Correction to: Effectiveness of Rotigotine plus intensive and goal­based rehabilitation versus Rotigotine alone in "de­novo" Parkinsonian subjects: a randomized controlled trial with 18­month follow­up.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The funding information was incorrect. The corrected funding information is given below.

Effectiveness of Rotigotine plus intensive and goal-based rehabilitation versus Rotigotine alone in "de-novo" Parkinsonian subjects: a randomized controlled trial with 18-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine Replacement Therapy (DRT) represents the most effective treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD). Nevertheless, several symptoms are unresponsive to treatment and its long-term use leads to serious side effects. To optimize the pharmacological management of PD, dopamine-agonists are often prescribed to "de-novo" patients. Moreover, several studies have shown the effectiveness and the synergic effect of rehabilitation in treating PD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the synergism between DRT and rehabilitation in treating PD, by investigating the short and the long-term effectiveness of a multidisciplinary, intensive and goal-based rehabilitation treatment (MIRT) in a group of patients treated with Rotigotine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, single blinded, parallel-group, 1:1 allocation ratio, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 36 "de-novo" PD patients were evaluated along 18 months: 17 were treated with Rotigotine plus MIRT; 19 were treated with Rotigotine alone (R). The primary outcome measure was the total score of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). The secondary outcomes included the UPDRS sub-sections II and III (UPDRS II-III), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and the amount of Rotigotine. Patients were evaluated at baseline (T0), 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2), and at 18 months (T3). RESULTS: No differences in UPDRS scores in the two groups (total score, III part and II part, p = 0.48, p = 0.90 and p = 0.40, respectively) were found in the time course. Conversely, a greater improvement in Rotigotine + MIRT group was observed for 6MWT (p < 0.0001) and TUG (p = 0.03). Along time, the dosage of Rotigotine was higher in patients who did not undergo MIRT, at all observation times following T0. CONCLUSIONS: Over the course of 18 months, the effectiveness of the combined treatment (Rotigotine + MIRT) on the patients' global clinical status, evaluated with total UPDRS, was not inferior to that of the pharmacological treatment with Rotigotine alone. Importantly, rehabilitation allowed patients to gain better motor performances with lower DRT dosage.

Reversible nonfluent aphasia and left frontal hypoperfusion during topiramate treatment.

We report the case of a patient with complex partial seizures who developed a nonfluent aphasia when topiramate was added to his therapy. This emergent adverse effect appeared to be reversible, as language performance improved after discontinuation of topiramate. Interictal SPECT performed when the patient was aphasic revealed a focal perfusion reduction in the left lateral and mesial frontal cortex, which was no longer evident at a follow-up study after language recovery.

Action and object naming in frontotemporal dementia, progressive supranuclear palsy, and corticobasal degeneration.

Action naming has been reported to be disproportionately impaired in comparison to object naming in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). This finding has been attributed to the crucial role of frontal cortex in action naming. The investigation of object and action naming in the different subtypes of FTD, as well as in the related conditions of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and corticobasal degeneration (CBD), may thus contribute to the elucidation of the cerebral correlates of the action-object discrepancy as well as provide clues to the underlying cognitive mechanisms. The results indicated that, with the exception of semantic dementia, action naming was more impaired than object naming in all patient groups. The discrepancy was similar in frontal variant of FTD and Alzheimer's disease patients, whereas patients with nonfluent primary progressive aphasia, PSP, and CBD were significantly more impaired in the oral production of actions than of objects. These findings indicate that action naming impairment is not a general feature of FTD, but rather is associated with conditions that affect the frontoparietal-subcortical circuits involved in action knowledge and action representation.

Anosognosia in very mild Alzheimer's disease but not in mild cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVE: To study awareness of cognitive dysfunction in patients with very mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) and subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: A complaint interview covering 13 cognitive domains was administered to 82 AD and 79 MCI patients and their caregivers. The patient groups were comparable according to age and education, and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores were > or =24 in all cases. The discrepancy between the patients' and caregivers' estimations of impairments was taken as a measure of anosognosia. RESULTS: Self-reports of cognitive difficulties were comparable for AD and MCI patients. However, while in comparison to caregivers MCI patients reported significantly more cognitive impairment (p < 0.05), AD patients complained significantly less cognitive dysfunctions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While most MCI patients tend to overestimate cognitive deficits when compared to their caregiver's assessment, AD patients in early stages of disease underestimate cognitive dysfunctions. Anosognosia can thus be regarded as a characteristic symptom at a stage of very mild AD (MMSE > or =24) but not MCI. Accordingly, medical history even in mildly affected patients should always include information from both patient and caregiver.