Observational studyNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Cenobamate as add-on treatment in ultra-refractory focal epilepsy: Real-world results from The Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark.
Observational study in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Role of Early Add-On Cenobamate in Uncontrolled Focal Epilepsy: A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- Real-world effectiveness of cenobamate in drug-resistant and ultra-refractory epilepsy: A multicenter study.Epilepsia open · 2026Observational
- Review
- Review
- Do Cenobamate Pharmacokinetics Change with Co-Administered Antiseizure Medications? An Exploratory Analysis of Responder Patients with Focal Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAt The Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark, we aimed to assess the long-term efficacy, tolerability profile, and influence on concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) of cenobamate as an add-on treatment in patients with ultra-refractory focal epilepsies.
methodsAdult patients with ultra-refractory epilepsy (defined as focal epilepsies in which ≥ 6 treatments, including ASM trials, epilepsy surgery, and vagus nerve stimulator, failed to achieve seizure control) treated with add-on cenobamate between October 2021 and June 2024 were included in our retrospective, observational study. Data were collected through electronic patient records and seizure-diaries.
results32 patients were included. The mean length of treatment was 21 months (range 2-32 months) and the median dose of cenobamate was 250 mg (range 50-400 mg). Fourteen/32 (44%) patients were responders (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency) to cenobamate, including five patients who became seizure-free (15.6% of the total cohort). Eleven/32 (34%) discontinued due to adverse effects (AEs) or lack of efficacy. Patients with active focal-to-bilateral-tonic-clonic seizures remaining on treatment decreased by 50%. The ASM most frequently reduced was lacosamide, while the one most often discontinued was lamotrigine. Fifteen/32 (47%) patients reported at least one AE during the treatment period of 32 months. Two-thirds were resolved by dose-reduction of ASMs or cenobamate. AEs most frequently reported were tiredness and dizziness; the lowest incidence of these AE was found when cenobamate was added as the third drug. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study underlines the usefulness of cenobamate in treating patients with ultra-refractory epilepsy and indicates its long-term effectiveness in real-world clinical practice.
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.