Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in patients from China with focal seizures or generalized tonic‐clonic seizures: Post hoc analysis of phase III double‐blind and open‐label extension studies

Aims This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in patients from China (aged ≥12 years) with focal seizures (FS), with/without focal to bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS), or generalized tonic‐clonic seizures (GTCS). Methods Study centers in Ch...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:CNS neuroscience & therapeutics 2021-03, Vol.27 (3), p.330-340
Hauptverfasser: Weiping, Liao, Dong, Zhou, Zhen, Hong, Patten, Anna, Dash, Amitabh, Malhotra, Manoj
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aims This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of adjunctive perampanel in patients from China (aged ≥12 years) with focal seizures (FS), with/without focal to bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS), or generalized tonic‐clonic seizures (GTCS). Methods Study centers in China were identified using data from five double‐blind, randomized, phase III studies of adjunctive perampanel (2‐12 mg/day) and their open‐label extensions (OLEx). Efficacy assessments included median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, and 50% and 75% responder and seizure‐freedom rates. Safety/tolerability assessments included monitoring of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results Overall, 277 patients (placebo, n = 79; perampanel, n = 198) were included in the double‐blind safety analysis set. The full analysis set comprised 274 patients (FS, n = 238 [placebo, n = 60; perampanel, n = 178]; FBTCS, n = 120 [placebo, n = 31; perampanel, n = 89]; GTCS, n = 36 [placebo, n = 18; perampanel, n = 18]). Median percent reductions in seizure frequency for placebo vs perampanel were as follows: 16.6% vs 32.4% (FS; P 
ISSN:1755-5930
1755-5949
DOI:10.1111/cns.13458