This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
In this issue of Neurology, Blum et al.1 report a randomized controlled study (RCT) that examines cognitive function following the addition of 500 mg/day of lamotrigine or 300 mg/day of topiramate to existing treatment with either carbamazepine or phenytoin. They show that topiramate has greater potential to harm cognitive function than does lamotrigine at the fixed doses used, something that might be expected from previous placebo-controlled regulatory studies of the two drugs, from some limited comparative studies of volunteers and patients, and from clinical experience gained post-marketing.2–5 Surely, then, we should simply applaud the fact that such careful methodology has been applied to a subject as important as the cognitive effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).
But perhaps we should pause for thought and consider some of the issues that lie behind the study design and its reporting, because it highlights a number of issues about RCTs sponsored by industry. Industry of course has two main reasons for sponsoring RCTs: in order to license a drug for specific indications, usually by placebo-controlled add-on studies in epilepsy, and to support a drug’s marketing. The Blum et al. study can be considered a marketing study.
RCTs are accepted as the least biased means of detecting small but …
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
- How skeptical should we be about industry-sponsored studies?
- Reply from the Author
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
