ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Cost-effectiveness of cenobamate as a therapeutic alternative for the treatment of focal epilepsy in adults with inadequate seizure control.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Cenobamate: An Appraisal Five Years On.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
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
Introduction: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of cenobamate relative to brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, and perampanel in the management of focal onset seizures (FOS). The objective is to determine whether cenobamate offers enhanced therapeutic benefits and economic viability. Methods: A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a lifetime horizon model that encompassed drug acquisition costs, background therapy, monitoring, and seizure management expenses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from cenobamate compared to its alternatives. Results: Findings revealed that cenobamate while incurring slightly higher initial acquisition costs, leads to significant cost offsets due to reductions in overall seizure management expenses and minimized reliance on subsequent anti-seizure medications (ASMs). Additionally, cenobamate significantly enhances patient quality of life, demonstrated by superior response rates (seizure reduction >50%) and remission rates (100% seizure reduction) compared to the analyzed comparators. The cost-effectiveness analysis established that cenobamate is dominant across all evaluated treatment options, achieving greater QALYs at a lower total cost. Conclusion: Cenobamate represents a more effective and economically advantageous treatment for patients with FOS when compared to brivaracetam, lacosamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, and perampanel. Its capacity to improve seizure control and enhance the quality of life, alongside favorable economic implications, underscores its position as the preferred therapeutic option in this patient population.
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.