
Treatment of childhood seizures is a pressing challenge within neuropediatrics because of its severe impact to the children and families affected by these debilitating disorders. It is of upmost importance to make an early diagnosis, to start a promptly treatment, to use therapy and dosage of the drug appropriately, based on the specific epileptic type and epileptic syndrome. Single therapy with appropriate dosage is the main approach to treatment. When the drug is the cause of an idiosyncratic reaction it is advisable to replace the suboptimal seizure response with another antiepileptic drug, combined therapy with two antiepileptic drugs is also a viable option. In childhood, polytherapy using more than two antiepileptic drugs remains controversial because the harm of interaction with deleterious drugs could potentially replace the damage caused by the seizures themselves. The use of three or more antiepileptic drugs should be limited to epileptic seizures that are particularly resistant to drugs and when non-drug antiepileptic therapies have failed. An approach to the difficult topic of epileptic treatment in childhood is reported. Key point: mono vs polytherapy in epileptic children; single and alternative therapy in epileptic children; use or three or more AEDs in children.
Citation: Claudia Francesca Oliva, Gloria Gangi, Silvia Marino, Lidia Marino, Giulia Messina, Sarah Sciuto, Giovanni Cacciaguerra, Mattia Comella, Raffaele Falsaperla, Piero Pavone. Single and in combination antiepileptic drug therapy in children with epilepsy: how to use it[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2021, 8(2): 138-146. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2021013
[1] | Yayun Fu, Mengyue Shi . A conservative exponential integrators method for fractional conservative differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19067-19082. doi: 10.3934/math.2023973 |
[2] | Yong-Chao Zhang . Least energy solutions to a class of nonlocal Schrödinger equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20763-20772. doi: 10.3934/math.20241009 |
[3] | Tingting Ma, Yuehua He . An efficient linearly-implicit energy-preserving scheme with fast solver for the fractional nonlinear wave equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26574-26589. doi: 10.3934/math.20231358 |
[4] | Karmina K. Ali, Resat Yilmazer . Discrete fractional solutions to the effective mass Schrödinger equation by mean of nabla operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 894-903. doi: 10.3934/math.2020061 |
[5] | Erdal Bas, Ramazan Ozarslan . Theory of discrete fractional Sturm–Liouville equations and visual results. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 593-612. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.593 |
[6] | Dengfeng Lu, Shuwei Dai . On a class of three coupled fractional Schrödinger systems with general nonlinearities. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 17142-17153. doi: 10.3934/math.2023875 |
[7] | Mubashir Qayyum, Efaza Ahmad, Hijaz Ahmad, Bandar Almohsen . New solutions of time-space fractional coupled Schrödinger systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27033-27051. doi: 10.3934/math.20231383 |
[8] | Xiaojun Zhou, Yue Dai . A spectral collocation method for the coupled system of nonlinear fractional differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5670-5689. doi: 10.3934/math.2022314 |
[9] | Zunyuan Hu, Can Li, Shimin Guo . Fast finite difference/Legendre spectral collocation approximations for a tempered time-fractional diffusion equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 34647-34673. doi: 10.3934/math.20241650 |
[10] | Xiao-Yu Li, Yu-Lan Wang, Zhi-Yuan Li . Numerical simulation for the fractional-in-space Ginzburg-Landau equation using Fourier spectral method. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2407-2418. doi: 10.3934/math.2023124 |
Treatment of childhood seizures is a pressing challenge within neuropediatrics because of its severe impact to the children and families affected by these debilitating disorders. It is of upmost importance to make an early diagnosis, to start a promptly treatment, to use therapy and dosage of the drug appropriately, based on the specific epileptic type and epileptic syndrome. Single therapy with appropriate dosage is the main approach to treatment. When the drug is the cause of an idiosyncratic reaction it is advisable to replace the suboptimal seizure response with another antiepileptic drug, combined therapy with two antiepileptic drugs is also a viable option. In childhood, polytherapy using more than two antiepileptic drugs remains controversial because the harm of interaction with deleterious drugs could potentially replace the damage caused by the seizures themselves. The use of three or more antiepileptic drugs should be limited to epileptic seizures that are particularly resistant to drugs and when non-drug antiepileptic therapies have failed. An approach to the difficult topic of epileptic treatment in childhood is reported. Key point: mono vs polytherapy in epileptic children; single and alternative therapy in epileptic children; use or three or more AEDs in children.
Fractional calculus is a popular subject because of having a lot of application areas of theoretical and applied sciences, like engineering, physics, biology, etc. Discrete fractional calculus is more recent area than fractional calculus and it was first defined by Diaz–Osler [1], Miller–Ross [2] and Gray–Zhang [3]. More recently, the theory of discrete fractional calculus have begun to develop rapidly with Goodrich–Peterson [4], Baleanu et al. [5,6], Ahrendt et al. [7], Atici–Eloe [8,9], Anastassiou [10], Abdeljawad et al. [11,12,13,14,15,16], Hein et al. [17] and Cheng et al. [18], Mozyrska [19] and so forth [20,21,22,23,24,25].
Fractional Sturm–Liouville differential operators have been studied by Bas et al. [26,27], Klimek et al.[28], Dehghan et al. [29]. Besides that, Sturm–Liouville differential and difference operators were studied by [30,31,32,33]. In this study, we define DFHA operators and prove the self–adjointness of DFHA operator, some spectral properties of the operator.
More recently, Almeida et al. [34] have studied discrete and continuous fractional Sturm–Liouville operators, Bas–Ozarslan [35] have shown the self–adjointness of discrete fractional Sturm–Liouville operators and proved some spectral properties of the problem.
Sturm–Liouville equation having hydrogen atom potential is defined as follows
d2Rdr2+ardRdr−ℓ(ℓ+1)r2R+(E+ar)R=0(0<r<∞). |
In quantum mechanics, the study of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom leads to this equation. Where R is the distance from the mass center to the origin, ℓ is a positive integer, a is real number E is energy constant and r is the distance between the nucleus and the electron.
The hydrogen atom is a two–particle system and it composes of an electron and a proton. Interior motion of two particles around the center of mass corresponds to the movement of a single particle by a reduced mass. The distance between the proton and the electron is identified r and r is given by the orientation of the vector pointing from the proton to the electron. Hydrogen atom equation is defined as Schrödinger equation in spherical coordinates and in consequence of some transformations, this equation is defined as
y′′+(λ−l(l+1)x2+2x−q(x))y=0. |
Spectral theory of hydrogen atom equation is studied by [39,40,41]. Besides that, we can observe that hydrogen atom differential equation has series solution as follows ([39], p.268)
y(x)=a0xl+1{1−k−l−11!(2l+2).2xk+(k−l−1)(k−l−2)2!(2l+2)(2l+3)(2xk)2+…+(−1)n(k−l−1)(k−l−2)…3.2.1(k−1)!(2l+2)(2l+3)…(2l+n)(2xk)n},k=1,2,… | (1.1) |
Recently, Bohner and Cuchta [36,37] studied some special integer order discrete functions, like Laguerre, Hermite, Bessel and especially Cuchta mentioned the difficulty in obtaining series solution of discrete special functions in his dissertation ([38], p.100). In this regard, finding series solution of DFHA equations is an open problem and has some difficulties in the current situation. For this reason, we study to obtain solutions of DFHA eq.s in a different way with representation of solutions.
In this study, we investigate DFHA equation in Riemann–Liouville and Grü nwald–Letnikov sense. The aim of this study is to contribute to the spectral theory of DFHA operator and behaviors of eigenfunctions and also to obtain the solution of DFHA equation.
We investigate DFHA equation in three different ways;
i) (nabla left and right) Riemann–Liouville (R–L)sense,
L1x(t)=∇μa(b∇μx(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1, |
ii) (delta left and right) Grünwald–Letnikov (G–L) sense,
L2x(t)=Δμ−(Δμ+x(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1, |
iii) (nabla left) Riemann–Liouville (R–L)sense,
L3x(t)=∇μa(∇μax(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1. |
Definition 2.1. [42] Falling and rising factorial functions are defined as follows respectively
tα_=Γ(t+1)Γ(t−α+1), | (2.1) |
t¯α=Γ(t+α)Γ(t), | (2.2) |
where Γ is the gamma function, α∈R.
Remark 2.1. Delta and nabla operators hold the following properties
Δtα_=αtα−1_,∇t¯α=αt¯α−1. | (2.3) |
Definition 2.2. [2,8,11] Nabla fractional sum operators are given as below,
(i) The left fractional sum of order μ>0 is defined by
∇−μax(t)=1Γ(μ)t∑s=a+1(t−ρ(s))¯μ−1x(s), t∈Na+1, | (2.4) |
(ii) The right fractional sum of order μ>0 is defined by
b∇−μx(t)=1Γ(μ)b−1∑s=t(s−ρ(t))¯μ−1x(s), t∈ b−1N, | (2.5) |
where ρ(t)=t−1 is called backward jump operators, Na={a,a+1,...}, bN={b,b−1,...}.
Definition 2.3. [12,14] Nabla fractional difference operators are as follows,
(i) The left fractional difference of order μ>0 is defined by
∇μax(t)=∇n∇−(n−μ)ax(t)=∇nΓ(n−μ)t∑s=a+1(t−ρ(s))¯n−μ−1x(s), t∈Na+1, | (2.6) |
(ii) The right fractional difference of order μ>0 is defined by
b∇μx(t)=(−1)n∇n∇−(n−μ)ax(t)=(−1)nΔnΓ(n−μ)b−1∑s=t(s−ρ(t))¯n−μ−1x(s), t∈ b−1N. | (2.7) |
Fractional differences in (2.6−2.7) are called the Riemann–Liouville (R–L) definition of the μ-th order nabla fractional difference.
Definition 2.4. [1,18] Fractional difference operators are given as follows
(i) The delta left fractional difference of order μ, 0<μ≤1, is defined by
Δμ−x(t)=1hμt∑s=0(−1)sμ(μ−1)...(μ−s+1)s!x(t−s), t=1,...,N. | (2.8) |
(ii) The delta right fractional difference of order μ, 0<μ≤1, is defined by
Δμ+x(t)=1hμN−t∑s=0(−1)sμ(μ−1)...(μ−s+1)s!x(t+s), t=0,..,N−1, | (2.9) |
fractional differences in (2.8−2.9) are called the Grünwald–Letnikov (G–L) definition of the μ-th order delta fractional difference.
Definition 2.5 [14] Integration by parts formula for R–L nabla fractional difference operator is defined by, u is defined on bN and v is defined on Na,
b−1∑s=a+1u(s)∇μav(s)=b−1∑s=a+1v(s)b∇μu(s). | (2.10) |
Definition 2.6. [34] Integration by parts formula for G–L delta fractional difference operator is defined by, u, v is defined on {0,1,...,n}, then
n∑s=0u(s)Δμ−v(s)=n∑s=0v(s)Δμ+u(s). | (2.11) |
Definition 2.7. [17] f:Na→R, s∈ℜ, Laplace transform is defined as follows,
La{f}(s)=∞∑k=1(1−s)k−1f(a+k), |
where ℜ=C∖{1} and ℜ is called the set of regressive (complex) functions.
Definition 2.8. [17] Let f,g:Na→R, all t∈Na+1, convolution of f and g is defined as follows
(f∗g)(t)=t∑s=a+1f(t−ρ(s)+a)g(s), |
where ρ(s) is the backward jump function defined in [42] as
ρ(s)=s−1. |
Theorem 2.1. [17] f,g:Na→R, convolution theorem is expressed as follows,
La{f∗g}(s)=La{f}La{g}(s). |
Lemma 2.1. [17] f:Na→R, the following property is valid,
La+1{f}(s)=11−sLa{f}(s)−11−sf(a+1). |
Theorem 2.2. [17] f:Na→R, 0<μ<1, Laplace transform of nabla fractional difference
La+1{∇μaf}(s)=sμLa+1{f}(s)−1−sμ1−sf(a+1),t∈Na+1. |
Definition 2.9. [17] For |p|<1, α>0, β∈R and t∈Na, Mittag–Leffler function is defined by
Ep,α,β(t,a)=∞∑k=0pk(t−a)¯αk+βΓ(αk+β+1). |
Theorem 2.3. [17] For |p|<1, α>0, β∈R, |1−s|<1 and |s|α>p, Laplace transform of Mittag–Leffler function is as follows,
La+1{Ep,α,β(.,a)}(s)=sα−β−1sα−p. |
Let us consider equations in three different forms;
i) L1 DFHA operator L1 is defined in (nabla left and right) R–L sense,
L1x(t)=∇μa(p(t)b∇μx(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1, | (3.1) |
where l is a positive integer or zero, q(t)+2t−l(l+1)t2 are named potential function., λ is the spectral parameter, t∈[a+1,b−1], x(t)∈l2[a+1,b−1], a>0.
ii) L2 DFHA operator L2 is defined in (delta left and right) G–L sense,
L2x(t)=Δμ−(p(t)Δμ+x(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1, | (3.2) |
where p,q,l,λ is as defined above, t∈[1,n], x(t)∈l2[0,n].
iii) L3 DFHA operator L3 is defined in (nabla left) R–L sense,
L3x(t)=∇μa(∇μax(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t), 0<μ<1, | (3.3) |
p,q,l,λ is as defined above, t∈[a+1,b−1], a>0.
Theorem 3.1. DFHA operator L1 is self–adjoint.
Proof.
u(t)L1v(t)=u(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μv(t))+u(t)(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))v(t), | (3.4) |
v(t)L1u(t)=v(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μu(t))+v(t)(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))u(t). | (3.5) |
Subtracting (16−17) from each other
u(t)L1v(t)−v(t)L1u(t)=u(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μv(t))−v(t)∇μa(p(t)b∇μu(t)) |
and applying definite sum operator to both side of the last equality, we have
b−1∑s=a+1(u(s)L1v(s)−v(s)L1u(s))=b−1∑s=a+1u(s)∇μa(p(s)b∇μv(s))−b−1∑s=a+1v(s)∇μa(p(s)b∇μu(s)). | (3.6) |
Applying the integration by parts formula (2.10) to right hand side of (18), we have
b−1∑s=a+1(u(s)L1v(s)−v(s)L1u(s))=b−1∑s=a+1p(s)b∇μv(s)b∇μu(s)−b−1∑s=a+1p(s)b∇μu(s)b∇μv(s)=0, |
⟨L1u,v⟩=⟨u,L1v⟩. |
The proof completes.
Theorem 3.2. Eigenfunctions, corresponding to distinct eigenvalues, of the equation (3.2) are orthogonal.
Proof. Assume that λα and λβ are two different eigenvalues corresponds to eigenfunctions u(n) and v(n) respectively for the equation (3.1),
∇μa(p(t)b∇μu(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))u(t)−λαu(t)=0,∇μa(p(t)b∇μv(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))v(t)−λβv(t)=0, |
Multiplying last two equations to v(n) and u(n) respectively, subtracting from each other and applying sum operator, since the self–adjointness of the operator L1, we get
(λα−λβ)b−1∑s=a+1r(s)u(s)v(s)=0, |
since λα≠λβ,
b−1∑s=a+1r(s)u(s)v(s)=0,⟨u(t),v(t)⟩=0, |
and the proof completes.
Theorem 3.3. All eigenvalues of the equation (3.1) are real.
Proof. Assume λ=α+iβ, since the self–adjointness of the operator L1, we have
⟨L1u,u⟩=⟨u,L1u⟩,⟨λu,u⟩=⟨u,λu⟩, |
(λ−¯λ)⟨u,u⟩=0 |
Since ⟨u,u⟩r≠0,
λ=¯λ |
and hence β=0. So, the proof is completed.
Self–adjointness of L2 DFHA operator G–L sense, reality of eigenvalues and orthogonality of eigenfunctions of the equation 3.2 can be proven in a similar way to the Theorem 3.1–3.2–3.3 by means of Definition 2.5.
Theorem 3.4.
L3x(t)=∇μa(∇μax(t))+(l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=λx(t),0<μ<1, | (3.7) |
x(a+1)=c1,∇μax(a+1)=c2, | (3.8) |
where p(t)>0, r(t)>0, q(t) is defined and real valued, λ is the spectral parameter. The sum representation of solution of the problem (3.7)−(3.8) is given as follows,
x(t)=c1((1+l(l+1)(a+1)2−2a+1+q(a+1))Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a)−λEλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a))+c2(Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a)−Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a))−t∑s=a+1Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t−ρ(s)+a)(l(l+1)s2−2s+q(s))x(s). | (3.9) |
Proof. Taking Laplace transform of the equation (3.7) by Theorem 2.2 and take (l(l+1)t2−2t+q(t))x(t)=g(t),
La+1{∇μa(∇μax)}(s)+La+1{g}(s)=λLa+1{x}(s),=sμLa+1{∇μax}(s)−1−sμ1−sc2=λLa+1{x}(s)−La+1{g}(s),=sμ(sμLa+1{x}(s)−1−sμ1−sc1)−1−sμ1−sc2=λLa+1{x}(s)−La+1{g}(s), |
=La+1{x}(s)=1−sμ1−s1s2μ−λ(sμc1+c2)−1s2μ−λLa+1{g}(s). |
Using Lemma 2.1, we have
La{x}(s)=c1(sμ−λs2μ−λ)−1−ss2μ−λ(11−sLa{g}(s)−11−sg(a+1))+c2(1−sμs2μ−λ). | (3.10) |
Now, taking inverse Laplace transform of the equation (3.10) and applying convolution theorem, then we have the representation of solution of the problem (3.7)−(3.8), |λ|<1, |1−s|<1 and |s|α>λ from Theorem 2.3., i.e.
L−1a{sμs2μ−λ}=Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a),L−1a{1s2μ−λ}=Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a), |
L−1a{1s2μ−λLa{q(s)x(s)}}=t∑s=a+1Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t−ρ(s)+a)q(s)x(s). |
Consequently, we have sum representation of solution for DFHA problem 3.7–3.8
x(t)=c1((1+l(l+1)(a+1)2−2a+1+q(a+1))Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a)−λEλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a))+c2(Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t,a)−Eλ,2μ,μ−1(t,a))−t∑s=a+1Eλ,2μ,2μ−1(t−ρ(s)+a)(l(l+1)s2−2s+q(s))x(s). |
Presume that c1=1,c2=0,a=0 in the representation of solution (3.9) and hence we may observe the behaviors of solutions in following figures (Figures 1–7) and tables (Tables 1–3);
x(t) | μ=0.3 | μ=0.35 | μ=0.4 | μ=0.45 | μ=0.5 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.612 | 0.714 | 1.123 | 0.918 | 1.020 |
x(3) | 0.700 | 0.900 | 1.515 | 1.370 | 1.641 |
x(5) | 0.881 | 1.336 | 2.402 | 2.747 | 3.773 |
x(7) | 1.009 | 1.740 | 3.352 | 4.566 | 7.031 |
x(9) | 1.099 | 2.100 | 4.332 | 6.749 | 11.461 |
x(12) | 1.190 | 2.570 | 5.745 | 10.623 | 20.450 |
x(15) | 1.249 | 2.975 | 6.739 | 15.149 | 32.472 |
x(16) | 1.264 | 3.098 | 7.235 | 16.793 | 37.198 |
x(18) | 1.289 | 3.330 | 8.233 | 20.279 | 47.789 |
x(20) | 1.309 | 3.544 | 9.229 | 24.021 | 59.967 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 7.37∗10−17 | 4.41∗10−17 | 5.77∗10−17 |
x(3) | −0.131 | −0.057 | −0.088 |
x(5) | −0.123 | −0.018 | −0.049 |
x(7) | −0.080 | −0.006 | −0.021 |
x(9) | −0.050 | −0.003 | −0.011 |
x(12) | −0.028 | −0.001 | −0.005 |
x(15) | −0.017 | −0.0008 | −0.003 |
x(16) | −0.015 | −0.0006 | −0.0006 |
x(18) | −0.012 | −0.0005 | −0.002 |
x(20) | −0.010 | −0.0003 | −0.001 |
x(t) | λ=0.1 | λ=0.11 | λ=0.12 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 1 | 1.025 | 1.052 |
x(3) | 1.668 | 1.751 | 1.841 |
x(5) | 3.876 | 4.216 | 4.595 |
x(7) | 7.243 | 8.107 | 9.095 |
x(9) | 11.941 | 13.707 | 12.130 |
x(12) | 22.045 | 26.197 | 25.237 |
x(15) | 36.831 | 45.198 | 46.330 |
x(16) | 43.042 | 53.369 | 55.687 |
x(18) | 57.766 | 73.092 | 78.795 |
x(20) | 76.055 | 98.154 | 127.306 |
We have analyzed DFHA equation in Riemann–Liouville and Grü nwald–Letnikov sense. Self–adjointness of the DFHA operator is presented and also, we have proved some significant spectral properties for instance, orthogonality of distinct eigenfunctions, reality of eigenvalues. Moreover, we give sum representation of the solutions for DFHA problem and find the solutions of the problem. We have carried out simulation analysis with graphics and tables. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the theory of hydrogen atom fractional difference operator.
We observe the behaviors of solutions by changing the order of the derivative μ in Figure 1 and Figure 5, by changing the potential function q(t) in Figure 2, we compare solutions under different λ eigenvalues in Figure 3, and Figure 7, also we observe the solutions by changing μ with a specific eigenvalue in Figure 4 and by changing l values in Figure 6.
We have shown the solutions by changing the order of the derivative μ in Table 1, by changing the potential function q(t) and λ eigenvalues in Table 2, Table 3.
The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Sharma P, Hussain A, Greenwood R (2019) Precision in pediatric epilepsy. F1000 Research 8: 163. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16494.1
![]() |
[2] |
Mäkinen J, Rainesalo S, Raitanen J, et al. (2017) The effect of newer antiepileptic drugs in combination therapy. Epilepsy Res 132: 15-20. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.02.020
![]() |
[3] |
Brodie MJ, Barry SJ, Bamagous GA, et al. (2012) Patterns of treatment response in newly diagnosed epilepsy. Neurology 78: 1548-1554. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182563b19
![]() |
[4] | Wilmshurt JM, Berg AT, Lagae L, et al. (2012) The challenges and innovation for therapy in children with epilepsy. Neurology 10: 249-260. |
[5] |
Rugg-Gunn FJ, Sander JW (2012) Management of chronic epilepsy. BMJ 345: e4576. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4576
![]() |
[6] |
Brodie MJ, Sills GJ (2011) Combining antiepileptic drugs—rational polytherapy? Seizure 20: 369-375. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2011.01.004
![]() |
[7] |
Buccheri E, Avola M, Vitale N, et al. (2019) Haemophilic arthropathy: a narrative review on the use of intra-articular drugs for arthritis. Haemophilia 25: 919-927. doi: 10.1111/hae.13857
![]() |
[8] |
Stephen LJ, Brodie MJ (2012) Antiepileptic drug monotherapy versus polytherapy: pursuing seizure freedom and tolerability in adults. Curr Opin Neurol 25: 164-172. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328350ba68
![]() |
[9] |
Coppola G, Verrotti A, D'Aniello A, et al. (2010) Valproic acid and phenobarbital blood levels during the first month of treatment with the ketogenic diet. Acta Neurol Scand 122: 303-307. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01359.x
![]() |
[10] |
Deckers CL, Czuczwar SJ, Hekster YA, et al. (2000) Selection of antiepileptic drug polytherapy based on mechanisms of action: the evidence reviewed. Epilepsia 41: 1364-1374. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.2000.tb00111.x
![]() |
[11] |
Falsaperla R, D'Angelo G, Praticò AD, et al. (2020) Ketogenic diet for infants with epilepsy: a literature review. Epilepsy Behav 112: 107361. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107361
![]() |
[12] |
Iapadre G, Balagura G, Zagaroli L, et al. (2018) Pharmacokinetics and drug interaction of antiepileptic drugs in children and adolescents. Paediatr Drugs 20: 429-453. doi: 10.1007/s40272-018-0302-4
![]() |
[13] |
Pisani F, Oteri G, Russo MF, et al. (1999) The efficacy of valproate-lamotrigine comedication in refractory complex partial seizures: evidence for a pharmacodynamic interaction. Epilepsia 40: 1141-1146. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1999.tb00832.x
![]() |
[14] |
Rowan AJ, Meijer JW, De Beer-Pawlikowski N, et al. (1983) Valproate-ethosuximide combination therapy for refractory absence seizures. Arch Neurol 40: 797-802. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1983.04050120047006
![]() |
[15] |
Stephen LJ, Sills GJ, Brodie MJ (1998) Lamotrigine and topiramate may be a useful combination. Lancet 351: 958-959. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)60613-7
![]() |
[16] | Joshi R, Tripathi M, Gupta P, et al. (2017) Adverse effects & drug load of antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy: monotherapy versus polytherapy. Indian J Med Res 145: 317-326. |
[17] |
Rosati A, Ilvento L, Lucenteforte E, et al. (2018) Comparative efficacy of antiepileptic drugs in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis. Epilepsia 59: 297-314. doi: 10.1111/epi.13981
![]() |
[18] |
Kwan P, Arzimanoglou A, Berg AT, et al. (2010) Definition of drug resistant epilepsy: consensus proposal by the ad hoc task force of the ILAE commission on therapeutic strategies. Epilepsia 51: 1069-1077. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02397.x
![]() |
[19] |
Stephen LJ, Forsyth M, Kelly K, et al. (2012) Antiepileptic drug combinations—have newer agents altered clinical outcomes? Epilepsy Res 98: 194-198. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2011.09.008
![]() |
[20] |
Cereghino JJ, Brock JT, Van Meter JC, et al. (1975) The efficacy of carbamazepine combinations in epilepsy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 18: 733-741. doi: 10.1002/cpt1975186733
![]() |
[21] |
Leach JP, Brodie MJ (1994) Synergism with GABAergic drugs in refractory epilepsy. Lancet 343: 1650. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)93110-0
![]() |
[22] |
Nariai H, Duberstein S, Shinnar S (2018) Treatment of epileptic encephalopathies: current state of the art. J Child Neurol 33: 41-54. doi: 10.1177/0883073817690290
![]() |
[23] |
Pavone P, Corsello G, Ruggieri M, et al. (2018) Benign and severe early-life seizures: a round in the first year of life. Ital J Pediatr 44: 54. doi: 10.1186/s13052-018-0491-z
![]() |
[24] |
Plevin D, Jureidini J, Howell S, et al. (2018) Paediatric antiepileptic polytrherapy: systematic review of efficacy and neurobehavioural effects and a tertiary centre experience. Acta Paediatr 107: 1587-1593. doi: 10.1111/apa.14343
![]() |
[25] |
Verrotti A, Tambucci R, Di Francesco L, et al. (2020) The role of polytherapy in the management of epilepsy: suggestions for rational antiepileptic drug selection. Expert Rev Neurother 20: 167-173. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2020.1707668
![]() |
[26] | Chang XC, Yuan H, Wang Y, et al. (2017) Eslicarbazepine acetate add-on for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10. |
[27] | Resendiz-Aparicio JC, Padilla-Huicab JM, Martinez-Juarez IE, et al. (2019) Clinical guideline: antiepileptic drugs of choice for epileptic syndromes and epilepsies in pediatric patients. Rev Mex Neuroci 20: 89-96. |
[28] | Loke YJ, Hannan AJ, Craig JM (2015) The role of epigenetic change in autism spectrum disorders. Front Neurol 6: 107. |
[29] |
Nezgovorova V, Ferretti CJ, Taylor BP, et al. (2021) Potential of cannabinoids as treatments for autism spectrum disorders. J Psychiatr Res 137: 194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.048
![]() |
1. | Erdal Bas, Funda Metin Turk, Ramazan Ozarslan, Ahu Ercan, Spectral data of conformable Sturm–Liouville direct problems, 2021, 11, 1664-2368, 10.1007/s13324-020-00428-6 | |
2. | Tom Cuchta, Dallas Freeman, Discrete Polylogarithm Functions, 2023, 84, 1338-9750, 19, 10.2478/tmmp-2023-0012 | |
3. | B. Shiri, Y. Guang, D. Baleanu, Inverse problems for discrete Hermite nabla difference equation, 2025, 33, 2769-0911, 10.1080/27690911.2024.2431000 | |
4. | Muhammad Sulthan Zacky, Heru Sukamto, Lila Yuwana, Agus Purwanto, Eny Latifah, The performance of space-fractional quantum carnot engine, 2025, 100, 0031-8949, 025306, 10.1088/1402-4896/ada9de |
x(t) | μ=0.3 | μ=0.35 | μ=0.4 | μ=0.45 | μ=0.5 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.612 | 0.714 | 1.123 | 0.918 | 1.020 |
x(3) | 0.700 | 0.900 | 1.515 | 1.370 | 1.641 |
x(5) | 0.881 | 1.336 | 2.402 | 2.747 | 3.773 |
x(7) | 1.009 | 1.740 | 3.352 | 4.566 | 7.031 |
x(9) | 1.099 | 2.100 | 4.332 | 6.749 | 11.461 |
x(12) | 1.190 | 2.570 | 5.745 | 10.623 | 20.450 |
x(15) | 1.249 | 2.975 | 6.739 | 15.149 | 32.472 |
x(16) | 1.264 | 3.098 | 7.235 | 16.793 | 37.198 |
x(18) | 1.289 | 3.330 | 8.233 | 20.279 | 47.789 |
x(20) | 1.309 | 3.544 | 9.229 | 24.021 | 59.967 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 7.37∗10−17 | 4.41∗10−17 | 5.77∗10−17 |
x(3) | −0.131 | −0.057 | −0.088 |
x(5) | −0.123 | −0.018 | −0.049 |
x(7) | −0.080 | −0.006 | −0.021 |
x(9) | −0.050 | −0.003 | −0.011 |
x(12) | −0.028 | −0.001 | −0.005 |
x(15) | −0.017 | −0.0008 | −0.003 |
x(16) | −0.015 | −0.0006 | −0.0006 |
x(18) | −0.012 | −0.0005 | −0.002 |
x(20) | −0.010 | −0.0003 | −0.001 |
x(t) | λ=0.1 | λ=0.11 | λ=0.12 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 1 | 1.025 | 1.052 |
x(3) | 1.668 | 1.751 | 1.841 |
x(5) | 3.876 | 4.216 | 4.595 |
x(7) | 7.243 | 8.107 | 9.095 |
x(9) | 11.941 | 13.707 | 12.130 |
x(12) | 22.045 | 26.197 | 25.237 |
x(15) | 36.831 | 45.198 | 46.330 |
x(16) | 43.042 | 53.369 | 55.687 |
x(18) | 57.766 | 73.092 | 78.795 |
x(20) | 76.055 | 98.154 | 127.306 |
x(t) | μ=0.3 | μ=0.35 | μ=0.4 | μ=0.45 | μ=0.5 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 0.612 | 0.714 | 1.123 | 0.918 | 1.020 |
x(3) | 0.700 | 0.900 | 1.515 | 1.370 | 1.641 |
x(5) | 0.881 | 1.336 | 2.402 | 2.747 | 3.773 |
x(7) | 1.009 | 1.740 | 3.352 | 4.566 | 7.031 |
x(9) | 1.099 | 2.100 | 4.332 | 6.749 | 11.461 |
x(12) | 1.190 | 2.570 | 5.745 | 10.623 | 20.450 |
x(15) | 1.249 | 2.975 | 6.739 | 15.149 | 32.472 |
x(16) | 1.264 | 3.098 | 7.235 | 16.793 | 37.198 |
x(18) | 1.289 | 3.330 | 8.233 | 20.279 | 47.789 |
x(20) | 1.309 | 3.544 | 9.229 | 24.021 | 59.967 |
x(t) | q(t)=1 | q(t)=t | q(t)=√t |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 7.37∗10−17 | 4.41∗10−17 | 5.77∗10−17 |
x(3) | −0.131 | −0.057 | −0.088 |
x(5) | −0.123 | −0.018 | −0.049 |
x(7) | −0.080 | −0.006 | −0.021 |
x(9) | −0.050 | −0.003 | −0.011 |
x(12) | −0.028 | −0.001 | −0.005 |
x(15) | −0.017 | −0.0008 | −0.003 |
x(16) | −0.015 | −0.0006 | −0.0006 |
x(18) | −0.012 | −0.0005 | −0.002 |
x(20) | −0.010 | −0.0003 | −0.001 |
x(t) | λ=0.1 | λ=0.11 | λ=0.12 |
x(1) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
x(2) | 1 | 1.025 | 1.052 |
x(3) | 1.668 | 1.751 | 1.841 |
x(5) | 3.876 | 4.216 | 4.595 |
x(7) | 7.243 | 8.107 | 9.095 |
x(9) | 11.941 | 13.707 | 12.130 |
x(12) | 22.045 | 26.197 | 25.237 |
x(15) | 36.831 | 45.198 | 46.330 |
x(16) | 43.042 | 53.369 | 55.687 |
x(18) | 57.766 | 73.092 | 78.795 |
x(20) | 76.055 | 98.154 | 127.306 |