European perspective of perampanel response in people with Intellectual Disability.

BACKGROUND Epilepsy prevalence is over 20% for those with ID. It is difficult to diagnose and treat and more likely to be treatment resistant. The evidence informing prescribing is sparse, particularly for new drugs such as Perampanel (PMP). AIMS OF THE STUDY This study seeks to strengthen the research evidence regarding PMP for people with ID by pooling information from two isolated and separately conducted studies: the UK based Epilepsy Database Register (Ep-ID) and the data from the Kempenhaeghe clinic in the Netherlands. METHODS A single dataset of comparable data was created and analysed under agreement and supervision of a UK statistician. RESULTS Seizure reduction within twelve months was evident in 62% of Dutch and 47% of UK patients. Retention rates were higher for those in the UK (P=0.01) and for patients with moderate to profound ID, whilst side effects were more prominent in the Dutch cohort. CONCLUSIONS Comparable rates of seizure reduction are in line with estimates for non-ID patients, adding to the evidence suggesting that PMP has a similar impact on those with ID. Taking a European perspective and sharing data across centres can help strengthen the evidence for prescribing antiepileptic drugs in the ID population.

[1]  W. Henley,et al.  Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses? , 2020, Seizure.

[2]  Josemir W Sander,et al.  Perampanel in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Differing responses , 2017, Seizure.

[3]  F. Kerling,et al.  Behavioural changes in patients with intellectual disability treated with perampanel , 2017, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[4]  H. J. Schelhaas,et al.  Evaluation of perampanel in patients with intellectual disability and epilepsy , 2017, Epilepsy & Behavior.

[5]  Tim Friede,et al.  Meta‐analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases , 2016, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[6]  G. Rubboli,et al.  Perampanel as add‐on treatment in refractory focal epilepsy. The Dianalund experience , 2016, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[7]  Josemir W Sander,et al.  Managing anti‐epileptic drug treatment in adult patients with intellectual disability: a serious conundrum , 2016, European journal of neurology.

[8]  M. Reuber,et al.  Clinical experience with adjunctive perampanel in adult patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: A UK and Ireland multicentre study , 2016, Seizure.

[9]  Chris Hatton,et al.  Prevalence of epilepsy among people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review , 2015, Seizure.

[10]  P. Cooper,et al.  Clinical experience with perampanel: Focus on psychiatric adverse effects , 2014, Epilepsy & Behavior.

[11]  M. Mula,et al.  A White Paper on the medical and social needs of people with epilepsy and intellectual disability: The Task Force on Intellectual Disabilities and Epilepsy of the International League Against Epilepsy , 2014, Epilepsia.

[12]  A. Schulze-Bonhage,et al.  A multicenter survey of clinical experiences with perampanel in real life in Germany and Austria , 2014, Epilepsy Research.

[13]  Hannah R Rothstein,et al.  A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[14]  S. Bhaumik,et al.  Epilepsy in adults with intellectual disabilities: Prevalence, associations and service implications , 2006, Seizure.

[15]  E. Beghi,et al.  The epidemiology of epilepsy in Europe – a systematic review , 2005, European journal of neurology.