Observational studyBrain and behavior2025
Effectiveness and Safety of Perampanel in Refractory Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence From a Chinese Cohort.
Observational study in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Perampanel in Refractory Focal Epilepsy: Real-World Evidence From a Chinese Cohort.Brain and behavior · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of perampanel (PER) as an add-on treatment in patients with refractory focal epilepsy.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective observational study consecutively enrolled patients with refractory focal epilepsy who initiated PER as adjunctive therapy between September 2020 and October 2021. The primary outcomes included PER effectiveness (≥ 50% seizure reduction), treatment retention rates, and adverse event (AE) profiles, systematically evaluated at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up intervals.
resultsThis study included 190 patients (median age 27 years; 51.6% female). At 3/6/12-month follow-ups, response rates were 65.5%/64.9%/66.1%, seizure-free rates 26.2%/26.2%/26.8%, and retention rates 88.4%/69.0%/66.8%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis indicated that females had a lower response rate (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20.74, p = 0.005). Responders had a higher PER dose (≥ 6 mg) than nonresponders at all follow-ups. Patients receiving late add-on PER treatment had significantly higher response and seizure-free rate than those receiving early add-on therapy. AEs were reported in 41.1% of patients, mostly mild to moderate in severity. The most frequent AEs were dizziness (26.3%), somnolence (13.0%), and psychiatric symptoms (12.11%). Additionally, patients aged ≥ 18 years had a lower risk of AEs (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.19-0.88, p = 0.023).
conclusionsPER demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy and acceptable safety in refractory focal epilepsy, with sustained response rates and seizure freedom over 12 months. Male gender, higher doses, and late add-on use predicted better outcomes, while adults experienced fewer adverse events. These real-world findings support PER's role in treatment-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.