Efficacy of adjunctive cenobamate by focal seizure subtypes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study in a multinational Asian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of adjunctive cenobamate by seizure subtype in Asian patients with uncontrolled focal epilepsy during a 24-week controlled study (NCT04557085 [C035]). METHODS: Adults 18-70 years old with ≥8 focal seizures (focal aware motor [FAM], focal impaired awareness [FIA], and/or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic [FBTC]) during an 8-week baseline, despite treatment with 1-3 antiseizure medications, were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo or cenobamate 100, 200, or 400 mg/day, starting at 12.5 mg/day and uptitrated at 2-week intervals. The study design included an 18-week titration phase and a 6-week maintenance phase. Median percent change from baseline in 28-day seizure frequency and responder rates for patients with FAM, FIA, and/or FBTC seizures were assessed during the maintenance phase and during a 12-week treatment period that combined the last 6 weeks of titration and the 6-week maintenance phase. RESULTS: N = 519 patients were randomized (maintenance phase n = 446, 12-week period n = 478). During both periods assessed, numerically greater reductions vs placebo occurred across all cenobamate doses and seizure subtypes. For cenobamate 200 and 400 mg/day, maintenance-phase median seizure frequency reductions were 76 %-100 % across all seizure subtypes; seizure-free rates were up to 52.4 % (FAM), 57.5 % (FIA), and 75.0 % (FBTC). The most common cenobamate-related treatment-emergent adverse events (≥20 %) were dizziness and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Cenobamate reduced all focal seizure subtypes in a generally dose-response manner in adult Asian patients, including maintenance-phase seizure frequency reductions of 76 %-100 %. Notably high seizure-free rates were observed for patients with FBTC seizures, an important contributor to morbidity/mortality in focal epilepsy patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".