ArticleJournal of neurology2013
Usefulness of intravenous lacosamide in status epilepticus.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Randomized trial of lacosamide versus fosphenytoin for nonconvulsive seizures.Annals of neurology · 2018Trial
- Effective Protection Against Status Epilepticus Caused by Lithium-Pilocarpine: Combination of Midazolam and Lacosamide.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Observational
- Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: Prognosis and Recent Advances in Management.Aging and disease · 2021Review
- Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee.Epilepsy currents · 2020Article
- Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update.Current opinion in critical care · 2019Review
- Review
- Article
- Newer Antiepileptic Drugs in Status Epilepticus: Prescription Trends and Outcomes in Comparison with Traditional Agents.CNS drugs · 2017Article
- 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
- Practice parameters in management of status epileptics.Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lacosamide (LCM) is a treatment option for status epilepticus (SE) described in several series. We therefore proposed to describe its use in status epilepticus patients in our hospital. All patients admitted to our hospital for SE from September 2010 to April 2012 were evaluated. We collected related variables including the type of SE, etiology, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used, loading dose of AEDs, cessation of SE after AEDs, ICU admission and mortality. In those patients receiving LCM, we reviewed the infusion rate and time to response. We compared patients receiving LCM with patients in whom it was not used. This was a retrospective and uncontrolled study. A total of 92 patients were included; 67.7 % of SE patients who received LCM responded to treatment. The vast majority of the patients presented non-convulsive and motor focal SE. When we selected patients to receive four or more AEDs, the LCM efficacy was 55.6 %, a very similar result compared to when it was not used. Subsequently, we analyzed the sample regarding the AED administered as the second or third line of treatment, and the responder rate was significantly higher when LCM was used (84.6 vs. 47.8 %, p 0.041). After an adjusted regression analysis, the use of LCM was independently associated with cessation of SE. The total percentage of undesirable effects was very low (12 %), and they were all mild. No relationship was found between a specific etiology and better response. LCM is a useful drug that represents an alternative in the treatment of non-convulsive or focal motor SE. Its efficacy might be more important when it is administered as a second or third option after benzodiazepines. A randomized trial is required to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24122063What 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.