 |
|
Do New Antiepileptic Drugs Justify Their Expense?
David Chadwick, MD, PhD
From the Department of Neurological Science, The Walton Center for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool University, Liverpool, England.
Arch Neurol. 1998;55:1140-1142.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
THE FIELD of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy has been an unusual one, being dominated by old drugs such as phenobarbitone (introduced in 1912) and phenytoin (introduced in 1938). Until recently drugs such as carbamazepine and valproate sodium, introduced into clinical practice in the early 1970s, were regarded as new drugs. However, in the last 7 to 8 years a number of new and potentially exciting AEDs with novel mechanisms of action have become available worldwide. After an initial inevitable burst of enthusiasm for them, we are now reaching a point where a more realistic assessment of their effectiveness can be made. Purchasers of health care, in particular, increasingly demand information to show that new and inevitably more expensive drugs do have benefits to justify the cost. Because epilepsy represents the most common of neurologic disorders, an indiscriminate switching from old to new AEDs would have considerable . . . [Full Text of this Article]EFFICACY
SAFETY
EASE OF USE
LESS TANGIBLE BENEFITS OF NEW AEDS
CONCLUSIONS
RELATED ARTICLE
New Antiepileptic Drugs: The Cost of Innovation
Vladimir Hachinski
Arch Neurol. 1998;55(8):1142.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
New Drugs: Which Should Be Included in the Formulary?: Epilepsy: All New Drugs Should Be Included
Pierre-Louis
Arch Neurol 2000;57:272-273.
FULL TEXT
|
