↓ Skip to main content

Combination Therapy in Epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
5 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Combination Therapy in Epilepsy
Published in
Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/00003495-200666140-00004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Kwan, Martin J. Brodie

Abstract

After being regarded as a last resort for over two decades, the role of combination therapy as a treatment strategy for epilepsy is undergoing re-evaluation. This is a result of the growing appreciation that all seizures cannot be controlled by monotherapy in a substantial proportion of patients, and of the development of a range of modern antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), some of which are better tolerated and less prone to complex pharmacokinetic drug interactions than their older counterparts.Robust evidence to guide clinicians on when and how to combine AEDs is lacking, and current practice recommendations are largely empirical. Monotherapy should remain the treatment of choice for newly diagnosed epilepsy. A combination of two AEDs can be considered after failure, resulting from lack of efficacy, of one or two different monotherapy regimens. A few patients will become seizure-free with a combination of three AEDs, but treatment with a combination of four or more is unlikely to be successful. There is some evidence to support a pharmacomechanistic approach to AED combination. Care should be taken to avoid excessive drug load, which is associated with increased toxicity. Bigger and better randomised, controlled studies are needed to determine the optimal time and way to combine AEDs.

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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Other 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 31 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 13%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#8,098,676
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,403
of 3,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,576
of 187,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#520
of 1,385 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 187,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,385 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.