ArticleThe Permanente journal2020
Effectiveness at 24 Months of Single-Source Generic Carbamazepine, Lamotrigine, or Levetiracetam in Newly Diagnosed Focal Epilepsy.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cannabis in cancer: a review of therapeutic potential, clinical and preclinical status, and legislation.Archives of pharmacal research · 2026Review
- The Endocannabinoid System in Endometriosis-Associated Pain: Mechanisms, Molecular Targets, and Therapeutic Implications.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026Review
- Cannabinoid Oral Mucosal Delivery: Approaches to Formulation, Fabrication, and Permeation Enhancement.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Enzymatic hydrolysis of ∆Forensic toxicology · 2025Article
- Cannabinoids in the treatment of glioblastoma.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2024Review
- Exploring the therapeutic potential of natural compounds modulating the endocannabinoid system in various diseases and disorders: review.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKaiser Permanente advocates using single-source generics for brand-name drugs. We compared the effectiveness of 3 different-generation generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with focal epilepsies.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the 3 most commonly used AEDs (carbamazepine [CBZ], lamotrigine [LTG], and levetiracetam [LEV]) after 24-month monotherapy.
methodsThis is a retrospective data analysis of 646 consecutive AED-naive patients aged 1-88 years treated with CBZ, LTG, or LEV between 2006 and 2012 with dosing adjustments permitted during the first 6 months. Chi-squared test with p < 0.05 was used to calculate seizure-freedom and tolerability rates.
resultsAt the end of the 24-month study period, 65.69% patients in the CBZ group continued to remain seizure free, 25.98% were drug failures, and 8.33% dropped out due to adverse events, with the corresponding numbers being 66.49%, 23.94%, and 9.57% in the LTG group and 72.44%, 12.99%, and 14.57% in the LEV group. Rash was the most common adverse event for CBZ (3.43%) and LTG (6.38%), and mood changes were the most commen adverse event for LEV (7.87%). Among the 3 groups (n = 646), AED tolerance rates and AED retention rates showed no significant difference (p = 0.08 and p = 0.23, respectively). Seizure-freedom rate difference among the 3 groups (n = 574) was significant (p = 0.003), and seizure-freedom rate for LEV was superior to CBZ (p = 0.001) and to LTG (p = 0.006).
conclusionAt the end of the 24-month study period, in a head-to-head comparison of single-source bioequivalent generic formulations, superior seizure-freedom rate and comparable tolerability and retention rates for LEV were observed when compared with CBZ and LTG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.