Observational studyEpileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape2026
Effectiveness and safety of cenobamate after conversion to monotherapy or dual therapy in real-world clinical practice.
Observational study in Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) typically take multiple anti-seizure medications (ASMs) and are at risk of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). This study assessed the impact of cenobamate monotherapy or dual therapy in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.
methodsThis was a multicenter (six Spanish epilepsy units), retrospective, observational study in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who had received treatment with cenobamate as monotherapy (after conversion from polytherapy) or in dual therapy for at least three consecutive months, between April 2017 and November 2024.
resultsIn total, 125 patients (mean age 46 ± 15.9 years; median epilepsy duration 16 years, range: 1-65) were included. Median follow-up was 11 months (range 3-80). Patients had received a median of 5 (range 2-19) previous anti-seizure medications and were receiving a median of 2 (range 0-3) concomitant anti-seizure medications at cenobamate initiation; the most common concomitant anti-seizure medications were lacosamide (36%), brivaracetam (29.6%), and clobazam (26.4%). The median cenobamate dose at the last visit was 200 mg/day (range 100-400 mg/day). By the last visit, 31.5% of patients had achieved seizure freedom, and 75.8%, 58.1%, and 49.2% had achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and ≥90% reductions in seizure frequency, respectively. During cenobamate treatment, 52% of patients discontinued one, 32% discontinued two, and 4% discontinued three concomitant anti-seizure medications. In total, 63/125 patients (50.4%) had adverse events during cenobamate treatment, all mild or moderate; 40.8% of patients had adverse events at the last visit. The most reported adverse events were somnolence (22.4%), dizziness (10.4%), fatigue (7.2%), and instability (4.8%). SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the real-world effectiveness and safety of cenobamate, either as monotherapy (after conversion from polytherapy) or in dual therapy, in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Cenobamate allows for a significant treatment simplification, resulting in fewer treatment-related adverse events without compromising seizure reduction.
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.