Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of perampanel in Asian and non‐Asian patients with epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People of different ethnic or racial backgrounds may experience variations in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to drug therapies. Our post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of perampanel in Asian and non-Asian populations with refractory focal seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (FBTC) seizures. This analysis pooled data from 4 randomized, placebo-controlled, phase-3 studies involving patients aged ≥12 years who have focal seizures with or without FBTC seizures. Patients were receiving 2, 4, 8, or 12 mg perampanel (or placebo) by the end of a 6-week titration period and for a further 13 weeks during the maintenance phase. Efficacy endpoints included median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days, and 50% and seizure-freedom responder rates relative to baseline. The median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline was significantly greater than placebo for perampanel 8 and 12 mg (-31.1% and -38.1% change, respectively; each P < 0.0001) in the Asian population, and for perampanel 4, 8, and 12 mg (-21.1% [P = 0.0001], -26.3% [P < 0.0001], and -27.7% [P = 0.0001] change, respectively) in the non-Asian population. The 50% responder rate relative to baseline was significantly greater than placebo for perampanel 8 and 12 mg (40.1% and 43.8%, respectively; each P < 0.0001) in the Asian population, and for perampanel 4, 8, and 12 mg (29.4% [P = 0.0002], 32.8% [P < 0.0001] and 34.5% [P = 0.0001]), respectively, in the non-Asian population. Seizure-freedom rate among all patients was 4.9%-11.7% for perampanel 2, 4, 8, and 12 mg. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across both populations were dizziness, somnolence, irritability, headache, and fatigue. The most common psychiatric TEAEs were aggression and irritability. Perampanel demonstrated a favorable and similar risk-benefit profile in both Asian and non-Asian populations with refractory focal seizures.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".