ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Antiepileptic drug use in Italian children over a decade.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pharmacovigilance study on antiepileptic medications in a paediatric hospital in Italy.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023Observational
- Traceability of Pediatric Antibiotic Purchasing Pathways in Italy: A Nationwide Real-World Drug Utilization Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- The Role of European Healthcare Databases for Post-Marketing Drug Effectiveness, Safety and Value Evaluation: Where Does Italy Stand?Drug safety · 2019Review
- Anti-epileptic drug utilisation in paediatrics: a systematic review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2017Article
- Meropenem-induced low valproate levels in a cerebral palsy child.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to evaluate prescription profiles of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and to assess hospitalizations and specialist visits in pediatric patients with epilepsy.
methodsThe data sources were administrative health databases of Italy's Lombardy Region, which collect prescriptions for drugs, diagnostic tests, specialist visits, and hospital discharge forms. All patients aged 0-16 years with at least seven AED (group N03A of the International Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification) prescriptions over two consecutive years between 2003 and 2010 were identified and classified as prevalent or incident cases (no prescriptions in two previous years). The first prescription to incident cases was analyzed. For each incident case, drug prescriptions, specialist visits, diagnostic tests, and hospitalizations in the 24 months following the first (index) prescription were monitored.
resultsA total of 6527 incident cases (5.4/10,000 person-years, 95% CI 5.4-5.5) were identified. Valproic acid and carbamazepine were the most prescribed drugs (65.9 and 15.0%, respectively). The use of newer AEDs increased over time. In the 24-month observation period, 74% of incident cases continued the treatment with the index AED. The percentage of cases who changed therapy was higher in preschoolers (34%) and decreased with age. In all, 21% of incident cases were hospitalized for epilepsy and 86% had a specialist visit in the 24 months after the first AED prescription.
conclusionsIn conclusion, older AEDs, particularly valproic acid, remained the first therapeutic approach to pediatric epilepsy in Italy. For three quarters of cases, the initial AED treatment was likely effective and well tolerated.
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.