Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Medical students”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

92 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Valproate vs levetiracetam in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a genetic generalized epilepsy syndrome with onset typically in adolescence and a chronic course requiring long-term antiseizure medications (ASMs). Valproate (VPA) is the most effective treatment for seizure control in JME but use is limited by metabolic, cognitive, and teratogenic adverse effects (AEs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is an alternative ASM when VPA is contraindicated or not tolerated. Comparisons of the efficacy and long-term tolerability of VPA and LEV remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 2026 for studies in JME patients comparing LEV and VPA, and included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies with ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes were seizure remission and ASM failure or treatment discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included, memory impairment, weight gain or obesity, dizziness, and overall AEs. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 1,009 patients were included. VPA was associated with higher pooled seizure remission rates compared with LEV (344 of 574 vs. 169 of 390; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63); however, substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 88.4%) limits confidence in this finding. VPA was associated with a lower risk of drug failure or treatment discontinuation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). VPA was also associated with a higher risk of memory impairment (RR 5.37, 95% CI 2.05-14.04; I2 = 74.5%) and weight gain or obesity (RR 6.40, 95% CI 3.64-11.26; I2 = 35.9%). No significant differences were observed between treatments regarding dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.37; I2 = 21.2%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: VPA was associated with higher seizure remission rates and lower treatment discontinuation compared with LEV; however, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity, the predominance of observational studies, and the serious risk of bias identified in most included studies VPA also demonstrated lower rates of treatment discontinuation, despite a higher burden of cognitive impairment and weight gain. No relevant differences were observed regarding dizziness. Large-scale randomized trials with standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed to define the comparative risk-benefit profiles of LEV and VPA in JME.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparative Bioavailability of Trimodal (CTx-1301) Versus Bimodal Dexmethylphenidate Modified-Release Formulations in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Randomized, Single-Dose, Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic neurodevelopmental disorder that often requires sustained symptom control throughout the day. Although bimodal extended-release dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH XR) formulations provide initial and intermediate drug release, they may not consistently maintain therapeutic exposure into the late afternoon and evening. Trimodal formulations with an additional delayed release component may extend drug exposure later in the day, although this remains to be established. To explore differences in pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles between trimodal (CTx-1301) and bimodal delivery of d-MPH XR, a comparative bioavailability study was conducted at the highest and lowest doses for both formulations. METHODS: In this randomized, 4-period, crossover study, adults with ADHD received single doses of CTx-1301 (50 mg and 6.25 mg) and d-MPH XR (40 mg and 5 mg). Comparative bioavailability was assessed through adjusted geometric mean ratios for exposure parameters (maximum observed plasma concentration [Cmax], area under plasma concentration-time curve to last measurable concentration [AUClast] and extrapolated to infinity [AUC0-inf]), with a prespecified bioequivalence range of 0.80 to 1.25. Secondary endpoints included partial AUCs and safety assessments. RESULTS: The study population (N = 45) was predominantly male (88.9%) and White (55.6%), with mean age of 29.6 ± 8.01 years. Adjusted geometric mean ratios comparing the primary exposure parameters (Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-inf) for CTx-1301 versus d-MPH XR were within the bioequivalence range (0.80-1.25) at both the high and low doses. The CTx-1301-to-d-MPH XR partial AUC ratios were within the bioequivalence range from 0 to 9 hours post-dose. At later intervals (AUC9-12 and AUC12-16), adjusted geometric mean ratios exceeded the upper bioequivalence threshold, consistent with the expected contribution of the third medication release component. Dose proportionality was observed between the two CTx-1301 doses and two d-MPH XR formulations. CTx-1301 was generally well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events included tachycardia, insomnia, headache, nausea, and euphoric mood. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was numerically lower with CTx-1301 than with d-MPH XR; however, no statistical analysis was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Key exposure parameters including Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-inf for trimodal CTx-1301 were statistically bioequivalent to bimodal d-MPH XR. Interval‑specific PK analyses demonstrated higher exposure with CTx‑1301 during later post-dose intervals (9-16 h), consistent with the formulation's third release component. However, the clinical relevance of these PK differences requires further evaluation. CTx-1301 demonstrated dose proportionality and was well tolerated at high and low doses. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04138498; 19 September 2019.

Humans↗