Long‐term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in patients from the Asia‐Pacific region with refractory focal‐onset seizures in Study 335 open‐label extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel for the treatment of patients with refractory focal-onset seizures (FOS), with or without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS), from the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: Study 335 (NCT01618695) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study. Patients aged ≥12 years with refractory FOS who completed the Core Study could enter an open-label extension (OLEx) Phase (6-week Conversion and ≥46-week Maintenance Period). Endpoints included median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, 50% responder and seizure-freedom rates, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The Intent-to-Treat Analysis Set included 704 patients (529 received perampanel and 175 received placebo during the Core Study; all patients received perampanel during OLEx). The median percent reduction in seizure frequency and 50% responder rates in patients who received perampanel during the Core Study were maintained throughout the OLEx Phase (Week 64-75: 55.9% and 54.3%, respectively). Seizure freedom for ≥12 consecutive months at any time during perampanel treatment was achieved by 4.1% of patients with FOS and 14.2% of patients with FBTCS. Among patients treated with perampanel 4 mg/day (n = 83), median reduction in seizure frequency was lower in those who received concomitant enzyme-inducing anti-seizure medications (EIASMs) than those who received non-EIASMs. The most common TEAE was dizziness (n = 318; 46.8%); 141 (20.8%) patients had TEAEs that led to study/drug withdrawal. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, long-term seizure control was achieved with adjunctive perampanel in patients with refractory FOS, with or without FBTCS, in an Asia-Pacific population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".