Effects of perampanel on neurophysiology test parameters
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: This study aimed to determine the effects of perampanel on the nervous sys tem using commonly performed neurophysiological tests. Methods: Twelve healthy adult males underwent electroencephalogram and measurements of median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), visual evoked potentials (VEPs), and brainstem auditory evoked potentials before and after ingesting 6 mg of perampanel. The pre- and postadministration data were cross-compared and then correlated with serum perampanel levels and reported side effects. Results: After ingesting 6 mg of perampanel there was a statistically significant increase in the P100 latency of VEPs elicited using a 64 × 64 checkerboard pattern (p = 0.027) and a de crease in the N20 latency of median nerve SSEPs (p = 0.033). Reported side effects were not correlated with the serum perampanel level or statistically significant latency changes. Conclusions: This study is the first to explore the effects of perampanel on results obtained in neurophysiological tests. Our findings indicate that perampanel increases sensory conduc tion, as evidenced by a decrease in N20 latency. Perampanel may additionally interfere with visual processing, in part by prolonging P100. Further studies with larger samples and various doses are needed to clarify these findings.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to determine the effects of perampanel on the nervous sys tem using commonly performed neurophysiological tests. Methods: Twelve healthy adult males underwent electroencephalogram and measurements of median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), visual evoked potentials (VEPs), and brainstem auditory evoked potentials before and after ingesting 6 mg of perampanel. The pre- and postadministration data were cross-compared and then correlated with serum perampanel levels and reported side effects. Results: After ingesting 6 mg of perampanel there was a statistically significant increase in the P100 latency of VEPs elicited using a 64 × 64 checkerboard pattern (p = 0.027) and a de crease in the N20 latency of median nerve SSEPs (p = 0.033). Reported side effects were not correlated with the serum perampanel level or statistically significant latency changes. Conclusions: This study is the first to explore the effects of perampanel on results obtained in neurophysiological tests. Our findings indicate that perampanel increases sensory conduc tion, as evidenced by a decrease in N20 latency. Perampanel may additionally interfere with visual processing, in part by prolonging P100. Further studies with larger samples and various doses are needed to clarify these findings.