SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
An evidence-based meta-analysis on the use of brivaracetam in treating seizures in real-world clinical practice.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Exploring the medicinal potential of Bulbine latifolia (L.f.) Spreng.: a comprehensive review of phytochemicals and therapeutic applications.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of brivaracetam (BRV) as monotherapy or adjuvant therapy for adults with seizures. Methods: Observational studies of BRV were systematically searched. We estimated the pooled incidence of interests (responder rate, seizure-free rate, adverse effects (AEs), and withdrawal rate) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirty-five studies, including 10,956 patients, were included. The 50% responder rates were 36% (95% CI: 0.26-0.47), 35% (95% CI: 0.21-0.49), and 40% (95% CI: 0.24-0.56), respectively, and the pooled seizure-free rates were 19.0% (95% CI: 0.17-0.25), 21.0% (95% CI: 0.15-0.27), and 23.3% (95% CI: 0.14-0.31), respectively, at 3, 6, and 12 months of BRV treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that although previous levetiracetam (LEV) failure can affect the response to BRV, treatment with BRV could still be beneficial for these patients. Furthermore, a remarkable reduction in seizure frequency and lower AEs were found among patients who switched directly from LEV to BRV. In addition, BRV, used as the first add-on or monotherapy, displayed a high 50% responder rate and seizure-free rate. The pooled incidence of AEs at 3, 6, and 12 months of BRV treatment were 39.0% (95% CI: 0.27-0.50), 29.0% (95% CI: 0.18-0.39), and 34.0% (95% CI: 0.25-0.44), respectively; the withdrawal rates due to AEs were 7.0% (95% CI: 0.03-0.10), 11.1% (95% CI: 0.05-0.17), and 10.0% (95% CI: 0.07-0.13) at the same follow-up point. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis has shown BRV to be effective and well-tolerated in both short-term and long-term usage when used as monotherapy or adjuvant therapy for adults with seizures in real-world settings. BRV may be a valuable treatment when used as monotherapy, as a first add-on, and in patients who switched directly from LEV or previously failed to respond to or tolerate LEV. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251085564.
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.