The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of their efficacy and tolerability
Open accessAbstract
Objectives : To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the newly developed antiepileptic drugs gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide in patients with refractory partial epilepsy. Design : Systematic review of published and unpublished randomised controlled trials of add-on treatment with new antiepileptic drugs. Subjects : 20 published and eight unpublished trials representing 3883 patients with refractory partial epilepsy. Main outcome measures : Proportion of patients who (a) showed 50% or greater reduction in frequency of seizures (50% responders) and (b) withdrew from each study for any reason. Results : Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) relative to placebo for 50% responders were 2.29 (1.53 to 3.43) for gabapentin, 2.32 (1.47 to 3.68) for lamotrigine, 3.03 (2.01 to 4.58) for tiagabine, 4.22 (2.80 to 6.35) for topiramate, 3.68 (2.45 to 5.51) for vigabatrin, and 2.47 (1.36 to 4.47) for zonisamide. Odds ratios for withdrawal were 1.36 (0.75 to 2.49) for gabapentin, 1.19 (0.79 to 1.79) for lamotrigine, 1.81 (1.21 to 2.70) for tiagabine, 2.42 (1.43 to 4.11) for topiramate, 2.58 (1.26 to 5.27) for vigabatrin, and 5.70 (1.76 to 18.49) for zonisamide. Comparing results for each drug showed that all of the 95% confidence intervals overlapped, indicating that they were not significantly different in terms of efficacy and tolerability. Conclusions : All six drugs were significantly better than placebo at reducing frequency of seizures. These results do not allow an evidence based choice between these drugs as we have no conclusive indication of differences in efficacy or tolerability. Key messages: At present there is insufficient evidence to guide a choice between these new treatments We systematically reviewed randomised placebo controlled studies of supplementary gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide Each drug was significantly better than placebo at preventing seizures, but none was significantly different from the others in terms of efficacy or tolerability, though the confidence intervals were wide Randomised trials comparing active treatments are needed to further evaluate these drugs
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
Cited by
Marson, A. G., Al-Kharusi, A. M., Alwaidh, M., Appleton, R., Baker, G. A., Chadwick, D. W., Cramp, C., Cockerell, O. C., Cooper, P. N., Doughty, J., et al. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60460-7 · Cited by 976
Self-citationEfficacy and Safety of Oral Lacosamide as Adjunctive Therapy in Adults with Partial‐Onset Seizures
Ben‐Menachem, E., Biton, V., Jatuzis, D., Abou‐Khalil, B., Doty, P., & Rudd, G. D. (2007) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01188.x · Cited by 485
Negative Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs on Mood in Patients with Epilepsy
Mula, M., & Sander, J. W. (2007) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/00002018-200730070-00001 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Marson, A. G., Kadir, Z. A., & Chadwick, D. W.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1996-11-09
- Volume
- 313
- Issue
- 7066
- Pages
- 1169-1174
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1975482049
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: New antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of their efficacy and tolerability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1169
- The paper
- Marson, A. G., Kadir, Z. A., & Chadwick, D. W. (1996). New antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of their efficacy and tolerability. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1169
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.