Correspondence |

Older vs Newer Antiepileptic Drugs: Is Old Still Gold?

Nitin K. Sethi, MD
JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(5):656-657. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.27.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


I read with interest the results from the KONQUEST (Keppra vs Older AEDs evaluating Neuropsychiatric, Neurocognitive and QUality of life outcomes in treatment of Epilepsy as Substitution monoTherapy) trial.1 The trial showed no difference in quality of life, neuropsychiatric, neurocognitive, seizure control, and adverse event outcome measures when patients with partial epilepsy who had failed monotherapy with an older antiepileptic drug (AED) were switched to monotherapy with another older AED vs those switched to brand name levetiracetam (marketed in the United States as Keppra; UCB Pharma). The efficacy and adverse effect profile of an AED may vary between the brand name medication and its generic equivalents available on the market. Were the patients who were taking older AEDs switched to brand name older AEDs or their generic equivalents? This may have skewed the results reported. Patients who are well controlled with older AEDs are at times switched to newer generation AEDs on the grounds that they have a more favorable adverse effect profile in the long run, namely, lesser incidence of neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric adverse effects, bone loss, and safety during pregnancy. Results from the KONQUEST trial make us pause and ponder this rationale as newer AEDs, especially those that lack a generic equivalent, are far more expensive and place a significant financial burden both on the patient and society at large.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





May 1, 2013
Terence J. O’Brien, MD; Tahir Hakami, MBBS; Marian Todaro, PhD
JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(5):656-657. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.214.
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles