ArticleJAMA network open2025
Second-Line Medications for Women Aged 10 to 50 Years With Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy.
Article in JAMA network open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Women with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) face challenges in treatment due to limited options that are both effective and safe. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of substitution monotherapy vs add-on therapy as second-line options for women who might become pregnant with IGE after failure of first-line antiseizure medications (ASMs) other than valproic acid. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study at 18 primary, secondary, and tertiary adult and children epilepsy centers across 4 countries, analyzing data from 1995 to 2023. Participants were women aged 10 to 50 years diagnosed with IGE who were prescribed a second line of ASM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment failure (TF), defined as the replacement or addition of a second ASM due to ineffectiveness, was compared between patients receiving ASM add-on or substitution monotherapy using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. Exploratory analyses were also conducted to assess the effectiveness of individual ASMs and various ASM combinations. Results: This study included 249 women with a median (IQR) age of 18.0 (15.5-22.0) years. Among them, 146 (58.6%) received an add-on regimen, and 103 (41.4%) received substitution monotherapy. During follow-up, TF occurred in 48 patients (32.9%) receiving add-on therapy and 36 (35.0%) using substitution monotherapy, with no significant differences between groups (IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53-1.51; P = .69). ASM discontinuation due to ineffectiveness or adverse effects occurred in 36 patients (24.7%) receiving add-on therapy and 29 (28.2%) receiving substitution monotherapy, showing no significant differences (IPTW-adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.57-1.65; P = .92). Rates of ASM discontinuation due to adverse effects only were low in both groups, occurring in 13 patients (9.0%) receiving add-on therapy and 9 (8.7%) receiving a substitution monotherapy. Among add-on regimens other than valproic acid, the combination of levetiracetam and lamotrigine demonstrated a lower risk of TF compared with other combinations with levetiracetam plus other ASM (adjusted HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.12-5.17; P = .02) and lamotrigine plus other ASM (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.73-9.39; P = .001). However, valproic acid remained the most effective second-line ASM when considering individual agents. Conclusions and relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of second-line treatment strategies for women with IGE, no significant differences were observed between substitution monotherapy and add-on therapy.
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.