Jim Ferry

Concentration–effect relationships with perampanel in patients with pharmacoresistant partial‐onset seizures

Although there is a general paucity of published pharmacokinetic (PK) data for new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), PK analyses of pooled data from clinical studies of perampanel have recently been presented. We present PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) analyses of pooled data from phase III studies of perampanel describing efficacy and safety as a function of exposure, in order to determine whether a predictable concentration–effect relationship exists for perampanel efficacy and/or adverse events (AEs). The effects of concomitant enzyme‐inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and non–enzyme‐inducing AEDs on the exposure, efficacy, and safety of perampanel are also considered.

Perampanel efficacy and tolerability with enzyme-inducing AEDs in patients with epilepsy

Objective: Evaluate the impact of concomitant enzyme (CYP3A4)-inducer antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) on the efficacy and safety of perampanel in patients from the 3 phase-III clinical trials. Methods: Patients with pharmacoresistant partial-onset seizures in the 3 phase-III clinical studies were aged 12 years and older and receiving 1 to 3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Following 6-week baseline, patients were randomized to once-daily, double-blind treatment with placebo or perampanel 8 or 12 mg (studies 304 and 305) or placebo or perampanel 2, 4, or 8 mg (study 306). Results: Treatment response assessed by median percent reduction in seizure frequency and responder rates improved with perampanel compared with placebo. However, at 8 and 12 mg, the treatment response was significantly greater in patients receiving non-EIAEDs. The treatment effect (perampanel–placebo) also demonstrated a dose-dependent increase in all patients. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar regardless of the presence of EIAEDs. Occurrence of some adverse events, such as fatigue, somnolence, dizziness, irritability, was greater in patients receiving non-EIAEDs, as was discontinuation because of adverse events. Conclusions: Perampanel shows efficacy and safety in the presence and absence of EIAEDs. As systemic exposure to perampanel increases, so does efficacy. Given the extensive metabolism of perampanel, systemic exposure is clearly reduced with concomitant administration of CYP3A4 inducers. This supports the strategy of dosing perampanel to clinical effect. Recognition of these pharmacokinetic interactions will be important in the optimization of this novel medication. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that 2 to 12 mg/d doses of perampanel reduced seizure frequency and improved responder rate in the presence and absence of EIAEDs.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the novel γ‐secretase modulator, E2212, in healthy human subjects

E2212, a novel γ‐secretase modulator, is under development for the treatment of Alzheimers disease. The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of single ascending oral doses (10–250 mg, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized) of E2212 were evaluated. In this phase I clinical trial, E2212 was found to be well tolerated in single doses. Maximum tolerated dose was not achieved up to 250 mg. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity with no identifiable dose related pattern. There were no clinically significant findings on physical and ophthalmologic examinations as well as vital signs, laboratory, ECG and C‐SSRS assessments. E2212 was rapidly absorbed, with median tmax values ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 h. E2212 exhibited biphasic disposition with the terminal t1/2 of 12.5–19.0 h. Renal excretion was the minor pathway for E2212 elimination. Increased PD response (reduction in plasma concentrations of Aβ(x–42)) was observed with increasing doses. The maximum PD response was observed in the highest dose 250 mg cohort, with ΔAUAC(0–24 h) of 44.1% and Amax of 53.6%. These results support further clinical development of E2212.

Concentration-Response Modeling of ECG Data From Early-Phase Clinical Studies as an Alternative Clinical and Regulatory Approach to Assessing QT Risk - Experience From the Development Program of Lemborexant.

Lemborexant is a novel dual orexin receptor antagonist being developed to treat insomnia. Its potential to cause QT prolongation was evaluated using plasma concentration–response (CR) modeling applied to data from 2 multiple ascending‐dose (MAD) studies. In the primary MAD study, placebo or lemborexant (2.5 to 75 mg) was administered for 14 consecutive nights. In another MAD study designed to “bridge” pharmacokinetic and safety data between Japanese and non‐Japanese subjects (J‐MAD), placebo or lemborexant (2.5, 10, or 25 mg) was administered for 14 consecutive nights. QT intervals were estimated using a high‐precision measurement technique and evaluated using a linear mixed‐effects CR model, for each study separately and for the pooled data set. When each study was analyzed separately, the slopes of the CR relationship were shallow and not statistically significant. In the pooled analysis, the slope of the CR relationship was –0.00002 milliseconds per ng/mL (90%CI, –0.01019 to 0.01014 milliseconds). The highest observed Cmax was 400 ng/mL, representing a margin 8‐fold above exposures expected for the highest planned clinical dose. The model‐predicted QTc effect at 400 ng/mL was 1.1 milliseconds (90%CI, –3.49 to 5.78 milliseconds). In neither the J‐MAD study nor the pooled analysis was an effect of race identified. CR modeling of data from early‐phase clinical studies, including plasma levels far exceeding those anticipated clinically, indicated that a QT effect >10 milliseconds could be excluded. Regulatory agreement with this methodology demonstrates the effectiveness of a CR modeling approach as an alternative to thorough QT studies.

Pharmacokinetics, exposure–cognition, and exposure–efficacy relationships of perampanel in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial-onset seizures

OBJECTIVE To characterize, in adolescents aged 12-17, the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of perampanel, the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on PK, and the relationships between perampanel exposure and cognitive function, seizure frequency, and responder status. METHODS Population PK analysis used plasma concentration data from Phase II study 235 (NCT01161524), in which adolescents with inadequately controlled POS despite treatment with 1-3 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were randomized to receive once daily oral placebo or perampanel (8-12mg/day) for 19 weeks, pooled with data from adolescent patients in perampanel Phase III studies 304, 305, 306. Exposure-cognition and exposure-efficacy relationships were modelled using data from study 235. RESULTS Population PK results from 152 adolescent patients revealed a perampanel apparent clearance of 0.729L/h, consistent with previous analyses in adolescents and adults. Clearance was increased with coadministration of inducing AEDs (carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin), and was slightly higher in females. The PK/pharmacodynamics (PD) analysis for cognition (n=110) showed that increasing perampanel exposure had no significant effect on overall cognition, measured by the Cognitive Drug Research global cognition score. The PK/PD analysis for efficacy (n=123) showed a significant decrease in seizure frequency and significant increased probability of being a responder, as perampanel concentration increased - both in the presence and absence of inducing AEDs. Carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and phenytoin reduced perampanel exposure in adolescents, but reduced the magnitude of seizure frequency reduction and responder probability to a lesser extent. SIGNIFICANCE Pharmacokinetics of perampanel are similar in adolescents to adults. Increasing perampanel exposure reduces seizure frequency and increases probability of being a responder regardless of concomitant inducers. The lack of relationship between perampanel exposure and cognitive function suggests a benign cognitive profile for this AED in adolescents. We await results from long-term exposure.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacogenomics, Safety, and Tolerability of Avatrombopag in Healthy Japanese and White Subjects

Avatrombopag, an orally administered, small‐molecule thrombopoietin receptor (c‐Mpl) agonist, is currently in clinical development for the potential treatment of severe thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing an elective procedure. The objectives of this study were to characterize and compare the pharmacokinetics (including the food effect) and pharmacodynamics (platelet count) of avatrombopag following single doses in Japanese and white subjects. Following single dosing under fasted and fed conditions, mean peak concentrations occurred at 5 to 8 hours and subsequently declined with a half‐life of 16 to 18 hours in Japanese and white subjects. Administration with food did not alter the rate or extent of avatrombopag absorption but substantially reduced pharmacokinetic variability relative to the fasted state. CYP2C9 polymorphism (*2, *3) was associated with higher pharmacokinetic variability but not with any clinically important effect on variability in platelet response. Plasma exposures of avatrombopag increased in a dose‐proportional manner over the dose range tested. After a single dose, platelet count increased in a dose‐related manner, reaching a maximum by day 11 and returning to baseline levels by day 27. No clinically important differences were found when avatrombopag pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were compared between Japanese and white subjects. Administration of avatrombopag was generally well tolerated.

Absence of Liver Toxicity in Perampanel-Treated Subjects: Pooled results from partial seizure phase III perampanel clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE The liver plays a major role in the metabolism and elimination of many antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), including perampanel. Some of the metabolites identified for perampanel are likely formed via reactive intermediates, which have the potential to covalently bind to protein and cause idiosyncratic toxicities, including hepatotoxicity. The approved AED perampanel is a selective, noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist. The safety and tolerability of perampanel have been well documented in 3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III studies. Here we report the effects of perampanel on liver function in patients from the phase III studies to assess the potential for liver toxicity. METHODS Following 6-week baseline, patients (≥12 years old) with drug-resistant partial seizures were randomized to once-daily double-blind treatment (6-week titration, 13-week maintenance) with 2, 4, 8, or 12mg perampanel (n=1038) or with placebo (n=442). Clinical laboratory tests for hepatobiliary laboratory parameters were evaluated at baseline and at end of treatment. These included alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, and total bilirubin. Treatment-emergent markedly abnormal values (an increase in NCI-CTC grade relative to baseline and a grade ≥2) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to hepatobiliary parameters were also recorded. RESULTS Mean hepatobiliary values were within normal ranges at baseline and end of treatment for all perampanel groups and placebo. Mean changes from baseline to end of treatment were small. The incidence of markedly abnormal results was very low for perampanel and placebo. TEAEs related to hepatobiliary parameters occurred in 0.4% of perampanel patients and 0% of placebo patients. Hepatobiliary disorders included cholelithiasis (n=3 in perampanel) and abnormal hepatic function (n=1 in perampanel). None of the events were serious or led to perampanel discontinuation. No subject had values that met the criteria for Hys Law. CONCLUSION Hepatobiliary laboratory data and related TEAEs were not notably different between perampanel and placebo treatment groups, and no dose-related trends were observed. Based on the laboratory results from the 3 Phase III studies, perampanel (2, 4, 8, and 12mg) demonstrated no clinically important effects on liver function tests, indicating perampanel is an AED with a low potential for drug-induced liver toxicity.

Effect of Enzyme Inhibition on Perampanel Pharmacokinetics: Why Study Design Matters

OBJECTIVES Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist, is indicated as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients with epilepsy aged 12years and older. In vitro studies and Phase I trials indicate that perampanel is metabolized almost exclusively by CYP3A, with an elimination half-life (t1/2) averaging approximately 105h. Understanding of pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions-enzyme inhibition or induction-and anticipating their occurrence are important for management of patients with epilepsy. Here we report PK results from a Phase I drug-drug interaction (DDI) study (Study 005) combining perampanel with the CYP3A inhibitor ketoconazole, as well as supplementary in silico predictions further exploring this interaction. METHODS A Phase I, randomized, open-label, two-period, two-treatment, two-way crossover study was conducted in 26 healthy adult male volunteers. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences. In one period, subjects received a single 1-mg fasting dose of perampanel (Day1); in the other period, subjects received ketoconazole 400mg once daily for 10days with a single 1-mg perampanel dose while fasting (Day3). Blood samples were drawn at multiple time points up to 288h after the perampanel dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters of perampanel were calculated by noncompartmental analysis, and safety was recorded. An integrated, physiologically based PK model built in Simcyp® provided additional insight into this interaction. Drug-drug interaction intensity was measured by the ratio of systemic exposure (area under plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]) of perampanel in the presence or absence of concomitant ketoconazole. RESULTS Single oral doses of 1mg perampanel and once-daily oral doses of ketoconazole 400mg were safe and well tolerated. Maximum perampanel plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to Cmax showed no apparent differences when perampanel was administered alone versus with ketoconazole. Ketoconazole co-administration resulted in an approximate 20% increase in perampanel AUC (P<0.001). This increase, although statistically significant, was a<2.0-fold AUC change and alone would suggest a modest effect of ketoconazole. To further explore these results, DDI simulations were performed to query the findings and test additional study conditions. Using the actual trial conditions of Study 005, the simulations also predicted an AUC ratio increase <2-fold, providing verification of the simulation assumptions and the modest effect of ketoconazole for 10days. Simulations further suggested that an interaction effect of ketoconazole on perampanel exposure (>2-fold) of potential clinical significance could be predicted when using larger doses of ketoconazole (e.g., 200mg every 6h) coadministered for a greater time period (e.g., 30days), with AUC ratio as high as 3.36. Additionally, simulations suggested that a significant interaction with co-administration of perampanel and an inhibitor more potent than ketoconazole (such as itraconazole) could not be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS Selecting an appropriate study design is critical to fully characterize the PK interaction for drugs such as perampanel that have a long t1/2. Although a negligible effect on perampanel PK was observed following co-administration of ketoconazole 400mg/day for 10days, this is likely due in part to the relatively brief co-administration period of ketoconazole and perampanel (<3 times the t1/2 of perampanel). While short-term administration of a CYP3A inhibitor may not significantly increase perampanel exposure, such increases may be expected following chronic and larger dosing or with a more potent inhibitor.

Impact of perampanel on pharmacokinetics of concomitant antiepileptics in patients with partial-onset seizures: pooled analysis of clinical trials.

Aims To evaluate the impact of perampanel and demographics on clearance of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in patients with refractory partial‐onset seizures. Methods Pooled data from three Phase III clinical studies with adjunctive perampanel were used. Blood samples for evaluation of 11 concomitant AEDs were taken during baseline (before perampanel initiation), and at weeks 10, 14, and 19 during the maintenance phase of perampanel treatment (2–12 mg/day, once daily at bedtime). Models estimating apparent clearance of each concomitant AED were fitted to the data, and the effects of perampanel and demographic variables on clearance were determined. Final models were assessed with goodness of fit plots including population predictions and individual predictions against observations. Results No significant impact of perampanel on clearance was found for clonazepam (n = 81), levetiracetam (n = 330), phenobarbital (n = 54), phenytoin (n = 90), topiramate (n = 226) or zonisamide (n = 93). Statistically significant, but small and not clinically relevant increases in model‐predicted clearance were detected for carbamazepine (+4.3% with 12 mg perampanel; n = 379), clobazam (+3.4% males, +7.7% females, 12 mg; n = 114), lamotrigine (+9.3%, 12 mg; n = 356), and valproic acid (+5.0%, 12 mg; n = 349). Oxcarbazepine clearance was reduced (26%; n = 200), but the clinical relevance is unclear as levels of the active metabolite (the monohydroxy derivative of oxcarbazepine) were not measured. Conclusions Population PK data show that perampanel (2–12 mg/day, once daily at bedtime) has no relevant impact on the clearance of the most commonly used concomitant AEDs.

Reducing placebo exposure in trials: Considerations from the Research Roundtable in Epilepsy

The randomized controlled trial is the unequivocal gold standard for demonstrating clinical efficacy and safety of investigational therapies. Recently there have been concerns raised about prolonged exposure to placebo and ineffective therapy during the course of an add-on regulatory trial for new antiepileptic drug approval (typically ∼6 months in duration), due to the potential risks of continued uncontrolled epilepsy for that period. The first meeting of the Research Roundtable in Epilepsy on May 19–20, 2016, focused on “Reducing placebo exposure in epilepsy clinical trials,” with a goal of considering new designs for epilepsy regulatory trials that may be added to the overall development plan to make it, as a whole, safer for participants while still providing rigorous evidence of effect. This topic was motivated in part by data from a meta-analysis showing a 3- to 5-fold increased rate of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in participants randomized to placebo or ineffective doses of new antiepileptic drugs. The meeting agenda included rationale and discussion of different trial designs, including active-control add-on trials, placebo add-on to background therapy with adjustment, time to event designs, adaptive designs, platform trials with pooled placebo control, a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach to reducing placebo exposure, and shorter trials when drug tolerance has been ruled out. The merits and limitations of each design were discussed and are reviewed here.