ArticleAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology2025
Long-Term Efficacy and Tolerability of Cenobamate in Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCenobamate (CNB) was approved in the US in 2020 and showed 12% seizure freedom in drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in pivotal trials. The open-label extension (OLE) study reported 13%-16% seizure freedom and sustained responder rates over 4 years. It is unclear how much of the treatment benefit during OLE was attributable to CNB, as people could have received other treatments. This study aimed to assess CNB efficacy and safety over an extended follow-up.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted among adults with DRE, treated with CNB between May 2020 and Dec 2023, at the University of California, Davis. Data on demographics, epilepsy history, CNB dose, seizure frequencies, adverse events, and treatment changes were collected. Treatment failure was considered if CNB was withdrawn for any reason or if another epilepsy treatment was needed after starting CNB.
resultsSixty people with epilepsy (PWE) were included, with 78% having focal epilepsy and 11.3% generalized epilepsy. Over the mean follow-up period of 20.5 months, 56.7% had treatment failure, with a median survival time of 17.2 months. Seizure freedom was seen in 15% of participants, and 90% or more seizure reduction in 21% of participants. Of the failures, 44% were due to incomplete efficacy, 38% were due to adverse effects, and the rest due to a combination of both. Seventy-eight percent of PWE who started CNB were taking it at last follow-up.
conclusionsCNB shows clinically meaningful efficacy for at least 1.5 years in people with DRE.
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.