Observational studyEpilepsia2026
Freedon study: Real-life outcomes of cenobamate in different lines of treatment.
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 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.
- To Delay or Not to Delay: The Role Cenobamate Plays in the Presurgical Evaluation.Epilepsy currents · 2026Article
- DECREASE study: A European pool-analysis of patients with significant reductions in concomitant antiseizure medications in cenobamate Early Access Programs.Epilepsia open · 2026Article
- Sustained seizure reduction, treatment simplification, and high retention with cenobamate: A 12-month real-world study in refractory and ultra-refractory focal epilepsy.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
51 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) with proven effectiveness in individuals with highly refractory epilepsy. This study investigated the effectiveness and tolerability of cenobamate in different treatment lines and a less refractory setting.
methodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study. Adults with focal epilepsy, 2-6 prior ASMs, and ≥12 months between cenobamate initiation and database closure were included. Data from patients' charts were collected and included in the Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Registry of the Spanish Epilepsy Society using Research Electronic Data Capture. Primary effectiveness endpoints included changes in seizure frequency at 3, 6, and 12 months after cenobamate initiation according to different treatment lines. Primary safety endpoints included the percentage of patients with adverse events (AEs).
resultsIn total, 486 patients were included (mean age 42.8 years). The mean number of prior ASMs was 4.4 (2-6); the mean number of concomitant ASMs at cenobamate initiation was 2.5 (1-5). At 12 months, treatment retention was 92% and median dose was 200 mg. One-year seizure-freedom rates were 32.5%, 33.3%, 21.4%, 24.2%, and 11.4% in those treated with 2-6 prior ASMs, respectively. The proportions of patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% reductions in seizure frequency at 12 months were significantly higher in patients with 2-3 (earlier treatment lines) vs 4-6 prior ASMs (later treatment lines; p ≤ .004). Improvements in seizure severity were reported in 71.9% of patients during follow-up (82.5% and 62.1% in those with 2 and 6 prior ASMs, respectively). At 12 months, 56.4% of patients had reported AEs, with somnolence the most frequent, and 4.9% had AEs requiring cenobamate discontinuation. SIGNIFICANCE: Cenobamate was effective and well tolerated in patients who had tried 2-6 prior ASMs in a real-world setting. High effectiveness was confirmed at 1 year, with better outcomes in earlier users.
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.