- Email: [email protected]
Thanks to our peer reviewers in 2014
Comment
The most difficult part in this debate is perhaps to question what the regulatory agencies should do. Giving future AEDs unlimited approval for monotherapy use based on adjunctive-therapy trials has its problems, as outlined above. How should the FDA resolve the current regulatory bind? If evidence is presented that denying patients valuable new AEDs in monotherapy is harmful, the regulatory authorities might be convinced about the need for change. Mintzer and colleagues are to be commended for having focused attention on this public-health problem, and their proposal should be carefully examined.
Dieter Schmidt Epilepsy Research Group, Berlin, Germany [email protected] I declare no competing interests. 1 2 3
Mintzer S, French, JA, Perucca E, et al. Is a separate monotherapy indication warranted for antiepileptic drugs? Lancet Neurology 2015; 14: 1229–40. Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Early identification of refractory epilepsy. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 314–19. Beyenburg S, Stavem K, Schmidt D. Placebo-corrected efficacy of modern antiepileptic drugs for refractory epilepsy: systematic review and metaanalysis. Epilepsia 2010; 51: 7–26.
Thanks to our peer reviewers in 2014 Readers can find the names of the editors of The Lancet Neurology on our website and in the masthead of each print issue; authors’ names appear on their articles. However, every month, tens of peer reviewers and external advisers contribute hugely to the shaping of our content and their invaluable work is not acknowledged. The names of these advisers who helped during 2014 are listed in the appendix; the editors feel immensely fortunate to have, and are very grateful for, their support. More than 680 peer reviewers helped the editors throughout 2014. Our advisers have dedicated to us
many hours of their precious time; they have not asked for anything in return, but have trusted that The Lancet Neurology will maintain excellence in neurological research at its core. We must therefore face up to the challenge that such trust deserves. We thank our peer reviewers not only for the generosity of their contributions, but also for their inspiration and the high standards they bring to our work.
For the names of the editors see http://www.thelancet.com/ lancet-people
See Online for appendix
Elena Becker-Barroso The Lancet Neurology, London, EC2Y 5AS, UK [email protected]
Corrections Rohrer JD, Nicholas JM, Cash DM. Presymptomatic cognitive and neuroanatomical changes in genetic frontotemporal dementia in the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) study: a cross-sectional analysis. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14: 253–62—Giuliano Binetti (IRCCS Centro San Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy) should have been listed as an author. This correction has been made to the online version as of Nov 9, 2015.
www.thelancet.com/neurology Vol 14 December 2015
1151
The most difficult part in this debate is perhaps to question what the regulatory agencies should do. Giving future AEDs unlimited approval for monotherapy use based on adjunctive-therapy trials has its problems, as outlined above. How should the FDA resolve the current regulatory bind? If evidence is presented that denying patients valuable new AEDs in monotherapy is harmful, the regulatory authorities might be convinced about the need for change. Mintzer and colleagues are to be commended for having focused attention on this public-health problem, and their proposal should be carefully examined.
Dieter Schmidt Epilepsy Research Group, Berlin, Germany [email protected] I declare no competing interests. 1 2 3
Mintzer S, French, JA, Perucca E, et al. Is a separate monotherapy indication warranted for antiepileptic drugs? Lancet Neurology 2015; 14: 1229–40. Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Early identification of refractory epilepsy. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 314–19. Beyenburg S, Stavem K, Schmidt D. Placebo-corrected efficacy of modern antiepileptic drugs for refractory epilepsy: systematic review and metaanalysis. Epilepsia 2010; 51: 7–26.
Thanks to our peer reviewers in 2014 Readers can find the names of the editors of The Lancet Neurology on our website and in the masthead of each print issue; authors’ names appear on their articles. However, every month, tens of peer reviewers and external advisers contribute hugely to the shaping of our content and their invaluable work is not acknowledged. The names of these advisers who helped during 2014 are listed in the appendix; the editors feel immensely fortunate to have, and are very grateful for, their support. More than 680 peer reviewers helped the editors throughout 2014. Our advisers have dedicated to us
many hours of their precious time; they have not asked for anything in return, but have trusted that The Lancet Neurology will maintain excellence in neurological research at its core. We must therefore face up to the challenge that such trust deserves. We thank our peer reviewers not only for the generosity of their contributions, but also for their inspiration and the high standards they bring to our work.
For the names of the editors see http://www.thelancet.com/ lancet-people
See Online for appendix
Elena Becker-Barroso The Lancet Neurology, London, EC2Y 5AS, UK [email protected]
Corrections Rohrer JD, Nicholas JM, Cash DM. Presymptomatic cognitive and neuroanatomical changes in genetic frontotemporal dementia in the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) study: a cross-sectional analysis. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14: 253–62—Giuliano Binetti (IRCCS Centro San Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy) should have been listed as an author. This correction has been made to the online version as of Nov 9, 2015.
www.thelancet.com/neurology Vol 14 December 2015
1151