ArticlePediatric investigation2025
Effectiveness and safety of perampanel for pediatric patients with epilepsy: A real-world study from China.
Article in Pediatric investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Perampanel in Young Children (7-46 Months) With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Real-World Study.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Treatment of pediatric epilepsy.Pediatric investigation · 2026Review
- Effectiveness and safety of perampanel for pediatric patients with epilepsy: A real-world study from China.Pediatric investigation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Perampanel (PER) is used less extensively in children than in adults. Currently, there is a lack of data from PER clinical studies with large sample sizes in Chinese children and adolescents with epilepsy, especially those with refractory epilepsy. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness, retention, and safety of PER in the treatment of children and adolescents with epilepsy in China. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Children and adolescents with epilepsy who received PER as adjunctive therapy were included. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency after 6 months of treatment compared to baseline. The secondary effectiveness endpoints included retention and seizure-free rates. The safety outcome was the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: A total of 240 patients with epilepsy were enrolled in the study. Prior to initiating PER treatment, approximately 87.9% of them took two or more antiseizure medications. After a 6-month treatment regimen with PER, 70.4% of the patients experienced a reduced seizure frequency of at least 50%, and 22.1% achieved complete seizure freedom. The retention rate was 90.2%. TEAEs were reported by 89 patients, leading to the discontinuation of PER in seven cases. No severe TEAEs were observed in this study. Interpretation: Under routine clinical conditions, PER demonstrated good effectiveness and retention in Chinese children with epilepsy, particularly in those with refractory epilepsy.
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.