SynthesisWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2024
Anticonvulsive treatment in autoimmune encephalitis: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2024. 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.
- Autoimmune neurology-a rapidly evolving field.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2024Article
- 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpileptic seizures are a common manifestation of autoimmune encephalitis (AIE). Immunosuppression (IT) is an efficient therapeutic approach, particularly in AIE associated with antibodies against extracellular structures. The role of antiseizure medication (ASM) is less clear. However, it may be beneficial in disease refractory to IT or in chronic post-AIE epilepsy.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review assessing the PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify all reports on patients with epileptic seizures due to AIE in whom ASM was used and report it according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. We included case series (minimum 3 eligible patients), retrospective and prospective observational studies, and randomized controlled trials. The main outcome assessed was therapeutic efficacy of ASM. Secondary outcomes comprise number, type, and adverse effects of ASM. Descriptive statistics were used. The level of evidence was assessed according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
resultsWe screened a total of 3371 studies and included 30 (7 prospective, 23 retrospective). The reports cover a total of 708 patients, the majority (72.5%) suffering from AIE with antibodies against extracellular structures. Type of AIE, seizure frequency, and number and type of ASM used were heterogenous. While most patients profited from IT and/or ASM, the effect of ASM could rarely be isolated. Nine studies report on patients who received ASM monotherapy or were on ASM for a relevant length of time before IT initiation or after IT failure. One study reports a significant association between seizure freedom and use of sodium channel inhibitors. However, levels of evidence were generally low.
conclusionFew robust data exist on the particular efficacy of ASM in autoimmune epileptic seizures. While these patients generally seem to respond less well to ASM or surgical interventions, sodium channel blockers may have an additional benefit compared to other substances. However, levels of evidence are low and early IT remains the mainstay of AIE therapy. Future trials should address optimal ASM selection and dosing in AIE.
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.