↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of perampanel in Parkinson’s disease. A systematic review with meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of perampanel in Parkinson’s disease. A systematic review with meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Neurology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00415-017-8681-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simona Lattanzi, Elisabetta Grillo, Francesco Brigo, Mauro Silvestrini

Abstract

L-Dopa represents the mainstay of therapy of Parkinson's disease (PD), but its effectiveness is reduced with continued treatment and disease progression. Accordingly, there remains a need to explore novel treatment strategies to manage the signs and symptoms of the later disease stages. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (PER) in patients with PD through a meta-analysis of existing trials. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double- or single-blind, add-on studies of PER in patients with PD were identified through a systematic literature search. The following outcomes were assessed: changes from baseline to final efficacy visit in total daily OFF time, activities of daily living during OFF time and motor function during ON time, incidence of adverse events (AEs), and treatment withdrawal. Four trials were included involving 2266 participants, 1449 and 817 for PER and placebo treatment groups, respectively. Four PER daily doses were tested, namely 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 mg. There were no significant differences in any efficacy outcome between PER and placebo treated patients. The risk ratios (RRs) for AEs, severe AEs and treatment withdrawal were similar between placebo and PER at 0.5, 1 and 2 mg; the 4 mg daily dose was associated with an increased risk of AEs [RR 1.118 (1.047-1.193)], and withdrawal for AEs [RR 1.345 (1.034-1.749)] and for any reason [RR 1.197 (1.020-1.406)]. In PD patients experiencing motor fluctuations, adjunctive PER did not improve the motor state and was well-tolerated at the lower doses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 17%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,855
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#3,682
of 4,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,380
of 437,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#44
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.