Lacosamide is Associated with a Higher Treatment Persistence at 12 Months than Brivaracetam and Perampanel Despite Similar Efficacy Roberta Roberti, Cristina Politi, Francesca Anzellotti, Vincenzo Belcastro, Simone Beretta, Giovanni Boero, Paolo Bonanni, Laura Canafoglia, Alfredo D’Aniello, Filippo Dainese, Carmen De Caro, Giancarlo Di Gennaro, Roberta Di Giacomo, Jacopo C. DiFrancesco, Fedele Dono, Giovanni Falcicchio, Edoardo Ferlazzo, Nicoletta Foschi, Antonio Gambardella, Alfonso Giordano, Angelo Labate, Angela La Neve, Simona Lattanzi, Ugo Leggio, Claudio Liguori, Marta Maschio, Pietro Mattioli, Annacarmen Nilo, Francesca Felicia Operto, Angelo Pascarella, Giada Pauletto, Luciano Pellegrino, Rosaria Renna, Gionata Strigaro, , Vincenzo Andreone, Dario Arnaldi, Valeria Badioni, Chiara Bedetti, Lara Buttarelli, Claudia Cagnetti, Roberto Cantello, Alberto Danieli, Francesco Deleo, Giacomo Evangelista, Mariana Fernandes, Francesco Fortunato, Sara Gasparini, Matilde Lazzari, Andrea Maialetti, Nicola Biagio Mercuri, Miriam Olivieri, Elisa Osanni, Maria Grazia Pascarella, Chiara Pastori, Stefano L Sensi, Payam Tabaee Damavandi, Lorenzo Tinti, Lorenzo Verriello, Flavio Villani, Pio Zoleo, Emilio Russo, Gianfranco Di Gennaro Neurology and Therapy, 2026 INTRODUCTION: Evidence directly comparing newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) is limited but crucial for guiding treatment decisions. This study compared the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV), lacosamide (LCM) and perampanel (PER) as add-on therapy in adults with epilepsy, applying a causal-inference extension of the COMPARE study. The aim of this approach was to overcome the limitations of standard multivariable analyses, better approximate causal effects, and reinforce the credibility of the results. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected in the Italian multicentre COMPARE study. To emulate a randomized setting, we estimated multinomial propensity scores and applied stabilized inverse probability weights. The primary analysis used a log-logistic accelerated failure time model to estimate time-to-treatment discontinuation, adjusting for adverse events (AEs), clinical response and follow-up duration. Secondary analyses evaluated changes in total and concomitant drug load and tolerability over time. RESULTS: Among the 850 subjects included in this analysis (259, 240 and 351 receiving LCM, BRV and PER, respectively; 53.4% female; median age 43 years), the estimated probability of 12-month retention was highest for LCM (86.1%), followed by BRV (79.1%) and PER (75.4%). Long-term trends suggested convergence of PER and LCM retention, whereas BRV discontinuation remained higher. In the adjusted analyses, BRV and PER were associated with shorter time-to-treatment discontinuation than LCM, but this negative effect decreased over time, while the beneficial effect of clinical response strengthened. Total drug load increased across all groups but remained lowest for LCM; concomitant ASM load decreased, particularly among responders. AEs were mostly mild, with dizziness, irritability and somnolence the most common AEs. AE rates were initially higher for PER and BRV, but differences diminished over time. CONCLUSION: Treatment discontinuation in epilepsy emerges as a dynamic process shaped by both tolerability and clinical response. Early persistence was higher for LCM, whereas long-term retention was improved for BRV and PER. These results support a personalized approach to ASM selection that integrates early tolerability with sustained effectiveness.
Perampanel effects on seizures and sleep quality in people with epilepsy: A prospective multicenter study G. Bergamo, M. Fernandes, S. Maio, G. Pauletto, A. Nilo, D. Arnaldi, M. Puligheddu, L. Urso, F. Barbato, A. Cervellino, R. Renna, G. Boero, Nicola Pilolli, A. Giordano, P. Penza, M. Lieto, M. Pezzella, L. Giuliano, M.P. Pasolini, M. Piccioli, I. Barbaro, L. Fernando, N.B. Mercuri, C. Liguori Epilepsy and Behavior, 2025 OBJECTIVE: Preliminary studies suggested a potential beneficial effect of perampanel (PER) on sleep in people with epilepsy (PwE). The present multicenter study evaluated the clinical potential of the early use of PER in PwE on seizures and on sleep quality, insomnia, daytime sleepiness and circadian rhythm preferences, as well as on depressive symptoms and quality of life. METHODS: PwE starting PER as early add-on antiseizure medication were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after six months of treatment (T1) using standardized questionnaires: Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E), Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), and the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QoLIE-31). RESULTS: 74 PwE (44.6 % male, mean age 42.41 ± 18.06 years) were included and 59 PwE completed the study. At T1, 45.76 % (27/59) of PwE were seizure-free and significant reduction of seizures was found (10.80 ± 20.72 vs. 5.93 ± 16.77, p = 0.002). At T1, a significant improvement in sleep quality (PSQI, 7.18 ± 4.27 vs. 4.63 ± 3.09, p = 0.001) was evident, and particularly in sleep duration and efficiency and in the use of sleeping medications. Insomnia symptoms (ISI, 8.15 ± 6.23 vs. 5.32 ± 5.25, p = 0.002) and quality of life (QOLIE-31, 58.32 ± 16.57 vs. 65.81 ± 16.31, p = 0.033), mainly social functioning and perceived well-being, also significantly improved. No significant changes emerged for daytime sleepiness, circadian preference and depressive symptoms. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that PER may represent a valid therapeutic option for PwE, and particularly in who presents sleep impairment and insomnia.
Effectiveness and safety of adjunctive cenobamate in people with focal-onset epilepsy: Interim results after 24-week observational period from the BLESS study Simona Lattanzi, Fedele Dono, Giuseppe d'Orsi, Alfredo D'Aniello, Mariangela Panebianco, Paolo Bonanni, Carlo Di Bonaventura, Elisa Montalenti, Antonio Gambardella, Federica Ranzato, Giada Pauletto, Elena Tartara, Angela La Neve, Francesca Bisulli, Giampaolo Vatti, Patrizia Pulitano, Claudio Liguori, Giovanni Assenza, Alfonso Giordano, Pietro Pignatta, Vincenzo Belcastro, Michela Cecconi, Simone Beretta, Chiara Pizzanelli, Marianna Pezzella, Massimo Gangitano, Maurizio Elia, Rosaria Renna, Catello Vollono, Angelo Pascarella, Luciana Tramacere, Giovanni De Maria, Daniela Audenino, Maria Pia Pasolini, Loretta Giuliano, Rosita Galli, Gionata Strigaro, Monica Puligheddu, Angelo Labate, Pietro Penza, Stefano Quadri, David Stokelj, Giovanni Boero, Elisa Fallica, Monica Santo Sabato, Giovanni Falcicchio, Nicoletta Foschi, Michela Procaccini, Valentina Villano, Gabriele Camattari, Fabiano Mele, Barbara Roncari, Giancarlo Di Gennaro, and Epilepsia, 2025 ObjectiveCenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) with a dual mechanism of action that was recently approved for the treatment of focal seizures in adults. This analysis aimed to describe the outcomes at 12 and 24 weeks after starting cenobamate therapy in a real‐world setting.MethodsBLESS [NCT05859854] is an ongoing, observational, retrospective and prospective cohort study to evaluate the real‐world effectiveness and safety of adjunctive cenobamate in adults with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. Subgroup analysis was performed in subjects with 2 to 3 previous ASMs (early users) and those with >3 previous ASMs (late users).ResultsThe second interim analysis of the BLESS study included 388 participants with a median (interquartile range) age of 43.0 (31.0–54.0) years. They had a median of 6.0 (4.0–9.0) prior ASMs and a median of 7.2 (3.0–20.6) monthly seizures at baseline. The median monthly seizure frequency was reduced by 59.9% (19.2%–87.3%) from baseline to 24 weeks; 229 (59.0%) subjects had a ≥50% seizure frequency reduction, and 44 (11.3%) showed sustained seizure freedom. The proportion of participants taking ≤2 concomitant ASMs increased from 217 (56.5%) at baseline to 239 (65.7%) at 24 weeks. Among the early users (n = 76, 19.6%), the median reduction in monthly seizure frequency at 24 weeks was 78.0% (50.0–97.1%), and 76.3% of subjects had a ≥50% response rate. The frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 5.3% and 23.4% in early and late users. The most frequent ADRs were somnolence, dizziness, and balance disorder; after the occurrence of ADRs, 63.5% of participants maintained the prescribed dose, and 5.2% permanently discontinued treatment.SignificanceCenobamate was effective in reducing seizure frequency in a real‐world setting and showed a manageable safety profile. The treatment with cenobamate also reduced the burden of concomitant ASMs in both early and late users.
Effectiveness of perampanel as only concomitant antiseizure medication for highly active epilepsy: insight from a real-world, multicenter retrospective study Angelo Pascarella, Marilisa Pasquale, Domenico Abelardo, Sara Gasparini, Oreste Marsico, Roberta Cutellè, Vittoria Cianci, Alfonso Iudice, Francesca Bisulli, Paolo Bonanni, Emanuele Caggia, Alfredo D’Aniello, Carlo Di Bonaventura, Jacopo C. DiFrancesco, Elisabetta Domina, Fedele Dono, Antonio Gambardella, Carla Marini, Alfonso Marrelli, Sara Matricardi, Alessandra Morano, Francesco Paladin, Rosaria Renna, Marta Piccioli, Pasquale Striano, Michele Ascoli, Angela La Neve, Emilio Le Piane, Alessandro Orsini, Claudia Torino, Simone Beretta, Umberto Aguglia, Edoardo Ferlazzo, , Carla Arbasino, Irene Bagnasco, Pierangelo Barbero, Emanuele Bartolini, Maria A. Bassetti, Vincenzo Belcastro, Vanni Boero, Alice Bonuccelli, Alessandro Bulgari, Emanuele Caggia, Roberto Cantello, Susanna Casellato, Natascia Casula, Edward Cesnik, Clotilde Ciampa, Anna Maria Cipriani, Mario Coletti Moja, Marta Conti, Giangennaro Coppola, Francesco Corea, Giovanni Crichiutti, Giuseppe D’Orsi, Filippo Dainese, Alberto Danieli, Marco De Curtis, Valentina De Giorgis, Luigi Del Gaudio, Francesco Deleo, Giancarlo Di Gennaro, Giacomo Evangelista, Francesco Fortunato, Stefania Filipponi, Attilio Gagliano, Thea Giacomini, Francesca Gilio, Alfonso Giordano, Loretta Giuliano, Shalom Haggiag, Stella Jensen, Angelo Labate, Laura Licchetta, Angelica Lupato, Greta Macorig, Anna Mammì, Maria Margherita Mancardi, Daniela Marino, Barbara Mostacci, Lorenzo Muccioli, Susanna Negrin, Francesca Operto, Alessandro Orsini, Pasquale Palumbo, Mariagrazia Pascarella, Alessia Peretti, Gabriella Perri, Giuseppina Pustorino, Federica Ranzato, Antonella Riva, Serena Servo, Ilaria Sammarra, Laura Siri, Orazio Spitaleri, Andrea Stabile, Gionata Strigaro, Costanza Varesio Journal of Neurology, 2025
Efficacy and tolerability of low versus standard daily doses of antiseizure medications in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (STANDLOW) Giorgia Giussani, Elisa Bianchi, Edoardo Carlando, Jacopo Cosimo DiFrancesco, Payam Tabaee Damavandi, Francesco Pasini, Giulia Pederzoli, Stefania Filipponi, Alessandra Gaiani, Luca Massacesi, Eleonora Rosati, Ginevra Giovannelli, Teresa Anna Cantisani, Michela Cecconi, Rossella Papetti, Monica Brioschi, Francesco Aruta, Elio Clemente Agostoni, Francesco Paladin, Filippo Dainese, Marco Longoni, Bartolini Yerma, Sara Gasparini, Umberto Aguglia, Edoardo Ferlazzo, Roberto Cantello, Gionata Strigaro, Marta Maschio, Dario Benincasa, Angela La Neve, Giovanni Falcicchio, Alfonso Giordano, Lara Buttarelli, Gabriele Enia, Maurizio Leone, Carlo Ferrarese, Ettore Beghi, Simone Beretta Epilepsia Open, 2025 ObjectiveThe STANDLOW trial investigated whether first‐line antiseizure monotherapy with low doses has a similar efficacy to standard doses, but with fewer adverse events, improved quality of life, and reduced costs for the National Health System.MethodsMulticenter, randomized, parallel‐arm, single‐blind, non‐inferiority trial, comparing low dose versus standard dose of antiseizure medications (carbamazepine, levetiracetam, valproate, zonisamide, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, lacosamide) in adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.ResultsThe intention‐to‐treat (ITT) population consisted of 58 randomized patients, 29 in the low dose arm and 29 in the standard dose arm, 27 (46.6%) females and 31 (53.4%) males, with an age between 18 and 87 years (median 54.9, IQR 32–71). The seizure type was focal impaired awareness seizures in 44 (75.9%) and focal aware seizures in 14 (24.1%). Etiology was unknown in 43 (74.1%) and structural in 15 (25.9%). At study entry, EEG was epileptiform in 28 (48.2%) and seizure frequency was low (≤2 seizures/month) in 41 (70.7%). The estimated relapse proportions at 12 months were 47% for the low dose and 48% for the standard dose, with a difference of 1% (95% CI: −30%; 27%). At the end of the study visit (12 months of follow‐up, or immediately after seizure relapse or study withdrawal for other reasons, whichever came first), no differences in the number or severity of adverse events or quality of life measures were observed between the two treatment groups. The total drug‐related costs over the entire study period were lower in the low dose arm (median per participant 253 € versus 475 € in the standard dose arm).SignificanceAlthough the efficacy of low doses versus standard doses appeared similar, non‐inferiority could not be demonstrated due to slow recruitment and premature termination of the trial. Although statistically inconclusive, our findings suggest that a low dose of antiseizure medications may be considered as a first‐line option in adult patients with a new diagnosis of focal epilepsy of unknown etiology and low seizure frequency.Plain Language SummaryThis study aimed to see if low doses of anti‐seizure medications (ASMs) could be as effective as standard doses in treating adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Subjects were assigned to receive either a low or standard dose of ASMs. 58 adults participated. Both low and standard doses seemed to have a similar effect on controlling seizures. The study was stopped early due to slow enrollment, making it difficult to definitively prove that low doses were non‐inferior to standard doses. Low doses of ASMs might be a reasonable option for adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy with no clear cause and few seizures.
Adjunctive cenobamate in people with focal onset seizures: Insights from the Italian Expanded Access Program Roberta Roberti, Giovanni Assenza, Francesca Bisulli, Giovanni Boero, Laura Canafoglia, Valentina Chiesa, Carlo Di Bonaventura, Giancarlo Di Gennaro, Maurizio Elia, Edoardo Ferlazzo, Alfonso Giordano, Angela La Neve, Claudio Liguori, Stefano Meletti, Francesca Felicia Operto, Nicola Pietrafusa, Monica Puligheddu, Patrizia Pulitano, Eleonora Rosati, Ilaria Sammarra, Elena Tartara, Giampaolo Vatti, Flavio Villani, , Emilio Russo, Simona Lattanzi Epilepsia, 2024 ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness/tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate, variations in the load of concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) and predictors of clinical response in people with focal epilepsy.MethodsThis was a retrospective study at 21 centers participating in the Italian Expanded Access Program. Effectiveness outcomes included retention and responder rates (≥50% and 100% reduction in baseline seizure frequency). Tolerability/safety outcomes included the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and their incidence. Total drug load was quantified as the number of concomitant ASMs and total defined daily dose (DDD). Concomitant ASMs were also classified according to their mechanism of action and pharmacokinetic interactions to perform explorative subgroup analyses.ResultsA total of 236 subjects with a median age of 38 (Q1–Q3 = 27–49) years were included. At 12 months, cenobamate retention rate was 78.8% and responders were 57.5%. The seizure freedom rates during the preceding 3 months were 9.8%, 12.2%, 16.3%, and 14.0% at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A higher percentage of responders was observed among subjects treated with clobazam, although the difference was not statistically significant. A total of 223 AEs were recorded in 133 of 236 participants, leading to cenobamate discontinuation in 8.5% cases. At 12 months, a reduction of one or two concomitant ASMs occurred in 42.6% and 4.3% of the subjects. The median total DDD of all concomitant ASMs decreased from 3.34 (Q1–Q3 = 2.50–4.47) at baseline to 2.50 (Q1–Q3 = 1.67–3.50) at 12 months (p < .001, median percentage reduction = 22.2%). The highest rates of cotreatment withdrawal and reductions in the DDD were observed for sodium channel blockers and γ‐aminobutyric acidergic modulators (above all for those linked to pharmacokinetic interactions), and perampanel.SignificanceAdjunctive cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency and in the burden of concomitant ASMs in adults with difficult‐to‐treat focal epilepsy. The type of ASM associated did not influence effectiveness except for a favorable trend with clobazam.
Brivaracetam use in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus on its role as first add-on therapy in focal epilepsy and beyond Simona Lattanzi, Valentina Chiesa, Giancarlo Di Gennaro, Edoardo Ferlazzo, Angelo Labate, Angela La Neve, Stefano Meletti, Carlo Di Bonaventura, , Daniela Audenino, Giovanni Boero, Vittoria Cianci, Mario Coletti Moja, Eduardo Cumbo, Filippo Dainese, Giuseppe Didato, Elisa Fallica, Alfonso Giordano, Emilio Le Piane, Mariangela Panebianco, Marta Piccioli, Pietro Pignatta, Monica Puligheddu, Patrizia Pulitano, Federica Ranzato, Rosaria Renna, Eleonora Rosati, Stella Vergine Neurological Sciences, 2024 Background Antiseizure medications remain the cornerstone of treatment for epilepsy, although a proportion of individuals with the condition will continue to experience seizures despite appropriate therapy. Treatment choices for epilepsy are based on variables related to both the individual patient and the available medications. Brivaracetam is a third-generation agent antiseizure medication. Methods We carried out a Delphi consensus exercise to define the role of brivaracetam in clinical practice and to provide guidance about its use as first add-on ASM and in selected clinical scenarios. A total of 15 consensus statements were drafted by an expert panel following review of the literature and all were approved in the first round of voting by panelists. The consensus indicated different clinical scenarios for which brivaracetam can be a good candidate for treatment, including first add-on use. Results Overall, brivaracetam was considered to have many advantageous characteristics that render it a suitable option for patients with focal epilepsy, including a fast onset of action, favorable pharmacokinetic profile with few drug-drug interactions, broad-spectrum activity, and being well tolerated across a range of doses. Brivaracetam is also associated with sustained clinical response and good tolerability in the long term. Conclusions These characteristics also make it suitable as an early add-on for the elderly and for patients with post-stroke epilepsy or status epilepticus as highlighted by the present Delphi consensus.
Perampanel in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice data from the PERampanel as Only Concomitant antiseizure medication (PEROC) study Angelo Pascarella, Lucia Manzo, Sara Gasparini, Oreste Marsico, Domenico Abelardo, Claudia Torino, Vittoria Cianci, Alfonso Iudice, Francesca Bisulli, Paolo Bonanni, Emanuele Caggia, Alfredo D'Aniello, Carlo Di Bonaventura, Jacopo C. DiFrancesco, Elisabetta Domina, Fedele Dono, Antonio Gambardella, Francesco Fortunato, Carla Marini, Alfonso Marrelli, Sara Matricardi, Alessandra Morano, Francesco Paladin, Rosaria Renna, Marta Piccioli, Pasquale Striano, Michele Ascoli, Angela La Neve, Emilio Le Piane, Alessandro Orsini, Gianfranco Di Gennaro, Umberto Aguglia, Edoardo Ferlazzo Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 2024 INTRODUCTION: Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is one of the most common causes of acquired epilepsy. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence regarding the clinical profile of antiseizure medications (ASMs) in PSE. This study aims to evaluate the 12-month effectiveness and tolerability of perampanel (PER) used as only add-on treatment in patients with PSE in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of PSE patients included in a previous retrospective, longitudinal, multicentre observational study on adults. Treatment discontinuation, seizure frequency and adverse events were collected at 3, 6 and 12 months. Sub-analyses by early (≤1 previous ASM) or late PER add-on were also conducted. RESULTS: Our analysis included 56 individuals with PSE, characterized by varying initial treatment modalities and timeframes relative to disease onset. We found notable retention rates (92.8%, 83.7%, and 69% at 3, 6, and 12 months), with treatment withdrawal mainly due to poor tolerability. One year after PER introduction, seizure frequency significantly reduced, with a responder rate (≥50% reduction) of 83.9% and a seizure-free rate of 51.6%. Adverse events occurred in 25 (46.3%) patients, mainly dizziness, irritability, and behavioural disorders. No major statistical differences were found between early (30 patients, 53.6%) and late add-on groups, except for a higher 6-month responder rate in the early add-on group. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive PER was effective and well-tolerated in patients with PSE in a real-world setting. Perampanel demonstrated good efficacy and safety as both early and late add-on treatment, making it a compelling option for this unique patient population.
A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study Roberta Roberti, Gianfranco Di Gennaro, Francesca Anzellotti, Dario Arnaldi, Vincenzo Belcastro, Simone Beretta, Giovanni Boero, Paolo Bonanni, Laura Canafoglia, Alfredo D'Aniello, Filippo Dainese, Carmen De Caro, Giancarlo Di Gennaro, Roberta Di Giacomo, Jacopo C. DiFrancesco, Fedele Dono, Giovanni Falcicchio, Edoardo Ferlazzo, Nicoletta Foschi, Silvia Franciotta, Antonio Gambardella, Alfonso Giordano, Luigi Francesco Iannone, Angelo Labate, Angela La Neve, Simona Lattanzi, Ugo Leggio, Claudio Liguori, Marta Maschio, Annacarmen Nilo, Francesca Felicia Operto, Angelo Pascarella, Giada Pauletto, Rosaria Renna, Gionata Strigaro, Emilio Russo, and Epilepsia, 2024 ObjectiveThere are few comparative data on the third‐generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add‐on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan–Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.ResultsA total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)‐naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17–3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06–2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71–16.61), as well as PER‐treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05–2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01–.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV‐naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55–68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32–14.44) and BRV in LEV‐naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64–17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.SignificanceComparative evidence from real‐world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.
Validation of new diagnostic criteria for fatigue in patients with Parkinson disease Mattia Siciliano, Benzi Kluger, Rosa De Micco, Carlo Chiorri, Valeria Sant'Elia, Marcello Silvestro, Alfonso Giordano, Gioacchino Tedeschi, Luca Passamonti, Luigi Trojano, Alessandro Tessitore European Journal of Neurology, 2022 Although disabling fatigue is common in Parkinson disease (PD), available consensus‐based diagnostic criteria have not yet been empirically validated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the criteria.
Disrupted default mode network connectivity in migraine without aura Alessandro Tessitore, Antonio Russo, Alfonso Giordano, Francesca Conte, Daniele Corbo, Manuela De Stefano, Sossio Cirillo, Mario Cirillo, Fabrizio Esposito, Gioacchino Tedeschi Journal of Headache and Pain, 2013
