↓ Skip to main content

Losigamone add-on therapy for partial epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Losigamone add-on therapy for partial epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009324.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yousheng Xiao, Man Luo, Jin Wang, Hongye Luo

Abstract

Epilepsy is a common neurologic disorder, affecting approximately 50 million people worldwide; nearly a third of these people are not well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug (AED) and usually require treatment with a combination of two or more AEDs. In recent years, many newer AEDs have been investigated as add-on therapy for partial epilepsy; losigamone is one of these drugs and is the focus of this systematic review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2012 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6). To investigate the efficacy and safety of losigamone when used as an add-on therapy for partial epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (16 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 16 February 2015) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 February 2015). We searched trials registers and contacted the manufacturer of losigamone and authors of included studies for additional information. We did not impose any language restrictions. Randomized controlled, add-on trials comparing losigamone with placebo for partial epilepsy. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and seizure freedom; the secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawal and adverse events. Results are presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs (for the individual listed adverse events to make an allowance for multiple testing). Two trials involving a total of 467 patients, aged over 18 years, were eligible for inclusion. Both trials assessed losigamone 1200 mg/day or 1500 mg/day as an add-on therapy for partial epilepsy. One trial was assessed as being of good methodological quality while the other was of uncertain quality. For the efficacy outcomes, results did show patients taking losigamone were significantly more likely to achieve a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (RR 1.76; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.72), but associated with a significant increase of treatment withdrawal when compared with those taking placebo (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.67). For the safety outcomes, results indicated the proportion of patients who experienced adverse events in the losigamone group was higher than the placebo group (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.80), dizziness was the only adverse event significantly reported in relation to losigamone (RR 3.82; 99% CI 1.69 to 8.64). The proportion of patients achieving seizure freedom was not reported in either trial report. A subgroup analysis according to different doses of losigamone showed that a higher dose of losigamone (1500 mg/day) was associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency than lower doses, but was also associated with more dropouts due to adverse events. The results of this review showed losigamone did reduce seizure frequency but was associated with more treatment withdrawals when used as an add-on therapy for people with partial epilepsy. However, trials included were of short-term duration and uncertain quality. Future well-designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with a longer-term duration are needed. No new studies have been found since the last version of this review.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 17 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Other 5 26%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%

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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#10,024,056
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,788
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,117
of 347,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 347,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.