ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Perampanel as Add-on in Patients Aged ≥ 12 Years with Focal Epilepsy: A Prospective Real-World Observational Study from Southern China.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of perampanel (PER) as an add-on therapy for southern Chinese patients aged ≥ 12 years with focal epilepsy.
methodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled consecutive patients with focal epilepsy treated between January 2023 and January 2024. Patients received PER as add-on therapy, with medication adjustments, seizure frequency and adverse events (AEs) monitored at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Logistic regression analyzed factors influencing 6- and 12-month treatment outcomes.
resultsAmong 196 patients (full analysis set), 169 (86.2%) had drug-resistant epilepsy. Of these, 73.5% (144/196) received PER ≤ 4 mg/day. The 50% response rates at 6 and 12 months were 79.7% (114/143) and 86.0% (86/100), respectively. Retention rates at 6 and 12 months were 78.3% (148/189) and 59.3% (102/172), with cumulative retention rates of 71.8% and 63.3%, respectively. AEs occurred in 42 patients (21.4%), primarily dizziness and psychiatric symptoms. Logistic regression analysis identified disease duration of < 5 years (OR = 15.893, 95% CI = 1.418-178.158, P < 0.05) and unknown etiology (OR = 14.528, 95% CI = 2.508-84.140, P < 0.05) as predictors of higher long-term response rates.
conclusionPER demonstrated good effectiveness and safety as an add-on therapy for focal epilepsy in southern Chinese patients aged ≥ 12 years. Lower doses of PER (≤ 4 mg/day) may achieve satisfactory effectiveness in PER-sensitive populations, while shorter disease duration and unknown etiology were associated with better long-term outcomes. These findings support PER's utility in managing focal epilepsy, particularly in drug-resistant cases.
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.