ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025
Cenobamate Monotherapy for Focal Epilepsy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cenobamate: An Appraisal Five Years On.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- Advances in Sodium Channel Modulation in Epilepsy Therapy: Focus on Eslicarbazepine, Lacosamide and Cenobamate.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Review
- Effectiveness and safety of cenobamate after conversion to monotherapy or dual therapy in real-world clinical practice.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026Observational
- Do Cenobamate Pharmacokinetics Change with Co-Administered Antiseizure Medications? An Exploratory Analysis of Responder Patients with Focal Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Prognosis of people with focal epilepsy treated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs): a narrative review of current evidence and future directions.BMJ neurology open · 2025Review
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
Background and Objectives: Cenobamate is a novel antiseizure medication (ASM) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as adjunctive therapy in focal epilepsy. However, there are limited data on its use as a standalone monotherapy. The aim of our study was to investigate the use of cenobamate monotherapy and evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety in treating focal epilepsy. Methods: This single-center retrospective study was conducted on patients who were transitioned to cenobamate monotherapy for more than 6 months at a daily dosage of at least 150 mg. The cohort comprised patients transitioned from monotherapy and those previously on polytherapy with ASMs. Efficacy was based on the seizure freedom and seizure frequency reduction rates between pretreatment and post-treatment with cenobamate while safety was estimated by the reported adverse events. Results: A total of 527 patients were found to use cenobamate as part of their treatment regimen; 45 patients (9%) were transitioned to cenobamate monotherapy and met our predefined criteria. The median follow-up was 14.6 months. Before treatment with cenobamate, 56% were taking one ASM, 33% two ASMs, and 9% three ASMs. The median dose for cenobamate was 250 mg. The mean seizure frequency on cenobamate was reduced from 4.3 to 0.7 per month; the responder rate (50% reduction in seizure frequency) was achieved at 77%, and 55% of the patients remained seizure-free during the 12-month observation period. Discussion: Cenobamate monotherapy was found to significantly reduce seizure frequency and achieve high seizure freedom rates and was well tolerated in patients with focal epilepsy, highlighting its promise as an emerging alternative for patients with refractory focal epilepsy.
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.