Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 509

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

New onset geriatric epilepsy: A randomized study of gabapentin, lamotrigine, and carbamazepine

Rowan, A. J., Ramsay, R. E., Collins, J. F., Pryor, F., Boardman, K. D., Uthman, B. M., Spitz, M., Frederick, T., Towne, A., Carter, G. S., Marks, W., Felicetta, J., Tomyanovich, M. L., the VA Cooperative Study 428 Group·2005·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative tolerability and efficacy of two newer antiepileptic drugs, lamotrigine (LTG) and gabapentin (GBP), as compared to carbamazepine (CBZ) in older patients with epilepsy. METHODS: This was an 18-center, randomized, double-blind, double dummy, parallel study of 593 elderly subjects with newly diagnosed seizures. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: GBP 1,500 mg/day, LTG 150 mg/day, CBZ 600 mg/day. The primary outcome measure was retention in trial for 12 months. RESULTS: Mean age was 72 years. The most common etiology was cerebral infarction. Patients had multiple medical conditions and took an average of seven comedications. Mean plasma levels at 6 weeks were as follows: GBP 8.67 +/- 4.83 microg/mL, LTG 2.87 +/- 1.60 microg/mL, CBZ 6.79 +/- 2.92 microg/mL. They remained stable throughout the trial. Early terminations: LTG 44.2%, GBP 51%, CBZ 64.5% (p = 0.0002). Significant paired comparisons: LTG vs CBZ: p < 0.0001; GBP vs CBZ: p = 0.008. Terminations for adverse events: LTG 12.1%, GBP 21.6%, CBZ 31% (p = 0.001). Significant paired comparisons: LTG vs CBZ: p < 0.0001; LTG vs GBP: p = 0.015. There were no significant differences in seizure free rate at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The main limiting factor in patient retention was adverse drug reactions. Patients taking lamotrigine (LTG) or gabapentin (GBP) did better than those taking carbamazepine. Seizure control was similar among groups. LTG and GBP should be considered as initial therapy for older patients with newly diagnosed seizures.

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 · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000167384.68207.3e

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 509

Metadata

Authors
Rowan, A. J., Ramsay, R. E., Collins, J. F., Pryor, F., Boardman, K. D., Uthman, B. M., Spitz, M., Frederick, T., Towne, A., Carter, G. S., Marks, W., Felicetta, J., Tomyanovich, M. L., & the VA Cooperative Study 428 Group
Venue
Neurology
Published
2005-06-14
Volume
64
Issue
11
Pages
1868-1873
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2123177504
Cited by
509
References
0
FWCI
20.90
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: New onset geriatric epilepsy: A randomized study of gabapentin, lamotrigine, and carbamazepine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/01.wnl.0000167384.68207.3e
The paper
Rowan, A. J., Ramsay, R. E., Collins, J. F., Pryor, F., Boardman, K. D., Uthman, B. M., Spitz, M., Frederick, T., Towne, A., Carter, G. S., Marks, W., Felicetta, J., Tomyanovich, M. L., & the VA Cooperative Study 428 Group. (2005). New onset geriatric epilepsy: A randomized study of gabapentin, lamotrigine, and carbamazepine. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000167384.68207.3e

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.