Low-dose topiramate in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Based on dose predictions from animal and human volunteer studies, most patients enrolled in initial randomized controlled trials of topiramate as adjunctive therapy in adults with partial-onset seizures were randomized to >or= 600 mg/day topiramate. Subsequent experience suggests that dosage needs were overestimated. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated 200 mg/day topiramate in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures receiving a concurrent enzyme-inducing antiepileptic agent (carbamazepine). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 4-week baseline, 263 adults receiving carbamazepine who had at least three partial-onset seizures during the baseline period were randomized to placebo or one of two topiramate 200 mg/day treatment arms: topiramate escalated weekly 25 mg/day(8-week escalation) or 50 mg/day(4-week escalation). Therapy was then maintained for the remainder of the 12-week double-blind study. RESULTS: Median percent reduction in seizure frequency from baseline to study end was 44% with topiramate and 20% with placebo (P <or= 0.001). A significant therapeutic effect was present at 2 weeks with a dose of 100 mg/day. The most common adverse events (>or=10% incidence in topiramate-treated patients) were somnolence, fatigue, paresthesia, nervousness and anorexia; 8% of topiramate-treated patients and 2% of placebo-treated patients discontinued because of adverse events. As a result of the low incidence of adverse events, differences between titration rates in terms of tolerability were not detected. CONCLUSION: Topiramate 200 mg/day is an appropriate target dose as adjunctive therapy in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures, even when receiving an enzyme-inducing agent; 100 mg/day also appears to be effective. A significant therapeutic effect may be seen in the second week of treatment with a dose of 100 mg/day.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".