The medical treatment of epilepsy in the elderly: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in elderly individuals with epilepsy. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases as well as bibliographies and conference abstracts. Published and unpublished, randomized, or quasirandomized trials reporting the use of AEDs in people aged at least 60 years with epilepsy were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently carried out each stage of the review. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: Three thousand four hundred seventeen titles and abstracts were reviewed. Eighteen studies evaluating 12 AEDs met all eligibility criteria. Ten studies, comprising 1999 subjects, were suitable for meta-analysis. Among the elderly with epilepsy, lamotrigine (LTG) is better tolerated relative to carbamazepine (pooled weighted risk ratio [RR] of experiencing withdrawal due to adverse events = 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-2.43). There is a higher probability, although with a 95% CI of borderline importance, of seizure freedom when comparing levetiracetam to LTG (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.68-0.97). Single studies provide evidence for the efficacy and/or tolerability of other AEDs in the elderly, including brivaracetam, gabapentin, lacosamide, perampanel, and topiramate. The risk of bias of the included studies was frequently low or unclear, although there was on occasion a high risk of bias (especially with regard to selective reporting). SIGNIFICANCE: There is some evidence for AED use in the elderly with epilepsy. More evidence is required, comparing newer AEDs to prior generations as well as examining the effects of determinants such as frailty, to guide clinicians when treating this rapidly growing patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".