ArticleEpilepsia2026
Clinical validation of a patient-friendly saliva microsampling approach to monitor perampanel levels in people with epilepsy.
Article in Epilepsia, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perampanel (PER) is a third-generation antiseizure medication (ASM) with a well-established concentration-effect relationship. Saliva represents a non-invasive alternative to plasma for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of PER, as it reflects the free plasma fraction. Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) enables standardized, patient-friendly saliva collection. This study aimed to clinically validate saliva-VAMS by directly comparing it with conventional liquid saliva sampling for PER quantification. In a prospective study, saliva was collected from 11 people with epilepsy receiving PER therapy (dose range = 2-10 mg/day) using both VAMS and conventional saliva sampling. PER concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry and compared using repeated measures Bland-Altman analysis and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate agreement between methods. PER concentrations measured in saliva-VAMS showed excellent agreement with those obtained from conventional saliva sampling, with mean bias of -0.126 ng/mL (95% confidence interval = -0.582 to 0.330). No relevant constant or proportional bias was observed, and limits of agreement were within predefined acceptance criteria. Concordance between methods was high, supporting analytical equivalence. The demonstrated interchangeability between saliva-VAMS and conventional saliva sampling supports adoption of saliva-VAMS in clinical TDM workflows, enabling standardized fixed-volume collection, simplified storage/transport, and potential home-based sampling for remote dose optimization of PER and potentially other ASMs.
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.