ArticleNeurocritical care2024
Perampanel as an Add-On Therapy in Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus and Postanoxic Encephalopathy: A Real-Life Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the efficacy of perampanel in refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and postanoxic encephalopathy (PAE) are limited; its use in such conditions is currently off-label.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with RSE, including PAE, exhibiting electroencephalographic patterns indicative of status epilepticus who were treated at our center (January 2018 to December 2022) with assessment of clinical and electroencephalographic outcomes.
resultsThirty-six patients were included in the study, of whom 29 had nonanoxic RSE and 7 had PAE. Within the nonanoxic RSE subgroup, 45% (13 of 29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 27-63%) of study participants were responders, 34% (10 of 29; 95% CI 17-52%) were partial responders, and 21% (6 of 29; 95% CI 6-35%) were nonresponders. In the PAE subgroup (n = 7), no patients fully responded to perampanel; 43% (3 of 7; 95% CI 6-80%) were partial responders, and 57% (4 of 7; 95% CI 20-95%) were nonresponders. Responder and nonresponder study participants exhibited overlapping baseline characteristics. No significant differences in duration of hospitalization were observed between responders and nonresponders in both subgroups. Responders in the RSE subgroup had a median discharge modified Rankin Scale score of 3 (interquartile range 3-4), and nonresponders had a median discharge modified Rankin Scale score of 5 (interquartile range 5-6).
conclusionsDespite limitations from the retrospective design and the small population size, this study suggests that perampanel use in nonanoxic RSE appears to yield promising results at moderate doses, including a tendency toward a better functional outcome at discharge, without significant adverse effects. However, in patients with PAE, the drug seems to show suboptimal performance. Perampanel appears to have promising efficacy as an add-on therapy in nonanoxic RSE. However, in patients with PAE, its efficacy seems to be lower. Further studies are warranted to confirm these observations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38872031What 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.