ArticleNeurology and therapy2026
Lacosamide is Associated with a Higher Treatment Persistence at 12 Months than Brivaracetam and Perampanel Despite Similar Efficacy.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bistromathics in Epilepsy and the Relativity of Numbers.CNS drugs · 2026Article
- Early Cenobamate as a Third-Line Option in Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Paradigm Shift?Neurology and therapy · 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
37 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEvidence directly comparing newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) is limited but crucial for guiding treatment decisions. This study compared the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) as add-on therapy in adults with epilepsy, applying a causal-inference extension of the COMPARE study. The aim of this approach was to overcome the limitations of standard multivariable analyses, better approximate causal effects, and reinforce the credibility of the results.
methodsData were retrospectively collected in the Italian multicentre COMPARE study. To emulate a randomized setting, we estimated multinomial propensity scores and applied stabilized inverse probability weights. The primary analysis used a log-logistic accelerated failure time model to estimate time-to-treatment discontinuation, adjusting for adverse events (AEs), clinical response and follow-up duration. Secondary analyses evaluated changes in total and concomitant drug load and tolerability over time.
resultsAmong the 850 subjects included in this analysis (259, 240 and 351 receiving LCM, BRV and PER, respectively; 53.4% female; median age 43 years), the estimated probability of 12-month retention was highest for LCM (86.1%), followed by BRV (79.1%) and PER (75.4%). Long-term trends suggested convergence of PER and LCM retention, whereas BRV discontinuation remained higher. In the adjusted analyses, BRV and PER were associated with shorter time-to-treatment discontinuation than LCM, but this negative effect decreased over time, while the beneficial effect of clinical response strengthened. Total drug load increased across all groups but remained lowest for LCM; concomitant ASM load decreased, particularly among responders. AEs were mostly mild, with dizziness, irritability and somnolence the most common AEs. AE rates were initially higher for PER and BRV, but differences diminished over time.
conclusionTreatment discontinuation in epilepsy emerges as a dynamic process shaped by both tolerability and clinical response. Early persistence was higher for LCM, whereas long-term retention was improved for BRV and PER. These results support a personalized approach to ASM selection that integrates early tolerability with sustained effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.