Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An International Multicenter Randomized Double‐Blind Controlled Trial of Lamotrigine and Sustained‐Release Carbamazepine in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy in the Elderly

Open access
Saetre, Erik, Perucca, Emilio, Isojärvi, Jouko, Gjerstad, Leif, on behalf of the LAM 40089 Study Group·2007·Epilepsia

Abstract

Summary: Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness, efficacy, and tolerability of lamotrigine (LTG) and sustained‐release carbamazepine (CBZ) in the treatment of newly diagnosed epilepsy in the elderly. Methods: Patients aged 65 years or older, who had experienced at least two unprovoked partial and/or generalized tonic–clonic seizures, were randomized to receive LTG (n = 93) or CBZ (n = 92) according to a multicenter double‐blind, parallel‐group design. Trial duration was 40 weeks and included a 4‐week dose escalation followed by a maintenance phase during which dosages could be adjusted according to response. Initial, maintenance and maximum dosages were 25 mg, 100 mg, and 500 mg per day for LTG, and 100 mg, 400 mg, and 2,000 mg per day for CBZ, respectively. The primary end point was retention in the trial. Results: In the LTG group, 68 patients (73%) completed the 40‐week study period compared with 61 (67%) in the CBZ group, a nonsignificant difference. Time to withdrawal from any cause did not differ between groups (p = 0.34). The number of subjects who completed the 40‐week period and were seizure free in the last 20 weeks was 48 (52%) in the LTG group and 52 (57%) in the CBZ group. Adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred in 13 (14%) subjects in the LTG group and 23 (25%) subjects in the CBZ group. Conclusion: LTG and CBZ showed comparable effectiveness, with a trend for higher seizure‐free rates for CBZ and better tolerability for LTG. Differences in outcome compared with previous trials may be related to different dosing rates and use of a sustained‐release formulation for CBZ.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01128.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Saetre, E., Perucca, E., Isojärvi, J., Gjerstad, L., & on behalf of the LAM 40089 Study Group
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-11
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
1292-1302
ISSN
  • 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1167
OpenAlex
W2037222801
Cited by
227
References
0
FWCI
8.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: An International Multicenter Randomized Double‐Blind Controlled Trial of Lamotrigine and Sustained‐Release Carbamazepine in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy in the Elderly. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01128.x
The paper
Saetre, E., Perucca, E., Isojärvi, J., Gjerstad, L., & on behalf of the LAM 40089 Study Group. (2007). An International Multicenter Randomized Double‐Blind Controlled Trial of Lamotrigine and Sustained‐Release Carbamazepine in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy in the Elderly. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01128.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.