English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the present meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety of perampanel (PER) for the treatment of adolescents with epilepsy were assessed. Keyword searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO and CNKI from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2020. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies in which PER was compared with other Anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) and/or placebo in children with epilepsy, were considered eligible studies. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the dichotomous outcome statistic was calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Three RCTs with a total of 372 adolescents’ patients were included in this meta-analysis. Placebo was used as a control in these studies. Compared with placebo, PER showed better efficacy in median seizure frequency reduction from baseline per 28 days (OR = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.25–4.96,  p  = 0.009) and in responder rate (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.15–3.05,  p  = 0.01); both were considered statistically increased in PER group. Regarding adverse effects (AEs), significant differences between PER and placebo (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.92–2.41,  p  = 0.11) were not found, and the most common AEs of PER were dizziness (24.0%), somnolence (15.9%), headache (11.2%), nasopharyngitis (9.7%), upper respiratory tract infection (7.0%) and aggression (7.0%). Based on the results in this study, PER showed better efficacy than placebo therapy in children with epilepsy and the AEs were similar in PER group and placebo group. PER showed good efficacy and a low risk of AEs, and might be a promising medication for the treatment of pediatric epilepsy. In the future, well-designed and large-scale RCTs are necessary to validate the present findings.

Efficacy and safety of perampanel for the treatment of epilepsy in adolescents: a meta-analysis