Rufinamide for the adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in adults and adolescents: A randomized placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of adjunctive treatment with rufinamide 1600 mg twice daily in subjects aged > or = 16 years with refractory partial seizures. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter trial included an 8-week baseline phase and a 13-week double-blind phase. Treatment was initiated with rufinamide 400 mg twice daily or placebo; rufinamide was titrated to 1600 mg twice daily. Percentage change in partial seizure frequency was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included total partial seizure frequency and the percentage of subjects experiencing a >/=50% reduction in partial seizure frequency. RESULTS: Three hundred thirteen subjects were randomized; 156 subjects received rufinamide and 157 received placebo. Rufinamide-treated subjects experienced a 20.4% median reduction in partial seizure frequency relative to baseline, while placebo-treated subjects had an increase of 1.6% (p = 0.02). Exclusion of subjects taking carbamazepine in a post hoc analysis resulted in a reduction of 29.2% versus 0.7% in the placebo group (p = 0.05), whereas the treatment difference in subjects taking carbamazepine was not significant. Of rufinamide-treated subjects, 28.2% experienced a > or = 50% decrease in partial seizure frequency versus 18.6% of placebo-treated subjects (p = 0.04). The most common adverse events associated with rufinamide treatment were dizziness, nausea, diplopia, and ataxia; they occurred primarily during the titration phase. DISCUSSION: Adjunctive therapy with rufinamide 3200 mg/day compared with matching placebo demonstrated efficacy and was generally well tolerated in adults with partial seizures. Further study of this agent in adults with partial seizures taking a range of baseline AEDs is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".