ArticleTranslational pediatrics2025
Efficacy and safety of perampanel monotherapy in Chinese children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: a single-center prospective study.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Focal epilepsy is the most common type of epilepsy in children. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the main treatment for focal epilepsy at present. Perampanel (PER), as a competitive antagonist of α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid of glutamate receptor, have been used for treatment for focal epilepsy in children in western countries. The purpose of our research was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PER monotherapy in children (aged 2-12 years) with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy in China. Methods: In this single-center prospective study, Chinese children with newly diagnosed epilepsy (range 2 to 12 years) were enrolled. After 4 to 8 weeks titration period, patients received PER monotherapy in a 24-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was seizure freedom rates and ≥50% responder rates during the maintenance period (2 to 8 mg/d). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored during the treatment period. Results: 92.2% (95/103) children with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy had completed 24-weeks of PER monotherapy. Average maintenance dose was 4.23±1.38 mg in this population. The seizure freedom rate at 12 and 24 weeks were 64.2% [61/95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 54.6% to 73.8%] and 53.7% (51/95, 95% CI: 43.7% to 63.7%), respectively. The responder rates at 12 and 24 weeks were 82.1% (78/95, 95% CI: 74.4% to 89.8%) and 77.9% (74/95, 95% CI: 69.6% to 86.2%), respectively. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 25.3% (24/95, 95% CI: 16.6% to 34.0%) patients. PER was generally well tolerated, and the most common AEs were dizziness (12.6%) and irritability (11.6%) in this study. When the plasma concentration of PER was higher than 500 ng/mL, it may lead to high incidence of AEs. Conclusions: PER monotherapy had good efficacy and safety for focal epilepsy in Chinese children under the safe plasma concentration range, especially in children with self-limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes. PER can also significantly reduce the frequency of discharges of electroencephalogram. PER monotherapy was generally well tolerated in treatment for children with focal 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.