ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Pharmacovigilance signal detection of psychiatric adverse events induced by third-generation antiepileptic drugs in children.
Article 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.
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 present study was a retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis to identify pharmacovigilance signals of psychiatric adverse events (AEs) associated with the clinical use of third-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in children, thereby providing a reference for clinical drug selection and pharmaceutical care. Methods: The data were obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Reports involving patients under 18 years old were retrieved using the generic and brand names of four drugs: lacosamide, perampanel, brivaracetam, and eslicarbazepine. Positive safety signals were detected using the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) method and the Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN) method for further analysis. The number of AEs ≥3 cases, ROR value 95% confidence interval lower limit >1 and information component 25 (IC025) must be above 0 was considered statistically significant. Results: Lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate demonstrated relatively lower signals of psychiatric AEs, while brivaracetam was associated with a certain degree of psychiatric risk. In contrast, perampanel requires heightened clinical vigilance due to its potential to induce severe psychiatric and behavioral abnormalities, particularly aggression, suicidal ideation, and homicidal ideation. The most significant psychiatric safety signals for perampanel, based on ROR, were homicidal ideation (ROR = 23.51 [9.72, 56.89]), aggression (ROR = 17.81 [13.85, 22.92]), and psychotic disorders (ROR = 16.94 [9.57, 29.99]). Conclusion: The findings of this study provide a reference for clinical selection of third-generation AEDs. When initiating treatment in children, clinicians should consider the differential psychiatric risk profiles of these third-generation AEDs, monitor potential psychiatric side effects and adjust prescriptions promptly.
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.