↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comprehensive review of visual defects reported with topiramate

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Comprehensive review of visual defects reported with topiramate
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s125768
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Ford, Jeffrey L Goldberg, Fred Selan, Howard E Greenberg, Yingqi Shi

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze clinical patterns of visual field defects (VFDs) reported with topiramate treatment and assess possible mechanism of action (MOA) for antiepileptic drug (AED) associated VFDs. A comprehensive topiramate database review included preclinical data, sponsor's clinical trials database, postmarketing spontaneous reports, and medical literature. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) suggestive of retinal dysfunction/damage were summarized. Relative risk (RR) was computed from topiramate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (DBPCTs) data. Preclinical studies and medical literature review suggested that despite sharing gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic MOA with other AEDs, topiramate treatment was not associated with VFDs. TEAEs suggestive of retinal dysfunction/damage were observed in 0.3%-0.7% of adults and pediatric patients with topiramate (N=4,679) versus ≤0.1% with placebo (N=1,834) in DBPCTs for approved indications (epilepsy and migraine prophylaxis); open-label trials (OLTs) and DBPCTs for investigational indications had similar incidence. Overall, 88% TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Serious TEAEs were very rare (DBPCTs: 0%; OLTs: ≤0.1%), and most were not treatment limiting, and resolved. The most common visual TEAEs (approved indications) were VFD, scotoma, and optic atrophy. The incidence of TEAEs in DBPCTs (approved and investigational indications) was higher in topiramate-treated (N=9,169) versus placebo-treated patients (N=5,023; 0.36% vs 0.24%), but the RR versus placebo-treated patients was not significant (RR: 1.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.78, 2.91]). VFDs do not appear to be a class effect for AEDs with GABA-ergic MOA. The RR for VFDs is not significantly different between topiramate and placebo treatment.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 30%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3,207
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,174
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#40
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.