P.085 Exploring the efficacy and safety of perampanel in epilepsia partialis continua: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Epilepsia partialis continua (EPC) is a form of focal status epilepticus, often requiring multiple anti-seizure medications (ASM). There are no established guidelines for pharmacological management. Perampanel (PER), an AMPA receptor antagonist, has gained attention in treating status epilepticus based on limited case reports. This study evaluates the efficacy of PER in treating EPC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the treatment response and adverse effects of PER in patients with EPC at our local hospital from January 2024 to January 2025. Seven patients with EPC were included. The loading dose of PER ranged from 6 mg to 20 mg. The etiology of EPC was intracranial hemorrhage (70%) and glioblastoma (30%). A clinical response was defined as seizure freedom within 72 hours of initiating PER, with PER being the last ASM added. Results: PER resulted in seizure termination in 6 of 7 patients. Time to response ranged from 24 to 72 hours. Oral PER, up to a dose of 16 mg, was well-tolerated in conscious patients. Common side effects included sedation, delirium, agitation, and nausea. Conclusions: Our real-world data suggest that PER can be an effective and well-tolerated early adjunct therapy in EPC, particularly at higher oral loading doses in conscious patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".