| Title |
Antiepileptic drugs and suicidality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dhps.s13225 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffery W Britton, Jerry J Shih |
| Abstract |
The risk of suicide in patients with epilepsy is significantly higher than the general population. There are many hypotheses as to the reasons for this, but the potential role of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) in increasing suicidality has recently been brought into question. In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a warning after a meta-analysis of data from all clinical trials involving AEDs found a suicidality risk of 0.43 per 1000 patients in active drug arms of these clinical trials compared to a rate in the placebo arm of 0.22. While an increased risk for individual AEDs was found in two, the FDA decided to issue a warning for the entire AED class. While this decision and the meta-analysis findings have been considered controversial, and have created concern that this stated risk may dissuade use of AEDs by patients who would benefit from them, it has led to increased awareness of the risk of suicidality and psychiatric co-morbidity in this patient group. In this article, the association of epilepsy and AEDs with psychiatric disease and suicidality are reviewed, perspective as to the significance and limitations of the FDA's findings are discussed, and some options for suicidality screening and their potential utility in clinical care are evaluated. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,781,425
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety
#42
of 160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,840
of 103,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 103,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.