Observational studyEpilepsia2026
Impact of long-term treatment with cenobamate on concomitant usage of antiseizure medications: A real-world retrospective study in Spain.
Observational study in Epilepsia, 2026. 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
- DECREASE study: A European pool-analysis of patients with significant reductions in concomitant antiseizure medications in cenobamate Early Access Programs.Epilepsia open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study explored the safety and effectiveness of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) in patients with different levels of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in a real-world setting, including its impact on the use of co-antiseizure medication (co-ASM).
methodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. Adults with refractory seizures who had received ≥2 previous ASMs and had been treated with CNB for at least a year were included. Effectiveness and safety endpoints were assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after CNB was initiated. Co-ASM use was assessed at every visit.
resultsNinety-four patients were included; 23 of 94 (24.5%) had received ≤4 previous ASMs and 70 of 94 (74.5%) had received ≥5 previous ASMs. Patients with ≥5 previous ASMs had a younger age at onset (mean 12 vs 25.9 years) and a longer duration of epilepsy (mean 28.1 vs 16.7 years) compared with patients with ≤4 previous ASMs. The mean CNB daily dose was 310 ± 76.7 mg at 2 years. The mean number of co-ASMs received by patients was reduced significantly between baseline and all time points (p ≤ .01). The mean defined daily dose (DDD) per patient (not including CNB) was also reduced significantly across all time points (p < .01), falling from 3.2 ± 2.3 at baseline to 1.2 ± 1.9 at the 2-year follow-up. At 1 and 2 years after initiation of CNB, 79.6% and 80% of patients had a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency and 36.6% and 30.9% were seizure-free, respectively. At 2 years, 73.2% of patients reported their condition to be "Very much better" or "Much better" compared with baseline; 37.5% reported treatment-related adverse drug reactions at 2 years. SIGNIFICANCE: In patients with DRE, CNB treatment allowed long-term high seizure-freedom rates and significant reductions in co-ASM use, while also achieving both good tolerability and high patient satisfaction scores.
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.