Trial reportAdvances in therapy2026
Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Cenobamate in Chinese Participants with Focal Seizure.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04557085 (A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Cenobamate Adjunctive Therapy in Subjects With Partial Onset Seizures, With Optional Open-Label Extension), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Cenobamate Adjunctive Therapy in Subjects With Partial Onset Seizures, With Optional Open-Label Extension
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe treatment landscape for focal seizures in China is distinct from those in other regions, with oxcarbazepine and sodium valproate being more commonly used than newer antiseizure medications (ASMs). Cenobamate, a novel ASM, has demonstrated significant efficacy in reducing seizure frequency. However, its efficacy and safety have not been assessed within the Chinese population.
methodsThe current study analyzed the 24-week double-blind period data of Chinese participants from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04557085). Efficacy was assessed by determining seizure frequency reduction and responder rates across the cenobamate dose groups (100, 200, and 400 mg) and concomitant ASM groups. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) during the double-blind treatment period.
resultsThis post hoc analysis included 227 participants with a median age of 32 (interquartile range 24-40) years with focal seizures across 24 sites in China. Cenobamate demonstrated a greater median percentage reduction in seizure frequency (100 mg, 39.5%, 200 mg, 88.0%, 400 mg, 100.0%) compared to placebo (24.6%). The responder rate of ≥ 50% was higher in the cenobamate groups (100 mg, 35.4%, 200 mg, 76.0%, 400 mg, 89.4%) compared to the placebo group (22.0%). A greater seizure reduction and responder rates were observed when cenobamate was administered alongside sodium channel blockers (SCBs) and non-SCBs, demonstrating better efficacy compared to placebo. On the basis of the number of baseline ASMs, cenobamate demonstrated seizure reduction and higher responder rates across all ASM groups as compared with placebo. Cenobamate demonstrated an acceptable safety profile across all dosage groups, with most AEs being mild to moderate. Common TEAEs reported included dizziness and somnolence.
conclusionCenobamate demonstrated a very favorable efficacy and safety profile in Chinese participants with focal seizures. The combination of cenobamate with both SCB and non-SCB treatments was effective in reducing seizure frequency and improved responder rates compared to placebo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.