SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2016
Dose effects of lacosamide as add-on therapy for partial-onset seizure in adult.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lacosamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Lacosamide as an Adjunctive Treatment in Adults With Refractory Epilepsy.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Plasma lacosamide monitoring in children with epilepsy: Focus on reference therapeutic range and influencing factors.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to evaluate the dose effects of lacosamide on the efficacy and safety as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizure in adults. We searched online databases such as Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Online Library, and Clinicaltrial.gov for randomized control trials. A meta-analysis was performed on RevMan 5.3 software. Four randomized control trials with 1855 patients out of 310 citations and 30 registered trials were identified. 400 mg/d was more effective than 200 mg/d [RR 1.23 (95 % CI 1.05-1.45), P = 0.01], but the 600 mg/d didn't show more benefit than 400 mg/d [RR 1.01 (95 % CI 0.81-1.27), P = 0.90]. Increasing the dosage led to higher incidence of quitting the medication because of adverse events [400 vs. 200 mg/d RR 2.17 (95 % CI 1.15-4.11), P = 0.02; 600 vs. 400 mg/d RR 1.55 (95 % CI 1.12-2.15), P = 0.009]. Incidence of serious adverse events did not occur with the increase of dose [400 vs. 200 mg/d RR 1.26 (95 % CI 0.50-3.20), P = 0.62], [600 vs. 400 mg/d RR 0.52 (95 % CI 0.21-1.30), P = 0.16]. A dose of 400 mg/d resulted in a higher chance of dizziness [RR 1.50 (95 % CI 1.02-2.20), P = 0.04], vomiting [RR 1.73 (95 % CI 1.03-2.90), P = 0.04], and diplopia [RR 1.98 (95 % CI 1.19-3.30), P = 0.008] than that of 200 mg/d. 400 mg/d is the optimal dose for efficacy. The dose of 200 mg/d has the best safety for less occurrence of adverse events and less quitting. Current evidence suggests that a dose of 600 mg/d is unnecessary, except for particular reasons.
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.