Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This study is designed to investigate the short- and long-term effects of perampanel on cognition, growth, and development in adolescents.
This study consisted of the Core Study and the Extension Part A and B. The Core Study consisted of 2 phases: Prerandomization and Randomization. The Prerandomization Phase lasted up to 1 week, during which participants were assessed for their eligibility to participate in the study. The Randomization Phase consisted of 3 periods: Titration (6 weeks), Maintenance (13 weeks), and Follow-up (4 weeks; only for those participants not rolling over into the Extension Phase). During the Core Study Titration and Maintenance Periods, participants were randomized into perampanel (2 to 12 mg per day) or placebo treatment groups in a 2:1 ratio within each of the age-matched categories (ie, greater than or equal to 12 to less than 15 and greater than or equal to 15 to less than 18).
The extension phase consisted of part A (Conversion Period - 6 weeks and Maintenance period - 25 weeks) and Part B (Optional Extension Phase -52 weeks). The maximum duration for participation in Part B was 52 weeks.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perampenal (Core Study) | Experimental | Participants received perampanel 2 mg per day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments to a target dose range of 8 to 12 mg per day. |
|
| Placebo (Core Study) | Placebo Comparator | Participants received matching placebo tablets once a day (6 tablets of placebo). |
|
| Perampanel (Extension Phase) | Experimental | During the Extension Phase, participants previously assigned to perampanel arm (Core Study) continued taking study medication at the dose achieved at the end of the Core Study once daily. Participants previously assigned to a placebo arm (Core Study) started perampanel dose at 2 mg/day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments up to a maximum dose of 12 mg/day. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perampanel | Drug | 2 mg titrated up to 8-12 mg maximum; taken once daily. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline to Week 19 in Cognition Drug Research (CDR) System Global Cognition Score (Core Study) | The CDR System Global Cognitive score was derived from the average of 5 CDR System cognitive domain scores (Power of Attention, Continuity of Attention, Quality of Episodic Memory, Quality of Working Memory, and Speed of Memory). The domain scores were normalized to mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 before taking the average. The scale ranged from 0 - 100. An increase in the Global Cognitive Score indicates improvement, while a decrease indicates worsening in cognitive function. | Baseline (Visit 2/Week 0 Evaluation) and Week 19 LOCF (last observation carried forward) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Power of Attention T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Power of Attention domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure of focused attention and information processing, comprised of the 3 CDR System attention tasks: the simple reaction time, choice reaction time and digit vigilance tasks. Z-scores were calculated for each domain by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the standard deviation (SD) of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Power of Attention were also multiplied by -1, so that for all domains, greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. The CDR System Global Cognition score was created by adding the T-scores for the five domains. A decrease in the score of Power of Attention indicated improvement in cognitive function and a negative change reflects impairment from baseline. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Extension Phase:
Had completed all scheduled visits up to and including Visit 8 in the Core Study Randomization Phase.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Haichen Yang, M.D., M.A. | Study Director | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aurora | Colorado | United States | ||||
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37059702 | Derived | Bresnahan R, Hill RA, Wang J. Perampanel add-on for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Apr 14;4(4):CD010961. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010961.pub2. | |
| 29653338 | Derived | Pina-Garza JE, Lagae L, Villanueva V, Renfroe JB, Laurenza A, Williams B, Kumar D, Meador KJ. Long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition in adolescents with partial seizures. Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Jun;83:50-58. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.03.029. Epub 2018 Apr 10. |
Not provided
Not provided
Of the 154 participants screened for entry into the Core Study, 21 were screen failures and 133 were randomized and treated. A total of 119 participants completed the Core Study, and 114 participants entered the Extension Phase.
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Perampanel (Core Study) | Participants received perampanel 2 mg per day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments to a target dose range of 8 to 12 mg per day. |
| FG001 | Placebo (Core Study) |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Study (23 Weeks) |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Placebo | Drug | Matching Placebo taken once daily. |
|
| Baseline and Week 19 |
| Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Continuity of Attention T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Continuity of Attention domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure of sustained attention, comprised of the accuracy scores from 2 of the CDR System attention tasks: choice reaction time and digit vigilance. Z-scores were calculated for this domain using normative data from the CDR System database for the age range of the study population. Specifically, Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to baseline. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. | Baseline and Week 19 |
| Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Quality of Episodic Secondary Memory T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Quality of Episodic Secondary Memory domain was a measure of the capability of individuals to encode, store, and subsequently retrieve verbal and nonverbal information in episodic (or declarative) memory; what was meant by memory in everyday terminology. This measure was derived by summing the scores from the 4 tasks: immediate and delayed word recall, word recognition, and picture recognition. Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. A high score reflects a good ability to store, hold and retrieve information of an episodic nature (i.e. an event or a name) and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to baseline. | Baseline and Week 19 |
| Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Quality of Working Memory (Short Term) T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Quality of Working Memory domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure of reflecting how well individuals can hold numeric and spatial information 'on line' in working memory. Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. A higher score reflects a good working memory and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to the baseline assessment. | Baseline and Week 19 |
| Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Speed of Memory T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Speed of Memory domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure, which reflects the time taken to accurately retrieve information from working and episodic memory. Z-scores were calculated for this domain using normative data from the CDR System database for the age range of the study population. Specifically, Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Speed of Memory were also multiplied by -1, so that for all domains, greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to the baseline assessment. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. | Baseline and Week 19 |
| Percentage of Participants Who Experienced 50% or More Decrease in Seizure Frequency (Core Study) | A responder was a participant who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to the baseline of the Randomization Phase. | From Baseline up to Week 19 LOCF |
| Percent Change From Baseline in Seizure Frequency Per 28 Days During the Treatment Duration of the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | Seizure frequency was based on overall number of seizures obtained by summing the 4 seizure types (all partial seizure types, that is, simple partial without motor signs, simple partial with motor signs, complex partial, and complex partial with secondary generalization) collected via the patient diary over a particular time interval and re-scaled to 28 days window. | Baseline and Week 19 LOCF |
| Number of Participants Who Achieved Seizure-Free Status During the Maintenance Period and the Last 28 Days of the Maintenance Period During the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | Number of Participants who were seizure free, were assessed. | 13 Week Maintenance Period |
| Percent Change From Baseline in Seizure Frequency Per 28 Days Over the Perampanel Duration Exposure (Extension Phase) | The median percent change in total partial onset seizure frequency per 28 days during the Extension Phase relative to the Pre-perampanel Baseline from Week 1 of perampanel treatment through successive 13-week intervals (Weeks 1 to 13 for subjects with any data, Weeks 1 to 26 for subjects with exposure of more than 13 weeks, Weeks 1 to 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, and Week 1 to 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks) are presented. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | Week 1-13, Week 14-26, Week 27-39, and Week 40-52 |
| Percentage of Participants Who Experienced 50% or More Decrease in Seizure Frequency Over the Perampanel Duration Exposure (Extension Phase) | A responder was a participant who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from pre-perampanel. The percentage of responders from Week 1 of perampanel treatment through successive 13-week intervals (Weeks 1 to 13 for subjects with any data, Weeks 1 to 26 for subjects with exposure of more than 13 weeks, Weeks 1 to 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, and Week 1 to 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks) are presented. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | Week 1-13, Week 14-26, Week 27-39, and Week 40-52 |
| Mean Change From Baseline to End of Treatment in Cognition Drug Research (CDR) System Global Cognition Score (Extension Phase) | The CDR System Global Cognitive was derived from the average of 5 CDR System cognitive domain scores (Power of Attention, Continuity of Attention, Quality of Episodic Memory, Quality of Working Memory, and Speed of Memory). Domain scores were normalized to mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 before taking the average. The scale ranged from 0 to 100. An increase in the Global Cognitive Score indicates improvement, while a decrease indicates worsening in cognitive function. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, Week 52, and End of Treatment (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first perampanel dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Global Cognition Score Over Time (Extension Phase) | The CDR System Global Cognitive was derived from the average of 5 CDR System cognitive domain scores (Power of Attention, Continuity of Attention, Quality of Episodic Memory, Quality of Working Memory, and Speed of Memory). Domain scores were normalized to mean of 50 and SD of 10 before taking the average. The scale ranged from 0 to 100. An increase in the Global Cognitive Score indicates improvement, while a decrease indicates worsening in cognitive function. The data is presented as CDR System Global Cognitive scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| Mean Change From Baseline by Visits in CDR System Domain T-Scores (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores. T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. Wk = Week and EOT=End of Treatment. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week 30, Week 39, Week 52, and EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Power of Attention (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Continuity of Attention (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Quality of Episodic Secondary Memory (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Quality of Working Memory (Short Term) (Extension Phase) | The cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for participants with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for participants with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for participants with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for participants with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for participants with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Speed of Memory (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| Change From Baseline to End of Treatment in Controlled Oral Word Association Test Scores (COWAT) (Extension Phase) | The COWAT test measured the executive function of the frontal lobe and consisted of examinations of category/meaning fluency and letter/phoneme fluency. It consisted of 2 parts which included the Letter Fluency task and the Category Fluency task. For the Letter Fluency task, the participant was given one minute to list as many words as they could which began with a given letter from the following set of 3 letters: F, A, and L. The number of correct words from the 3 sets comprised the Letter Fluency score. For the Category Fluency task, the participant was given one minute to list as many words as they could which belonged to a given category. The number of correct words comprised the Category Fluency score. Total score was calculated as sum of acceptable words generated. The scale ranged from 0-90, with higher scores indicating improvement in language. | From Baseline up to Week 52 or up to EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| Change From Baseline to End of Treatment in Time to Complete Lafayette Grooved Pegboard Test (LGPT) (Extension Phase) | The LGPT test measured visuomotor skills. This test was a manipulative dexterity test that consisted of a metal matrix of 25 holes with randomly positioned slots. The participant was required to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes. The task was completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. The task was timed and the scores were the time taken for the participant to complete all 25 pegs for each hand. If the test cannot be completed within 300 seconds, 300 seconds were recorded for the time. An increase in score (longer time) indicated worsening of visuomotor skills. The time to complete test is presented as mean seconds +/- SD. | From Baseline up to Week 52 or up to EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| Mean Change From Baseline in Bone Age Minus Age (Months) From Hand X-ray (Extension Phase) | Bone age was measured using hand X-ray. The mean change from Baseline in bone age (months) minus age (months) from the hand x-ray was assessed. "+" means bone age is older than age and "-" means bone age is younger than age. | From Baseline up to Week 52 or up to EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| Change From Baseline to End of Treatment (EOT) for the Tanner Stage | The effect of perampanel on growth and development in adolescents (male and female), including sexual development was measured using Tanner scale. The scale defined physical measurements of development based on external primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as the size of the breasts, genitals, testicular volume and development of pubic hair. Tanner scale consisted of 5 scales from I to V (1: pre-pubertal to 5: adult). Data is reported as the change from Baseline to End of Treatment for the Tanner Stage. | From Baseline up to Week 52 or EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| Gulf Breeze |
| Florida |
| United States |
| Orlando | Florida | United States |
| Tampa | Florida | United States |
| Indianapolis | Indiana | United States |
| Chesterfield | Missouri | United States |
| Gibbsboro | New Jersey | United States |
| Akron | Ohio | United States |
| Memphis | Tennessee | United States |
| Nashville | Tennessee | United States |
| Dallas | Texas | United States |
| Heidelberg | Victoria | Australia |
| Brussels | Belgium |
| Leuven | Belgium |
| Ottignies | Belgium |
| Ostrava | Czechia |
| Budapest | Hungary |
| Debrecen | Hungary |
| Miskolc | Hungary |
| Bangalore | India |
| Hyderabad | India |
| Mangalore | India |
| Nagpur | India |
| New Delhi | India |
| Pune | India |
| Secunderabad | India |
| Daugavpils | Latvia |
| Riga | Latvia |
| Valmiera | Latvia |
| Gdansk | Poland |
| Poznan | Poland |
| Daegu | South Korea |
| Seoul | South Korea |
| Madrid | Madrid, Communidad de | Spain |
| Valencia | Valencia | Spain |
| Bangkok | Thailand |
| Nonthaburi | Thailand |
| 26724782 | Derived | Meador KJ, Yang H, Pina-Garza JE, Laurenza A, Kumar D, Wesnes KA. Cognitive effects of adjunctive perampanel for partial-onset seizures: A randomized trial. Epilepsia. 2016 Feb;57(2):243-51. doi: 10.1111/epi.13279. Epub 2016 Jan 1. |
Participants received matching placebo tablets once a day (6 tablets of placebo).
| FG002 | Perampanel (Extension Phase) | During the Extension Phase, participants previously assigned to perampanel arm (Core Study) continued taking study medication at the dose achieved at the end of the Core Study once daily. Participants previously assigned to a placebo arm (Core Study) started perampanel dose at 2 mg/day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments up to a maximum dose of 12 mg/day. |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| Extension Phase (Approximately 83 Weeks) |
|
|
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Perampenal (Core Study) | Participants received perampanel 2 mg per day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments to a target dose range of 8 to 12 mg per day. |
| BG001 | Placebo (Core Study) | Participants received matching placebo tablets once a day (6 tablets of placebo). |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | Years |
| |||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Change From Baseline to Week 19 in Cognition Drug Research (CDR) System Global Cognition Score (Core Study) | The CDR System Global Cognitive score was derived from the average of 5 CDR System cognitive domain scores (Power of Attention, Continuity of Attention, Quality of Episodic Memory, Quality of Working Memory, and Speed of Memory). The domain scores were normalized to mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 before taking the average. The scale ranged from 0 - 100. An increase in the Global Cognitive Score indicates improvement, while a decrease indicates worsening in cognitive function. | Full Analysis Set (FAS) for Cognition: All randomized subjects who received study drug, had baseline cognition data, and had at least one postdose CDR System cognitive battery test assessments at or after Week 10. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale | Baseline (Visit 2/Week 0 Evaluation) and Week 19 LOCF (last observation carried forward) |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Power of Attention T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Power of Attention domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure of focused attention and information processing, comprised of the 3 CDR System attention tasks: the simple reaction time, choice reaction time and digit vigilance tasks. Z-scores were calculated for each domain by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the standard deviation (SD) of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Power of Attention were also multiplied by -1, so that for all domains, greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. The CDR System Global Cognition score was created by adding the T-scores for the five domains. A decrease in the score of Power of Attention indicated improvement in cognitive function and a negative change reflects impairment from baseline. | FAS for cognition (Core Study) | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | T-score | Baseline and Week 19 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Continuity of Attention T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Continuity of Attention domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure of sustained attention, comprised of the accuracy scores from 2 of the CDR System attention tasks: choice reaction time and digit vigilance. Z-scores were calculated for this domain using normative data from the CDR System database for the age range of the study population. Specifically, Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to baseline. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. | FAS for cognition (Core Study) | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | T-score | Baseline and Week 19 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Quality of Episodic Secondary Memory T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Quality of Episodic Secondary Memory domain was a measure of the capability of individuals to encode, store, and subsequently retrieve verbal and nonverbal information in episodic (or declarative) memory; what was meant by memory in everyday terminology. This measure was derived by summing the scores from the 4 tasks: immediate and delayed word recall, word recognition, and picture recognition. Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. A high score reflects a good ability to store, hold and retrieve information of an episodic nature (i.e. an event or a name) and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to baseline. | FAS for cognition (Core Study) | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | T-score | Baseline and Week 19 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Quality of Working Memory (Short Term) T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Quality of Working Memory domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure of reflecting how well individuals can hold numeric and spatial information 'on line' in working memory. Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. A higher score reflects a good working memory and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to the baseline assessment. | FAS for cognition (Core Study) | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | T-score | Baseline and Week 19 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline at Week 19 in the Speed of Memory T-score in the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | The Speed of Memory domain (one of the 5 CDR System cognitive domains) was a measure, which reflects the time taken to accurately retrieve information from working and episodic memory. Z-scores were calculated for this domain using normative data from the CDR System database for the age range of the study population. Specifically, Z-scores were calculated by subtracting each participant's domain score from the normative population mean of that domain and dividing the result by the SD of the normative population mean. Z-scores were converted into T-scores by multiplying by 50 and adding 50. Speed of Memory were also multiplied by -1, so that for all domains, greater T-scores reflected superior cognitive function and a negative change from baseline reflects impairment compared to the baseline assessment. T-scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. | FAS for cognition (Core Study) | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | T-score | Baseline and Week 19 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Who Experienced 50% or More Decrease in Seizure Frequency (Core Study) | A responder was a participant who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to the baseline of the Randomization Phase. | FAS for Efficacy: All subjects who sign informed consent, were randomized, received treatment, and had at least one postdose seizure efficacy assessment in seizure record was included in this analysis set. | Posted | Number | Percentage of Participants | From Baseline up to Week 19 LOCF |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percent Change From Baseline in Seizure Frequency Per 28 Days During the Treatment Duration of the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | Seizure frequency was based on overall number of seizures obtained by summing the 4 seizure types (all partial seizure types, that is, simple partial without motor signs, simple partial with motor signs, complex partial, and complex partial with secondary generalization) collected via the patient diary over a particular time interval and re-scaled to 28 days window. | FAS for efficacy | Posted | Median | Full Range | Percent change | Baseline and Week 19 LOCF |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Number of Participants Who Achieved Seizure-Free Status During the Maintenance Period and the Last 28 Days of the Maintenance Period During the Randomization Phase (Core Study) | Number of Participants who were seizure free, were assessed. | FAS for efficacy | Posted | Number | Participants | 13 Week Maintenance Period |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percent Change From Baseline in Seizure Frequency Per 28 Days Over the Perampanel Duration Exposure (Extension Phase) | The median percent change in total partial onset seizure frequency per 28 days during the Extension Phase relative to the Pre-perampanel Baseline from Week 1 of perampanel treatment through successive 13-week intervals (Weeks 1 to 13 for subjects with any data, Weeks 1 to 26 for subjects with exposure of more than 13 weeks, Weeks 1 to 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, and Week 1 to 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks) are presented. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | The Full Analysis Set (FAS) for Efficacy: All participants who received study drug during the Extension Phase, had baseline seizure frequency data, and had at least one observation of valid seizure diary data during the Extension Phase. | Posted | Median | Full Range | Percent change | Week 1-13, Week 14-26, Week 27-39, and Week 40-52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Who Experienced 50% or More Decrease in Seizure Frequency Over the Perampanel Duration Exposure (Extension Phase) | A responder was a participant who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days from pre-perampanel. The percentage of responders from Week 1 of perampanel treatment through successive 13-week intervals (Weeks 1 to 13 for subjects with any data, Weeks 1 to 26 for subjects with exposure of more than 13 weeks, Weeks 1 to 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, and Week 1 to 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks) are presented. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | FAS for Efficacy (Extension Phase) | Posted | Number | Percentage of Participants | Week 1-13, Week 14-26, Week 27-39, and Week 40-52 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline to End of Treatment in Cognition Drug Research (CDR) System Global Cognition Score (Extension Phase) | The CDR System Global Cognitive was derived from the average of 5 CDR System cognitive domain scores (Power of Attention, Continuity of Attention, Quality of Episodic Memory, Quality of Working Memory, and Speed of Memory). Domain scores were normalized to mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 before taking the average. The scale ranged from 0 to 100. An increase in the Global Cognitive Score indicates improvement, while a decrease indicates worsening in cognitive function. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | The Full Analysis Set for Cognition consisted of all randomized subjects who received study drug in the Extension Phase, had baseline cognition data, and had at least 1 postdose CDR System cognitive test battery assessment after Week 27. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, Week 52, and End of Treatment (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first perampanel dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Global Cognition Score Over Time (Extension Phase) | The CDR System Global Cognitive was derived from the average of 5 CDR System cognitive domain scores (Power of Attention, Continuity of Attention, Quality of Episodic Memory, Quality of Working Memory, and Speed of Memory). Domain scores were normalized to mean of 50 and SD of 10 before taking the average. The scale ranged from 0 to 100. An increase in the Global Cognitive Score indicates improvement, while a decrease indicates worsening in cognitive function. The data is presented as CDR System Global Cognitive scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). | FAS for Cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline by Visits in CDR System Domain T-Scores (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores. T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. Wk = Week and EOT=End of Treatment. The perampanel exposure duration starts from the first perampanel dose (in the Core Study for subjects previously randomized to perampanel or Extension Phase for subjects previously randomized to placebo) to the last perampanel dose in the Extension Phase. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week 30, Week 39, Week 52, and EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Power of Attention (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Continuity of Attention (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Quality of Episodic Secondary Memory (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Quality of Working Memory (Short Term) (Extension Phase) | The cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for participants with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for participants with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for participants with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for participants with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for participants with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in CDR System Domain T-Score Over Time: Speed of Memory (Extension Phase) | The Cognitive measure scores are presented as T-Scores at specific intervals (Week 9 for subjects with exposure of more than 9 weeks, Week 19 for subjects with exposure of more than 19 weeks, Week 30 for subjects with exposure of more than 26 weeks, Week 39 for subjects with exposure of more than 39 weeks, and Week 52 for subjects with exposure of more than 52 weeks). T-Scores were normalized standard scores with mean of 50 and SD of 10 with an absolute range of 0-100. The T-Scores are based on the norms from healthy age-matched controls from the CDR System database. Cohen's d-effect sizes were used to estimate the clinical relevance of a change in a parameter. A change in a score of 0.2 SD was defined by Cohen as a small effect size, 0.5 SD a medium effect size and 0.8 SD was considered a large effect size. An increase in the T-scores indicates improvement while a decrease in T-scores indicates worsening. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | T-score | Baseline, Week 9, Week 19, Week, 30, Week 39, and Week 52 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to End of Treatment in Controlled Oral Word Association Test Scores (COWAT) (Extension Phase) | The COWAT test measured the executive function of the frontal lobe and consisted of examinations of category/meaning fluency and letter/phoneme fluency. It consisted of 2 parts which included the Letter Fluency task and the Category Fluency task. For the Letter Fluency task, the participant was given one minute to list as many words as they could which began with a given letter from the following set of 3 letters: F, A, and L. The number of correct words from the 3 sets comprised the Letter Fluency score. For the Category Fluency task, the participant was given one minute to list as many words as they could which belonged to a given category. The number of correct words comprised the Category Fluency score. Total score was calculated as sum of acceptable words generated. The scale ranged from 0-90, with higher scores indicating improvement in language. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale | From Baseline up to Week 52 or up to EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to End of Treatment in Time to Complete Lafayette Grooved Pegboard Test (LGPT) (Extension Phase) | The LGPT test measured visuomotor skills. This test was a manipulative dexterity test that consisted of a metal matrix of 25 holes with randomly positioned slots. The participant was required to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes. The task was completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. The task was timed and the scores were the time taken for the participant to complete all 25 pegs for each hand. If the test cannot be completed within 300 seconds, 300 seconds were recorded for the time. An increase in score (longer time) indicated worsening of visuomotor skills. The time to complete test is presented as mean seconds +/- SD. | FAS for cognition (Extension Phase) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Seconds | From Baseline up to Week 52 or up to EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in Bone Age Minus Age (Months) From Hand X-ray (Extension Phase) | Bone age was measured using hand X-ray. The mean change from Baseline in bone age (months) minus age (months) from the hand x-ray was assessed. "+" means bone age is older than age and "-" means bone age is younger than age. | The Safety Analysis Set consisted of all enrolled subjects who (1) took at least 1 dose of perampanel in the Extension Phase and (2) had a safety assessment after the first dose of perampanel in the Extension Phase. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Months | From Baseline up to Week 52 or up to EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to End of Treatment (EOT) for the Tanner Stage | The effect of perampanel on growth and development in adolescents (male and female), including sexual development was measured using Tanner scale. The scale defined physical measurements of development based on external primary and secondary sex characteristics, such as the size of the breasts, genitals, testicular volume and development of pubic hair. Tanner scale consisted of 5 scales from I to V (1: pre-pubertal to 5: adult). Data is reported as the change from Baseline to End of Treatment for the Tanner Stage. | SAS (Extension Phase) | Posted | Number | participants | From Baseline up to Week 52 or EOT (defined as the last nonmissing value after date of first dose up to 14 days after date of last dose) |
|
|
From start of first dose of study drug up to approximately 23 weeks for the Core Study and up to approximately 83 weeks for the extension phase.
Data are presented as treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), defined as an adverse event that started/increased in severity on/after the first dose of study medication up to 30 days after the final dose of study medication. Safety Analysis Set (SAS), defined as all subjects who took ≥ 1 study drug dose and had a postbaseline safety assessment.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Perampanel (Core Study) | Participants received perampanel 2 mg per day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments to a target dose range of 8 to 12 mg per day. | 5 | 85 | 67 | 85 | ||
| EG001 | Placebo (Core Study) | Participants received matching placebo tablets once a day (6 tablets of placebo). | 2 | 48 | 30 | 48 | ||
| EG002 | Perampanel (Extension Phase) | During the Extension Phase, participants previously assigned to perampanel arm (Core Study) continued taking study medication at the dose achieved at the end of the Core Study once daily. Participants previously assigned to a placebo arm (Core Study) started perampanel dose at 2 mg/day and up-titrated weekly in 2-mg increments up to a maximum dose of 12 mg/day. | 19 | 114 | 95 | 114 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foot fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Accidental overdose | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Intentional overdose | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hand fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ligament rupture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Influenza | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nasopharyngitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Convulsion | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Partial seizures with secondary generalisation | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Simple partial seizures | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Status epilepticus | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Aggression | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Suicidal ideation | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Suicide attempt | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroduodenitis | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Testicular necrosis | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pneumonia | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pituitary tumour benign | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Multiple allergies | Immune system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Drug hypersensitivity | Immune system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Asthenia | General disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fatigue | General disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Local swelling | General disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pyrexia | General disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gait disturbance | General disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Irritability | General disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Adjustment disorder | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Aggression | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Anger | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Anxiety | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bradyphrenia | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Confusional state | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Depressed mood | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Euphoric mood | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Initial insomnia | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Insomnia | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Intentional self-injury | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Mood altered | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Mood swings | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Self-injurious ideation | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tearfulness | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abnormal Behaviour | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Daydreaming | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Depression | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nervousness | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Regressive behaviour | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Somnambulism | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Menstruation irregular | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Testicular torsion | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Concussion | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Contusion | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Excoriation | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Joint injury | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Laceration | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ligament rupture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Muscle strain | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Radius fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tongue injury | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Wrist fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Accidental Overdose | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Animal Bite | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fall | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Foot fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hand fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Head Injury | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Limb Injury | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Sunburn | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood creatine phosphokinase increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood pressure diastolic decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Platelet count decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Thyroxine decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Weight decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Weight increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| White blood cell count decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Alanine aminotransferase increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Aspartate Aminotransferase Increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood Cholesterol Increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood Glucose Decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood Pressure Decreased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood Sodium Increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Blood Triglycerides Increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Electrocardiogram T Wave Abnormal | Investigations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bradycardia | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Angina pectoris | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Sinus bradycardia | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cough | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Epistaxis | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nasal congestion | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Oropharyngeal pain | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Rhinitis allergic | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Rhinorrhoea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tachypnoea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diaphragmatic Spasm | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dyspnoea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Snoring | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Eosinophilia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Monocytosis | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Neutropenia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Anaemia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Leukopenia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ataxia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Balance disorder | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Clumsiness | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cognitive disorder | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Convulsion | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Depressed level of consciousness | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Disturbance in attention | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dizziness | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Drooling | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dysarthria | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Headache | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypoaesthesia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypotonia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Lethargy | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Memory impairment | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Partial seizures with secondary generalisation | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Simple partial seizures | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Slow speech | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Somnolence | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Syncope | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tremor | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Aphasia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Complex Partial Seizures | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Coordination Abnormal | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dyskinesia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dyspraxia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Epilepsy | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Migraine | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Partial Seizures | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Postictal Headache | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diplopia | Eye disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Mydriasis | Eye disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vision blurred | Eye disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Visual impairment | Eye disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myopia | Eye disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Visual acuity reduced | Eye disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vertigo | Ear and labyrinth disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tinnitus | Ear and labyrinth disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abdominal pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abdominal pain upper | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Constipation | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diarrhoea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastritis | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abdominal discomfort | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dry mouth | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastrooesophageal reflux disease | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hyperchlorhydria | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dyspepsia | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Enterocolitis | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Toothache | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Haematuria | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Crystalluria | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Enuresis | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Alopecia | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dermal cyst | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dermatitis contact | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Heat rash | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Rash | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Swelling face | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urticaria | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acne | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dermatitis Acneiform | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Macule | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Photosensitivity reaction | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Rash Maculo-Papular | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Seborrhoeic Dermatitis | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Arthralgia | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Back pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Epiphyses premature fusion | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Joint swelling | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Musculoskeletal pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myalgia | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myositis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Muscle Spasms | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pain In Extremity | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tendonitis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Appetite disorder | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Decreased appetite | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypernatraemia | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypertriglyceridaemia | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Increased appetite | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Obesity | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bronchitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fungal skin infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Influenza | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nasopharyngitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pharyngitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Respiratory tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Sinusitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Skin infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tonsillitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tracheitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Upper respiratory tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vaginitis bacterial | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Varicella | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Viral upper respiratory tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acarodermatitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cellulitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cystitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fungal infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroenteritis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Laryngitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Localised infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Oral Herpes | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pneumonia | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Rhinitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Viral infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bacterial vaginosis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Miliaria | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.1 | Systematic Assessment |
|
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eisai Call Center | Eisai Inc. | 888-422-4743 |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D004827 | Epilepsy |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001927 | Brain Diseases |
| D002493 | Central Nervous System Diseases |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| C551441 | perampanel |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Lost to Follow-up |
|
| Subject Choice |
|
| Inadequate Therapeutic Effect |
|
| Male |
|
| Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Counts |
|---|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|