ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
The Effectiveness of Cenobamate in Patients Treated With Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Drug Resistant Epilepsy.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. 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
- Optimizing Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Management: Cenobamate's role in the Surgery/Neuromodulation Pathway.Drugs in R&D · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) is an effective neuromodulatory treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), but many patients still experience uncontrolled seizures. These patients, who are highly refractory, may benefit from novel anti-seizure medications (ASM). This study evaluates the effectiveness of cenobamate (CNB) in patients previously or currently treated with VNS.
methodsWe reviewed the medical history of all patients treated with VNS at Ghent University Hospital and HUB-Hôpital Erasme Brussels from 1995 to 2024. Patients who received CNB after ≥ 12 months of VNS therapy were included. Mean monthly seizure frequency was assessed before VNS, after VNS, and post-CNB initiation.
resultsAmong 620 patients treated with VNS between March 1995 and November 2023, 54 were additionally treated with CNB after a median VNS duration of 9 years. With VNS, seizure frequency data were available for 52 patients. Of these, 13 (25%) achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency at maximum follow-up, but none became seizure-free. After CNB addition (median dose 200 mg, median follow-up 10 months), 24/54 (44.4%) experienced a ≥ 50% reduction in seizures. 6/54 patients (11.1%) reported seizure freedom for a median of 26 weeks. In 20/54 patients (37%), the number of ASMs was reduced. 7/54 (13%) discontinued CNB because of side effects, with fatigue being the most common, in 23/54 patients (42.6%).
conclusionsFor DRE patients treated with VNS who could benefit from further improvement in seizure control, adding CNB is useful. In our cohort, over one-third of patients experienced a meaningful improvement in seizure frequency with this recently marketed ASM.
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.