the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) by using monthly real life data for a period of 12 months. METHODS: Longitudinal outcomes of (PER) usage were assessed using actuarial statistics in an observational nonrandomised multicentre study of 181 people with epilepsy (PWE) refractory to first and second line drugs. Graded seizure outcomes, toxicity and the dose of PER were recorded for each month. RESULTS: PWE were followed for a mean of 15.1 months. The total cumulative probability for retention on PER at 12 months was 61.7% and for ≥50% improvement was 38.2%. Most improvements in seizure control occurred soon after initiation of PER, 17% by one month, 32% by six months and 38% by twelve months, and mostly at low doses 53% on 2 mg and 90% up to 6 mg. Improvements, when they occurred, were sustained. The most common side effects were neuropsychiatric, occurring in 28%. The emergence of side effects did not appear to be dose related. Although people with intellectual disability (ID) were more likely to remain on PER they did not show improved seizure control and also reported more side effects. Patients treated with VNS and PER had a worse outcome. CONCLUSION: Overall around a third of people showed a useful, response to PER therapy. The response to PER is noted usually early in the treatment and for the majority of the patients for doses up to 8 mg.