ArticleEpilepsy & behavior reports2025
Usefulness of perampanel as initial monotherapy in children with non-lesional focal epilepsy.
Article in Epilepsy & behavior reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MonoPER study: Effectiveness and tolerability of PERampanel in monotherapy in real-world after 12 months of treatment.Epilepsia open · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare carbamazepine (CBZ) and perampanel (PER) in terms of the efficacy against clinical seizures and electroencephalographic abnormalities such as interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) and safety as initial monotherapy in children with non-lesional focal epilepsies. This retrospective review included participants recruited from among epilepsy outpatients treated at the authors' hospital between January 01, 2000, and December 31, 2019 in the CBZ group and between January 01, 2020, and December 31, 2022 in the PER group. The inclusion criterion in both groups was ≥12 months of follow-up. Responders were identified as participants demonstrating complete disappearance (100 % reduction in seizures or IEDs) or response (>50 % reduction in seizure frequency or IEDs). Safety primary outcome was defined as appearance rate of AEs. The study group comprised 247 participants treated with CBZ and 46 participants treated with PER. Total efficacy rate for clinical seizures was significantly higher with PER than with CBZ (p = 0.0148). Moreover, the rate of complete disappearance was significantly higher with PER than with CBZ (p = 0.0133). Total efficacy rate for IED was again significantly higher with PER than with CBZ (p < 0.0001). The appearance of adverse events was significantly lower with PER than with CBZ (p = 0.023). PER may be useful as initial monotherapy in children with non-lesional focal epilepsies.
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.