The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New onset geriatric epilepsy: A randomized study of gabapentin, lamotrigine, and carbamazepine
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.
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
Epileptic activity in Alzheimer’s disease: Causes and clinical relevance
Vossel, K. A., Tartaglia, M. C., Nygaard, H. B., Zeman, A. Z., & Miller, B. L. (2017) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30044-3 · Cited by 590
Comparison of levetiracetam and controlled-release carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy
Brodie, M. J., Perucca, E., Ryvlin, P., Ben-Menachem, E., & Meencke, H.-J. (2007) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000252941.50833.4a · Cited by 467
Drug treatment of epilepsy in adults
Schmidt, D., & Schachter, S. C. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g254 · Cited by 323
Seizures and Epilepsy in Alzheimer's Disease
Friedman, D., Honig, L. S., & Scarmeas, N. (2012) · CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1755-5949.2011.00251.x · Cited by 229
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.