METHODS: In May 2015, 15 epilepsy experts attended a Consensus Development Meeting to assess the clinical trial data for perampanel, specific to the adolescent age group (12-17 years) and develop consensus treatment recommendations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Analysis of the adolescent subgroup data of three pivotal placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials investigating perampanel in patients with ongoing focal epileptic seizures despite receiving one to three antiepileptic drugs found that perampanel 4-12 mg was superior to placebo. The tolerability profile of perampanel was generally acceptable. Adolescent patients receiving long-term treatment with perampanel in an open-label extension study maintained improvements in seizure control compared with baseline, with a favorable risk-benefit profile. A phase 2 study showed that perampanel had no clinically important effects on cognitive function, growth, and development.
CONCLUSION: Perampanel is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of existing antiepileptic drugs as it represents a new approach in the management of epilepsy, with a novel mechanism of action, and the potential to have a considerable impact on the treatment of adolescents with epilepsy.
BACKGROUND: Endovascular recanalization in patients with chronic CAO has been reported to be feasible, but technically challenging.
METHODS: Endovascular attempts in 138 consecutive chronic CAO patients with impaired ipsilateral hemisphere perfusion were reviewed. We analyzed potential variables including epidemiology, symptomatology, angiographic morphology, and interventional techniques in relation to the technical success.
RESULTS: The technical success rate was 61.6%. Multivariate analysis showed absence of prior neurologic event (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10 to 0.76), nontapered stump (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.67), distal internal carotid artery (ICA) reconstitution via contralateral injection (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.75), and distal ICA reconstitution at communicating or ophthalmic segments (OR:0.12; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.36) to be independent factors associated with lower technical success. Point scores were assigned proportional to model coefficients, and technical success rates were >80% and <40% in patients with scores of ≤1 and ≥4, respectively. The c-indexes for this score system in predicting technical success was 0.820 (95% CI: 0.748 to 0.892; p < 0.001) with a sensitivity of 84.7% and a specificity of 67.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Absence of prior neurologic event, nontapered stump, distal ICA reconstitution via contralateral injection, and distal ICA reconstitution at communicating or ophthalmic segments were identified as independent negative predictors for technical success in endovascular recanalization for CAO.