ReviewRevista de neurologia2021
[Treatment of epilepsy with perampanel: conversion from add-on therapy to monotherapy].
Review in Revista de neurologia, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Is there scientific evidence for the use of perampanel in neuropathic pain?]Revista de neurologia · 2022Article
- Perampanel and childhood absence epilepsy: A real life experience.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerampanel (PER) is an antiepileptic drug approved in Europe as add-on therapy for patients with focal onset seizures (with or without secondary generalisation) from the age of 4 years, and for primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures from 7 years of age.
objectiveReview current evidence on treatment with PER monotherapy after conversion from adjunctive therapy. DEVELOPMENT: Two retrospective multicentre studies in which PER was used as monotherapy show that low doses (6-8 mg/day) of PER were effective and well tolerated in a subgroup of patients with less severe epilepsies than patients who participated in clinical trials (where PER was used as add-on therapy). In these studies, the retention rate exceeded 90% at 3 months, and 70% at 6, and 12 months. The responder rate was > 75% at 3 months, and the rate of seizure-free patients exceeded 50% at 3 and 6 months, and 37% at 12 months. Compared to other observational studies and clinical trials where PER was used as add-on therapy, no adverse effects other than those already known were observed. Four other studies examining the effects of conversion to PER monotherapy in a small number of patients support these results.
conclusionsIn routine clinical practice, conversion to PER monotherapy, at relatively low doses, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with focal and generalised tonic-clonic seizures.
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.