ArticleNeurology and therapy2024
Perampanel for Treatment of People with a Range of Epilepsy Aetiologies in Clinical Practice: Evidence from the PERMIT Extension Study.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-marketing Experience with Cenobamate in the Treatment of Focal Epilepsies: A Multicentre Cohort Study.CNS drugs · 2025Article
- Clinical factors associated with perampanel retention, response, seizure freedom and tolerability: real-world evidence from the PERMIT Extension study.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsPERMIT 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.
conclusionAlthough 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.