The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of First Antiepileptic Drug
Abstract
Summary: Purpose: To investigate the interaction among efficacy, tolerability, and overall effectiveness of the first antiepileptic drug (AED) in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Methods: The 470 patients were diagnosed, treated and followed up from January 1984 at a single center. Outcome was classified as seizure freedom for at least the last year or failure of initial treatment because of inadequate seizure control, adverse events, or for other reasons. Results: Overall, 47% of patients became seizure‐free with the first prescribed AED. A higher proportion (p = 0.025) of patients with symptomatic or cryptogenic epilepsy changed treatment because of intolerable side effects (17%), and a lower proportion (p = 0.007) became seizure‐free (43.5%) compared with those with idiopathic epilepsy (8.5% and 58%, respectively). Most patients (83%) received carbamazepine (CBZ; n = 212), sodium valproate (VPA; n = 101), or lamotrigine (LTG; n = 78). The majority of seizure‐free patients required only a moderate daily AED dose (93.1% with ≤800 mg CBZ, 91.3% with ≤1,500 mg VPA, 93.8% with ≤300 mg LTG), with commonest dose ranges being 400–600 mg for CBZ, 600–1,000 mg for VPA, and 125–200 mg for LTG. Most withdrawals due to poor tolerability also occurred at or below these dose levels (CBZ: 98%; VPA: 100%; LTG: 75%). Patients taking CBZ (27%) had a higher incidence of adverse events necessitating a change of treatment than did those treated with VPA (13%) or LTG (10%), resulting in fewer becoming seizure‐free (CBZ vs. VPA, p = 0.02; CBZ vs. LTG, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Nearly 50% of newly diagnosed patients became seizure‐free on the first‐ever AED, with >90% doing so at moderate or even modest dosing. Tolerability was as important as efficacy in determining overall effectiveness.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Early Identification of Refractory Epilepsy
Kwan, P., & Brodie, M. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200002033420503 · Cited by 5,204
Self-citationRandomized Trials or Observational Tribulations?
Pocock, S. J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422511 · Cited by 550
Cited by
Kwan, P., Arzimanoglou, A., Berg, A. T., Brodie, M. J., Allen Hauser, W., Mathern, G., Moshé, S. L., Perucca, E., Wiebe, S., & French, J. (2010) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02397.x · Cited by 4,877
Self-citationGhelardoni, S., Tomita, Y. A., Bell, J. M., Rapoport, S. I., & Bosetti, F. (2004) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.05.012 · Cited by 95
Comprehensive care of the epilepsy patient—control, comorbidity, and cost
W. Bazil, C. (2004) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004.455002.x · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Kwan, P., & Brodie, M. J.
- Venue
- Epilepsia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10-29
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1255-1260
- ISSN
- 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 1528-1167
- OpenAlex
- W2116686895
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of First Antiepileptic Drug. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2001.04501.x
- The paper
- Kwan, P., & Brodie, M. J. (2001). Effectiveness of First Antiepileptic Drug. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2001.04501.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.