ArticleBMJ case reports2015
Status epilepticus developing during lacosamide monotherapy.
Article in BMJ case reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lacosamide as an Adjunctive Therapy in Drug-Resistant Absence Epilepsy: Successful Treatment of Four Patients.Iranian journal of child neurology · 2024Article
- Lacosamide treatment of childhood refractory focal epilepsy: the first reported side effect in paediatric patients.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two cases with partial onset epilepsy who developed status epilepticus (SE) on lacosamide (LCM) monotherapy are reported. LCM is an effective adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) for partial-onset epilepsy and as infusion in SE. It has also shown efficacy in monotherapy. The reported cases achieved control of seizures with adjunctive LCM treatment and were afterwards converted to monotherapy. Both patients subsequently developed SE while on LCM monotherapy. They were on monotherapy for at least 2 months after withdrawal of concomitant AEDs precluding the possibility of withdrawal-induced SE. Pharmacovigilance is indicated when LCM is administered in monotherapy in order to assess its proper therapeutic potential and its putative limitations especially in cases where it may prove ineffective. Moreover, vigilance is necessary whenever any concomitant antiepileptic is tapered regardless of the substances used. Higher doses may be needed when an AED is used in monotherapy.
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.