Managing epilepsy in the context of intellectual disability can be complicated as this population is known to have higher rates of drug resistance and sensitivity to side effects of antiseizure medications (ASMs). Perampanel is a novel ASM recently approved as an adjunctive treatment for drug resistant focal seizures. It carries a black-box warning for serious psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions of aggression, irritability, et cetera. However, psychosis is a seldom reported side effect of perampanel. We herein describe a case of a 15-year-old girl with moderate intellectual disability who presented with refractory seizures managed successfully after using perampanel. Around 2 months later, she developed psychosis and aggression. The patient\'s history lacked any significant family or personal history of mental illness. Managing psychotic symptoms was difficult in this case; as perampanel was needed for proper seizure control, and both psychosis and seizures were severe and significantly endangering the patient and people around her. Thus, symptoms were addressed by adding a low-dose risperidone, an atypical antipsychotic. This paper highlights the importance of pre-treatment counselling and monitoring for the emergence of psychiatric side effects including the rarely occurring psychosis while using perampanel, particularly in highly sensitive patients, e.g., those with intellectual disability. We also emphasize on the importance of accurate weighing of risks and benefits while managing psychosis as an adverse event to ASMs in the background of drug-resistant epilepsy.

UNASSIGNED: Focal epilepsy constitutes the most common epilepsy in children, and medical treatment represents the first-line therapy in this condition. The main goal of medical treatment for children and adolescents with epilepsy is the achievement of seizure freedom or, in drug-resistant epilepsies, a significant seizure reduction, both minimizing antiseizure medications (ASM)-related adverse events, thus improving the patient\'s quality of life. However, up to 20-40% of pediatric epilepsies are refractory to drug treatments. New ASMs came to light in the pediatric landscape, improving the drug profile compared to that of the preexisting ones. Clinicians should consider several factors during the drug choice process, including patient and medication-specific characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: This narrative review aims to summarize the latest evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of the newest ASMs administered as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy in pediatric epilepsies with focal onset seizures, providing a practical appraisal based on the existing evidence.
UNASSIGNED: The latest ASMs have the potential to be effective in the pharmacological management of focal onset seizures in children, and treatment choice should consider several drug- and epilepsy-related factors. Future treatments should be increasingly personalized and targeted on patient-specific pathways. Future research should focus on discovering new chemical compounds and repurposing medications used for other indications.

UNASSIGNED: Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are first line therapy for seizure disorders. Their effects on arrhythmias, especially the risk of arrhythmias associated with lacosamide (LCM), levetiracetam (LEV), and perampanel (PER), have been intensely investigated.
UNASSIGNED: We searched four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) until August 6, 2023. We used a common effects model and reported data as pooled incidence with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were conducted to elucidate the risk of arrhythmias with different drugs, and Egger\'s regression was performed to detect publication bias analysis.
UNASSIGNED: We included 11 clinical trials with 1,031 participants. The pooled incidence of arrhythmias in the LEV group was 0.005 (95% CI: 0.001-0.013), while it was 0.014 in the LCM group (95% CI: 0.003-0.030). Publication bias analyses indicated no significant bias in the LEV group (t = 0.02, df = 4, p-value = 0.9852) but a significant bias in the LCM group (t = 5.94, df = 3, p-value = 0.0095). We corrected for this bias in the LCM group using the trim-and-fill method, which yielded a similar pooled incidence of 0.0137 (95% CI: 0.0036-0.0280), indicating good reliability. Due to insufficient studies, we could not conduct a meta-analysis for PER, and we analyzed them in our systematic review.
UNASSIGNED: The use of LCM significantly elevated the risk of arrhythmias, while LEV had non-significant arrhythmogenic effects. As for the arrhythmogenic effects of PER, more clinical trials are needed in the future.

In children and adolescents with epilepsy, neurodevelopmental comorbidities can impair the quality of life more than seizures. The aim of this review was to evaluate the cognitive and behavioural effects of perampanel (PER) in the paediatric population. We performed a systematic search of the literature, selecting studies published in English including children and adolescents with epilepsy treated with PER. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes were assessed through validated neuropsychological standardised scales. Eighteen studies involving 3563 paediatric patients were included. Perampanel did not impair general cognitive functions and visuospatial skills, whereas a slight improvement in verbal memory and a decline in attentional power were detected. In adolescents with refractory epilepsies, high doses and/or rapid titration of PER and an underlying psychiatric disorder were risk factors for developing or worsening psychiatric outcomes such as anger, aggressiveness, and irritability. Data on children and adolescents treated with new antiseizure medications are scant, and neuropsychiatric effects are tricky to be detected during developmental age. According to the currently available evidence, PER showed an overall favourable risk-benefit profile. Pharmacodynamics, co-administration of other antiseizure medications, and family and personal history of neuropsychiatric disorders should be considered before PER treatment.

This study reported the first case of Kohlschütter-Tönz syndrome (KTS) in China and reviewed the literature of the reported cases.
This patient was registered at the Children\'s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. The patient\'s symptoms and treatments were recorded in detail, and the patient was monitored for six years. We employed a combination of the following search terms and Boolean operators in our search strategy: Kohlschütter-Tönz syndrome, KTS, and ROGDI. These terms were carefully selected to capture a broad range of relevant publications in PubMed, Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, including synonyms, variations, and specific terms related to KTS. The pathogenicity of the variants was predicted using SpliceAI and MutationTaster, and the structures of the ROGDI mutations were constructed using I-TASSER.
This is the first case report of KTS in China. Our patient presented with epilepsy, global developmental delay, and amelogenesis imperfecta. A trio-WES revealed homozygous mutations in ROGDI (c.46-37_46-30del). The brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and video electroencephalogram (VEEG) were normal. The efficacy of perampanel (PMP) in treating seizures and intellectual disability was apparent. Furthermore, 43 cases of ROGDI-related KTS were retrieved. 100% exhibited epilepsy, global developmental delay, and amelogenesis imperfecta. 17.2% received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and 3.4% were under suspicion of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Language disorders were observed in all patients. Emotional disorders, notably self-harm behaviors (9.1%), were also reported.
ROGDI-related KTS is a rare neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by three classic clinical manifestations: epilepsy, global developmental delay, and amelogenesis imperfecta. Moreover, patients could present comorbidities, including ADHD, ASD, emotional disorders, and language disorders. PMP may be a potential drug with relatively good efficacy, but long-term clinical trials are still needed.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. Existing antiseizure medications (ASMs) are still unable to control seizures in one-third of these patients, making the discovery of antiseizure therapies with novel mechanisms of action a necessity.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of perampanel (PER) as an adjuvant treatment for children with drug-resistant focal-onset seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures.
METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of 38 epileptic pediatric patients, aged 2 to 14, at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center whose seizures were pharmaco-resistant to more than two antiseizure medications and followed for at least three months after PER adjuvant therapy initiation. Efficacy was assessed by the PER response rate at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up evaluations, and side effects were also reported.
RESULTS: Multiple seizure types were reported. Myoclonic seizures were the predominant type of epilepsy in 17 children (44.7%). At 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months of follow-up, approximately 23.4%, 23.4%, and 18.4% of the patients were seizure-free at these time points, respectively. Adverse events were documented in 14 patients (35.7%) and led to the discontinuation of PER in 26.3%, 31.6%, and 36.8% of the studied group at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. The most common adverse events included dizziness or drowsiness, irritability, gait disturbance, and confusion; however, all were transient, and no serious adverse effects occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the therapeutic efficacy of adjunctive PER in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children. As an adjunctive treatment for epilepsy, perampanel demonstrated sufficient effectiveness and tolerability.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of perampanel (PER) when used as add-on treatment or monotherapy in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older in routine clinical practice. Methods: Electronic and clinical trials databases were searched for observational studies of PER published up to 1 March 2022. The outcomes of interest were responder rates, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rates. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the potential factors that might affect the efficacy and safety of PER usage. Results: A total of 56 studies, which included 10,688 patients, were enrolled. The results showed that after 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, the pooled 50% responder rates in patients with epilepsy were 50.0% (95% CI: 0.41-0.60), 44.0% (95% CI: 0.38-0.50), and 39.0% (95% CI: 0.31-0.48), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 24.0% (95% CI: 0.17-0.32), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.17-0.25), and 20.0% (95% CI: 0.16-0.24), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the efficacy of PER could be affected by the way in which PER is administrated. Patients in the groups where PER was used as the first add-on, primary monotherapy, or combined with non-enzyme-inducing AEDs (non-EIAEDs) displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate when compared with those in the late add-on, conversion therapy, or combined with the EIAEDs groups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment were 46% (95% CI: 0.38-0.55), 52.0% (95% CI: 0.43-0.60), and 46.0% (95% CI: 0.40-0.52), respectively. The withdrawal rates due to AEs were 8.0% (95% CI: 0.06-0.11), 16.0% (95% CI: 0.13-0.20), and 16% (95% CI: 0.11-0.21) at 3, 6, and 12 months of PER treatment, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed a higher withdrawal rate in the rapid (30%, 95% CI: 0.22-0.38) than in the slow (12%, 95% CI: 0.06-0.18) titration group. Conclusion: Altogether, PER was effective and could be fairly tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage in patients with epilepsy in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, PER appeared to be more effective when PER was used as the first add-on, monotherapy, or concomitant with non-EIAEDs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022384532.

(1) Background: Epilepsy is a frequent comorbidity in patients with brain tumors, in whom seizures are often drug-resistant. Current evidence suggests that excess of glutamatergic activity in the tumor microenvironment may favor epileptogenesis, but also tumor growth and invasiveness. The selective non-competitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist perampanel (PER) was demonstrated to be efficacious and well-tolerated in patients with focal seizures. Moreover, preclinical in vitro studies suggested a potential anti-tumor activity of this drug. In this systematic review, the clinical evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of PER in brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is summarized. (2) Methods: Five databases and two clinical trial registries were searched from inception to December 2022. (3) Results: Seven studies and six clinical trials were included. Sample size ranged from 8 to 36 patients, who received add-on PER (mean dosage from 4 to 7 mg/day) for BTRE. After a 6-12 month follow-up, the responder rate (% of patients achieving seizure freedom or reduction ≥ 50% of seizure frequency) ranged from 75% to 95%, with a seizure freedom rate of up to 94%. Regarding tolerability, 11-52% of patients experienced non-severe adverse effects (most frequent: dizziness, vertigo, anxiety, irritability). The retention rate ranged from 56% to 83%. However, only up to 12.5% of patients discontinued the drug because of the adverse events. (4) Conclusions: PER seems to be efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated in patients with BTRE. Further randomized studies should be conducted in more homogeneous and larger populations, also evaluating the effect of PER on tumor progression, overall survival, and progression-free survival.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel (PER) is a novel antiepileptic drug. The efficacy, tolerability and safety of PER in children and adolescents with epilepsy are still unclear. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of PER in children and adolescents with epilepsy.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for relevant literature up to November 2022. Then we extracted the relevant data from eligible literature for systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 1968 children and adolescent patients were included. A reduction in seizure frequency of at least 50 percent occurred in 51.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] [47.1%, 55.9%]) of patients. Complete seizure cessation occurred in 20.6% (95%CI [16.7%, 25.4%]). The incidence of adverse events was 40.8% (95%CI [33.8%, 48.2%]). The most common adverse events were drowsiness 15.3% (95% CI [13.7%, 16.9%]), irritability 9.3% (95%CI [8.0%, 10.6%]), dizziness 8.4% (95% CI [7.2%, 9.7%]). The incidence of drug discontinuation due to adverse events was 9.2% (95% CI [7.0%, 11.5%]).
CONCLUSIONS: PER is generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of epilepsy in children and adolescents. Larger studies are still needed to explore the application of PER in children and adolescents.
UNASSIGNED: The funnel plot suggests that there may be publication bias in our meta-analysis, and most of the included studies were Asian, so there may be some racial differences.

There are several well-known treatments for Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS), including dopamine agonists (pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine), anticonvulsants (gabapentin and its analogs, pregabalin), oral or intravenous iron, opioids and benzodiazepines. However, in clinical practice, treatment is sometimes limited due to incomplete response or side effects and it is necessary to be aware of other treatment options for RLS, which is the purpose of this review.
We performed a narrative review detailing all of the lesser known pharmacological treatment literature on RLS. The review purposefully excludes well-established, well-known treatments for RLS which are widely accepted as treatments for RLS in evidence-based reviews. We also have emphasized the pathogenetic implications for RLS of the successful use of these lesser known agents.
Alternative pharmacological agents include clonidine which reduces adrenergic transmission, adenosinergic agents such as dipyridamole, glutamate AMPA receptor blocking agents such as perampanel, glutamate NMDA receptor blocking agents such as amantadine and ketamine, various anticonvulsants (carbamazepine/oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, topiramate, valproic acid, levetiracetam), anti-inflammatory agents such as steroids, as well as cannabis. Bupropion is also a good choice for the treatment of co-existent depression in RLS because of its pro-dopaminergic properties.
Clinicians should first follow evidence-based review recommendations for the treatment of RLS but when the clinical response is either incomplete or side effects are intolerable other options can be considered. We neither recommend nor discourage the use of these options, but leave it up to the clinician to make their own choices based upon the benefit and side effect profiles of each medication.