ReviewJournal of neurology2021
Efficacy and safety of perampanel in refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus: cohort study of 81 patients and literature review.
Review in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiseizure medication dosing and monitoring in the intensive care unit: a practical narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Effectiveness and Safety of Perampanel in Refractory Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence From a Chinese Cohort.Brain and behavior · 2025Observational
- The Potential Role of Glutamate Receptors and their Antagonists or Modulators in Migraine Therapy.Current neuropharmacology · 2025Review
- Perampanel as an Add-On Therapy in Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus and Postanoxic Encephalopathy: A Real-Life Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
- Long-term treatment with Perampanel of Chinese patients with focal-onset seizures, especially in sleep-related epilepsy: a prospective real-world observational study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Perampanel in Refractory and Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus with Suspected Inflammatory Etiology: A Case Series.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Roles of Glutamate Receptors and Their Antagonists in Status Epilepticus, Refractory Status Epilepticus, and Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- A nomogram to predict the treatment benefit of perampanel in drug-resistant epilepsy patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-emerging role of AMPA and kainate subtypes of ionotropic glutamate receptors.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- The broad-spectrum activity of perampanel: state of the art and future perspective of AMPA antagonism beyond epilepsy.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- PERMIT study: a global pooled analysis study of the effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel in routine clinical practice.Journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Optimal Use of Perampanel in Asian Patients with Epilepsy: Expert Opinion.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2021Review
- Perampanel use in pediatric autoimmune encephalitis-related seizures and epilepsy: a retrospective case series.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effective dose of perampanel in status epilepticus (SE), refractory SE (RSE), and super-refractory SE (SRSE) in humans is unknown, and the potential of perampanel in treating SE has not been evaluated in a large cohort.
methodsData of intensive care patients with RSE and SRSE treated with perampanel were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.
resultsEighty-one patients received perampanel, including 39 females with median age 64 [17-91] years, perampanel responders (n = 27), and non-responders (n = 54). The initial perampanel dose was positively associated with treatment response in patients with RSE or SRSE (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.57, p = 0.025), while the maximum dose was negatively associated with treatment response (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96, p = 0.022). Hypoxia caused seizures in six patients; five died in hospital and one had severe disability. A statistically non-significant tendency toward better response was found in patients with unique SE type and cause, particularly in nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) without coma (NCSE without coma vs. generalized tonic-clonic seizure: OR = 4.14, 95% CI 0.98-17.47, p = 0.053). In the high-dose (≥ 16 mg/day) groups, although distributions of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were similar between perampanel responders and non-responders at discharge, a greater proportion of perampanel responders had less change in mRS scores from baseline than did perampanel non-responders (median mRS: 0 vs 4, p = 0.064). No cardiorespiratory adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were noted with perampanel treatment.
conclusionsPerampanel is effective and has a satisfactory safety profile in the emergency treatment of established RSE and SRSE.
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.