Neuralgia
Conditions
Keywords
Post-Herpetic Neuralgia, PHN)
Brief summary
The purpose of the study is to determine the efficacy and safety of Perampanel (E2007) in patients with Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN).
Interventions
2 mg titrated up to 8 mg maximum; taken once daily.
DRUGPlacebo
2 mg titrated up to 8 mg maximum; taken once daily.
Sponsors
Eisai Inc.
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
To be included, patients must meet the following: 1. Provide written informed consent, prior to entering the study or undergoing any study procedures. 2. Male and female patients ≥18 years of age. Females should be either of nonchildbearing potential as a result of surgery or menopause (1 year after onset), or of childbearing potential and practicing a medically acceptable method of contraception. Acceptable contraception includes: abstinence, a barrier method plus spermicide, or intrauterine device \[IUD\]. Those females using hormonal contraceptives must also be using an additional approved method of contraception (e.g., a barrier method plus spermicide or IUD). Contraceptive use must start at least 1 month before Visit 1, be practiced throughout the entire study period, and continue for 1 month after the end of the study. They must also have a negative serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) at Visit 1, and a negative urine pregnancy test at Baseline Visit 2. 3. PHN of at least 6 months duration; the onset of PHN is defined as the time from healing of herpes zoster skin lesions. 4. Pain over the past 6 months, and not in a clinically identifiable improving or worsening trend, based on medical history. 5. Score of ≥ 40 mm on the visual analog scale (VAS) of the short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) at both Visit 1 and Baseline (Visit 2 prior to randomization). 6. Have completed the patient diary for at least 6 of the 7 days prior to Visit 2 (Baseline). 7. Average daily pain score of ≥ 4, on 11-point Likert scale during the 7 days prior to randomization \[from the diaries\]. 8. Reliable and willing and able to cooperate with all study procedures, including the following examples: * Accurately entering the diary on a daily basis * Returning for study visits on the required dates * Accurately and reliably reporting symptoms (including treatment-emergent signs and symptoms) * Taking study drug as required by protocol 9. Be on stable analgesic treatment (same medication(s)) or stable nonpharmacological pain treatment for at least 4 weeks prior to Visit 1 and remain on this stable treatment throughout the study. Nonpharmacologic pain treatment includes the following: * relaxation/hypnosis * physical or occupational therapy * mental-health counseling * acupuncture * injections * blocks, etc. * Episodic or periodic pharmacologic treatments such as monthly injections for treatment of pain (eg, local anesthetics) will not be permitted. * Up to 4 g of acetaminophen/day is permitted as rescue medication, as needed, during the trial.
Exclusion criteria
Patients with any of the following are to be excluded: 1. Any condition that could interfere with the conduct of the trial or confound efficacy evaluations including the following examples: pain or neuropathy from another cause (including painful diabetic neuropathy), such as central pain, radiculopathy, painful arthritis, etc. 2. Motivation by secondary gain, or where there is a negative-incentive to achieving pain and functional relief (eg, litigation). This will be determined from the medical history and is at the discretion of the investigator. 3. Inability to cooperate with protocol, for any reason. 4. Clinically significant, progressive, or potentially unstable disease of any body system including cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, CNS, psychiatric, endocrine, or immunologic, including patients with any of the following broad disease categories: 1. Systemic infections (eg, human immunodeficiency virus \[HIV\], hepatitis, tuberculosis \[TB\], syphilis); lack of appropriate medical history of these conditions is acceptable, 2. History of past (within the past 12 months) or present drug or alcohol abuse as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - 4th Edition (DSM IV) criteria, 3. History of acute coronary syndrome within the past 12 months, 4. Active cancer within the previous 5 years (the exception is fully treated, non-melanoma skin cancer such as basal cell carcinoma), 5. Systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy within the past 5 years, 6. History of major depression, bipolar disease, psychosis or suicidal ideation or attempts within the past 5 years, 7. History of major systemic allergy such as anaphylactoid reactions or Stevens-Johnson syndrome (however, patients with limited allergies such as contact dermatitis or minor allergy to penicillin are acceptable). 5. Any of the following laboratory abnormalities at Visit 1: 1. Clinically significant ECG abnormality, including prolonged QTc (defined as QTcB \> 450 msec), 2. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ≥ 1.5 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), 3. Clinically significant abnormal white blood cell (WBC), absolute neutrophil, or platelet count values, 4. Any other clinically significant laboratory value. 6. Exposure to an investigational drug within the 30 days prior to Visit 1 or exposure ever to perampanel. 7. Females who are pregnant, lactating, or planning to become pregnant during the study. 8. Use of any medication known to be a strong inducer of CYP3A4 activity within 4 weeks prior to Visit 1; use of CYP3A4 inducers is prohibited for the entire study duration.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data) | Baseline and Week 15 | Average pain scores are based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale, where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain score for baseline was calculated using the average of the last 7 scores prior to randomization, and the average pain score for Week 15 was computed using the average of the last 7 on-treatment scores prior to Week 15, and they were reported by treatment group. |
| Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Baseline and Week 15 | A responder was a participant with at least 30 percent reduction in average pain scores, using modified BOCF, based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain score for baseline was calculated using the average of the last 7 scores prior to randomization, and the average pain score for Week 15 was computed using the average of the last 7 on-treatment scores prior to Week 15, and they were reported by treatment group. |
| Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Baseline and Week 15 | A responder was a participant with at least 50 percent reduction in average pain scores, using modified BOCF, based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain score for baseline was calculated using the average of the last 7 scores prior to randomization, and the average pain score for Week 15 was computed using the average of the last 7 on-treatment scores prior to Week 15, and they were reported by treatment group. |
| Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 1 through Week 16 | Change from baseline in average pain scores by week based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain scores were calculated as the average of available scores in each week, and were reported by treatment group. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | Baseline and Week 15 | The HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) is a widely used, self-reported, 14-item instrument that measures the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. It consists of 2 subscales; a 7-item anxiety subscale (HADS-A) and a 7-item depression subscale (HADS-D). HADS-D consists of a 7-item scale, each scored on a 4-pt scale (0, 1, 2, or 3), where a higher score indicates worse depression. Range of possible HADS depression subscale scores is 0 to 21, and normal=(0-7), mild=(8-10), moderate=(11-14), and severe=(15-21). |
| Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores | Baseline and Week 15 | The average of the last 7 available sleep scores prior to the visit, based on the 11-point Likert-type numerical rating scale for sleep interference (where 0=pain did not interfere with sleep, to 10=pain completely interfered with sleep \[unable to sleep\]), and they were reported by treatment group. |
| Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | Week 15 | Allodynia is defined as a painful reaction to a non-painful stimulus. |
| Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Week 15 | Changes were calculated using the modified BOCF method |
| Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Week 15 | Changes were calculated using the modified BOCF method |
| Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | Baseline and Week 15 | The HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) is a widely used, self-reported, 14-item instrument that measures the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. It consists of 2 subscales; a 7-item anxiety subscale (HADS-A) and a 7-item depression subscale (HADS-D). HADS-A consists of a 7-item scale, each scored on a 4-pt scale (0, 1, 2, or 3), where a higher score indicates worse anxiety. Range of possible HADS anxiety subscale scores is 0 to 21, and normal=(0-7), mild=(8-10), moderate=(11-14), and severe=(15-21). |
Countries
Canada, United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 Placebo (Cohort 1 and 2 differed only in timing of their scheduled visits. Cohort 1 was scheduled to visit every 3 weeks. Cohort 2 was scheduled to visit every week for the first 6 weeks and every 3 weeks thereafter) | 26 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration Perampanel 8mg (Subjects started at 2mg/day at Baseline and were up-titrated at 3-week intervals by 2mg steps to a total of 8mg or MTD \[maximum tolerated dose\] and continued at this dose until Week 15) | 53 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 Placebo (Cohort 1 and 2 differed only in timing of their scheduled visits. Cohort 1 was scheduled to visit every 3 weeks. Cohort 2 was scheduled to visit every week for the first 6 weeks and every 3 weeks thereafter) | 22 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration Perampanel 8mg (Subjects started at 2mg/day at Baseline and were up-titrated at 1-week intervals by 2mg steps to a total of 8mg or MTD and continued at this dose until Week 15) | 22 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration Perampanel 8mg (Subjects started at 2mg/day at Baseline and were up-titrated at 2-week intervals by 2mg steps to a total of 8mg or MTD and continued at this dose until Week 15) | 23 |
| Total | 146 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 | FG003 | FG004 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Adverse Event | 5 | 19 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
| Overall Study | Lack of Efficacy | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Overall Study | Other | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Overall Study | Physician Decision | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Protocol Violation | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Total | Placebo Cohort 1 | Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Placebo Cohort 2 | Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized ≥65 to <75 years | 35 Participants | 8 Participants | 15 Participants | 5 Participants | 4 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Age, Customized <65 years | 42 Participants | 10 Participants | 15 Participants | 6 Participants | 2 Participants | 9 Participants |
| Age, Customized ≥75 years | 69 Participants | 8 Participants | 23 Participants | 11 Participants | 16 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian | 3 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black | 9 Participants | 1 Participants | 7 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Other | 7 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 127 Participants | 25 Participants | 43 Participants | 20 Participants | 21 Participants | 18 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 75 Participants | 11 Participants | 31 Participants | 8 Participants | 11 Participants | 14 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 71 Participants | 15 Participants | 22 Participants | 14 Participants | 11 Participants | 9 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — | — / — | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 11 / 26 | 36 / 53 | 14 / 22 | 18 / 22 | 16 / 23 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 1 / 26 | 7 / 53 | 2 / 22 | 1 / 22 | 1 / 23 |
Outcome results
Primary
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week
Change from baseline in average pain scores by week based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain scores were calculated as the average of available scores in each week, and were reported by treatment group.
Time frame: Week 1 through Week 16
Population: ITT Population
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 9 | -0.53 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 16 | -1.79 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 1 | -0.25 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.66 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 15 | -0.88 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.96 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 8 | -0.68 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 7 | -0.80 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.57 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 3 | -0.68 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.2 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 14 | -1.00 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.85 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 6 | -0.81 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.37 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 4 | -0.82 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 13 | -0.80 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.72 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 5 | -1.13 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.93 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 2 | -0.39 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 12 | -0.99 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.78 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 11 | -0.96 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.67 |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 10 | -0.88 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.6 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 15 | -2.42 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.4 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 1 | -0.35 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.03 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 3 | -1.01 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.61 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 5 | -1.46 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.93 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 16 | -3.17 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.18 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 9 | -1.99 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.34 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 10 | -2.17 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.3 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 11 | -2.33 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.28 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 12 | -2.52 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.36 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 13 | -2.13 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.31 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 2 | -0.60 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 4 | -1.29 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.88 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 6 | -1.39 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.96 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 7 | -1.74 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.12 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 8 | -1.92 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.32 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 14 | -2.38 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.27 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 12 | -1.01 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.67 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 16 | -0.65 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.93 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 2 | -0.64 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.19 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 1 | -0.43 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.88 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 15 | -1.17 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.91 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 13 | -1.05 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.78 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 6 | -0.92 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.66 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 10 | -1.14 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.92 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 9 | -1.08 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.79 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 8 | -1.03 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.66 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 3 | -0.74 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 11 | -1.01 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.64 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 14 | -1.17 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.83 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 4 | -0.89 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.48 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 5 | -0.74 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.58 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 7 | -1.21 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.74 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 11 | -1.98 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.63 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 9 | -1.24 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.88 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 10 | -1.48 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.71 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 5 | -1.68 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.93 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 12 | -1.82 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 7 | -1.52 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.32 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 1 | -0.44 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.75 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 3 | -1.22 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.53 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 2 | -0.86 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.19 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 4 | -1.64 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.68 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 13 | -1.77 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.88 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 15 | -1.32 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 14 | -1.46 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.72 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 6 | -1.53 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.23 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 16 | -0.88 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.97 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 8 | -1.46 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.21 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 5 | -1.23 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 13 | -1.96 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.92 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 1 | -0.55 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.71 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 2 | -0.74 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.23 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 14 | -2.19 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.91 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 10 | -1.36 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.38 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 3 | -1.19 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.32 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 8 | -1.68 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.01 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 7 | -1.50 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.67 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 12 | -1.40 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.55 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 15 | -2.09 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.77 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 16 | -0.95 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.39 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 11 | -1.46 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.51 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 6 | -1.31 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.43 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 4 | -1.68 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.49 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores by Week | Week 9 | -1.73 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.24 |
Primary
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data)
Average pain scores are based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale, where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain score for baseline was calculated using the average of the last 7 scores prior to randomization, and the average pain score for Week 15 was computed using the average of the last 7 on-treatment scores prior to Week 15, and they were reported by treatment group.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 15
Population: Intent-to-Treat (ITT) Population- group of subjects who were randomized, took study drug, and had at least 1 efficacy assessment at Baseline. The modified Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF) method was used.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data) | -0.55 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.56 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data) | -1.30 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.13 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data) | -0.95 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.77 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data) | -0.50 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.35 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline in Average Pain Scores to Week 15/ End of Treatment (EOT) (Including Modified BOCF Data) | -1.01 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.52 |
Primary
Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain
A responder was a participant with at least 30 percent reduction in average pain scores, using modified BOCF, based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain score for baseline was calculated using the average of the last 7 scores prior to randomization, and the average pain score for Week 15 was computed using the average of the last 7 on-treatment scores prior to Week 15, and they were reported by treatment group.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 15
Population: ITT Population (Modified BOCF)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 80.8 Percentage of Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 19.2 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 71.7 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 28.3 Percentage of Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 77.3 Percentage of Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 22.7 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 13.6 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 86.4 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 73.9 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 30 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 26.1 Percentage of Participants |
Primary
Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain
A responder was a participant with at least 50 percent reduction in average pain scores, using modified BOCF, based on pain intensity (11-point Likert-type numerical scale where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain), reported by the subjects in a daily diary. The average pain score for baseline was calculated using the average of the last 7 scores prior to randomization, and the average pain score for Week 15 was computed using the average of the last 7 on-treatment scores prior to Week 15, and they were reported by treatment group.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 15
Population: ITT Population (Modified BOCF)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 11.5 Percentage of Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 88.5 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 20.8 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 79.2 Percentage of Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 13.6 Percentage of Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 86.4 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 90.9 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 9.1 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Responders (Yes) | 13.0 Percentage of Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Responder Rate: Subjects With at Least 50 Percent Reduction in Pain | Non-Responders (No) | 87.0 Percentage of Participants |
Secondary
Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF)
Allodynia is defined as a painful reaction to a non-painful stimulus.
Time frame: Week 15
Population: ITT population (Modified BOCF)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | No | 4 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | Yes | 22 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | Yes | 47 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | No | 6 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | No | 5 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | Yes | 17 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | Yes | 17 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | No | 5 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | No | 4 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Analysis of Allodynia (Present/Not Present) at Week 15/EOT- by Treatment Groups ITT Population (Modified BOCF) | Yes | 19 Participants |
Secondary
Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores
The average of the last 7 available sleep scores prior to the visit, based on the 11-point Likert-type numerical rating scale for sleep interference (where 0=pain did not interfere with sleep, to 10=pain completely interfered with sleep \[unable to sleep\]), and they were reported by treatment group.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 15
Population: ITT Population (Modified BOCF)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores | -0.58 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.3 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores | -0.46 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.92 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores | -1.16 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.6 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores | -0.48 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in Average Sleep Interference Scores | -0.75 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.41 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF)
The HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) is a widely used, self-reported, 14-item instrument that measures the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. It consists of 2 subscales; a 7-item anxiety subscale (HADS-A) and a 7-item depression subscale (HADS-D). HADS-A consists of a 7-item scale, each scored on a 4-pt scale (0, 1, 2, or 3), where a higher score indicates worse anxiety. Range of possible HADS anxiety subscale scores is 0 to 21, and normal=(0-7), mild=(8-10), moderate=(11-14), and severe=(15-21).
Time frame: Baseline and Week 15
Population: ITT population (Modified BOCF)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | -0.2 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | 0.0 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.25 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | 0.1 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.9 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | 0.0 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.28 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Anxiety Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | -0.1 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.35 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF)
The HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) is a widely used, self-reported, 14-item instrument that measures the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. It consists of 2 subscales; a 7-item anxiety subscale (HADS-A) and a 7-item depression subscale (HADS-D). HADS-D consists of a 7-item scale, each scored on a 4-pt scale (0, 1, 2, or 3), where a higher score indicates worse depression. Range of possible HADS depression subscale scores is 0 to 21, and normal=(0-7), mild=(8-10), moderate=(11-14), and severe=(15-21).
Time frame: Baseline and Week 15
Population: ITT population (Modified BOCF)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | -0.1 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.51 |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | 0.1 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.11 |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | -0.6 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.28 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | 0.2 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.66 |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Change From Baseline to Week 15/EOT in HADS Depression Subscale Scores (Modified BOCF) | -0.3 Scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.49 |
Secondary
Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT
Changes were calculated using the modified BOCF method
Time frame: Week 15
Population: Subset of ITT population used, including subjects that completed CGIC at Week 15 visit, and using BOCF (baseline observation carried forward) subjects that terminated prior to Week 15 received a 'No Change' if due to AE or Lack of Therapeutic Efficacy, subjects who discontinued due to other reasons used CGIC scores from Early Termination visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 16 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 2 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 8 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 3 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 28 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 6 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 2 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 14 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 2 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 2 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 3 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 16 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 3 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 15 Participants |
Secondary
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT
Changes were calculated using the modified BOCF method
Time frame: Week 15
Population: Subset of ITT population used, including subjects that completed PGIC at Week 15 visit, and using BOCF (baseline observation carried forward) subjects that terminated prior to Week 15 received a 'No Change' if due to AE or Lack of Therapeutic Efficacy, subjects who discontinued due to other reasons used PGIC scores from Early Termination visit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 3 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 13 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 1 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 27 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 8 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 4 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 1 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 1, 3-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 11 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 4 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 3 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 1 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Placebo Cohort 2 | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 2 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 1 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 1 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 1-week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 13 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally improved | 4 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much worse | 0 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Minimally worse | 1 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Much improved | 1 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | Very much improved | 1 Participants |
| Perampanel Cohort 2, 2- Week Titration | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 15/EOT | No change | 15 Participants |