Observational studyNeurocritical care2014
Intravenous lacosamide in refractory seizure clusters and status epilepticus: comparison of 200 and 400 mg loading doses.
Observational study in Neurocritical care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Antiseizure medication dosing and monitoring in the intensive care unit: a practical narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee.Epilepsy currents · 2020Article
- Role of Epileptic Activity in Older Adults With Delirium, a Prospective Continuous EEG Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
- Review
- The efficacy of lacosamide as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy and its use in status epilepticus: clinical trial evidence and experience.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2017Review
- Current understanding of the mechanism of action of the antiepileptic drug lacosamide.Epilepsy research · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) remains largely empirical. Lacosamide (LCM) is a new anticonvulsant available in intravenous (IV) form, but its optimal dosing regimen for the treatment of RSE is unknown. We compared safety and efficacy of two loading doses: 200 and 400 mg.
methodsProspective observational study of all patients who received IV LCM for RSE or seizure clusters between October 2010 and December 2012. A first group received an IV load of 200 mg of LCM. After the initial part of the study, and due to poor results with this dosage, a second group received a loading dose of 400 mg. Outcome measures included response rate, time to response, and adverse events.
resultsThere was a trend in favor of a higher response rate to LCM in the 400 mg group [7/14 (50 %) vs. 2/11 (18 %), respectively; p = 0.2]. Early responses (occurring within 3 h of initiation of LCM) were significantly more frequent in the 400 mg group [4/14 (28 %) vs. 0/11 (0 %); p = 0.026]. Overall, 9/25 patients (36 %) responded to LCM and seizures were terminated in eight more patients (32 %), by adding other anticonvulsants. The following adverse events were attributed to LCM: myoclonus and confusion, increase in seizure frequency, vertigo, ataxia, and an asymptomatic increase in liver enzymes level. All occurred in the 200 mg group. No skin rash, renal, cardiac, or hemodynamic side effects were observed in any group.
conclusionsIn this small prospective observational study, an initial dose of 400 mg of IV LCM was associated with a higher proportion of early termination of RSE and with a trend toward a higher response rate.
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.