We appreciate the authors for describing their patients’ data in myasthenia with COVID-19 which would help clinicians caring for such patients.1 We have the following comments and queries. We would like to point out that, three out of the four patients who had SARS-CoV-2 infection were not having any infiltrates on chest x-ray, suggesting that these patients had mild COVID-19 infection.2 It is also noteworthy that all these patients who had a normal chest radiograph were either on very low dose azathioprine or no immunosuppressant apart from low dose steroids. As the authors rightly point out, the myasthenia disease activity prior to infection with SARS-CoV-2 is an important predictor of the severity of the myasthenic crisis. It is possible that patients with better control of symptoms or those on appropriate immunosuppression don’t develop a crisis with mild COVID-19. Secondly, it would be interesting to know what specific therapy for COVID-19 was offered to these patients. It is possible that steroids given as a part of therapy for COVID-19 could also act to stabilize disease activity in myasthenia. Similarly, IVIg given to manage Myasthenic crisis could have prevented progression in the severity of COVID-19. Likewise, myasthenic patients who receive drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and macrolides can have precipitation of myasthenic crisis.3,4 In case 2, we would also be interested to know if other causes of chest pain and breathlessness like pulmonary thromboembolism w...
We appreciate the authors for describing their patients’ data in myasthenia with COVID-19 which would help clinicians caring for such patients.1 We have the following comments and queries. We would like to point out that, three out of the four patients who had SARS-CoV-2 infection were not having any infiltrates on chest x-ray, suggesting that these patients had mild COVID-19 infection.2 It is also noteworthy that all these patients who had a normal chest radiograph were either on very low dose azathioprine or no immunosuppressant apart from low dose steroids. As the authors rightly point out, the myasthenia disease activity prior to infection with SARS-CoV-2 is an important predictor of the severity of the myasthenic crisis. It is possible that patients with better control of symptoms or those on appropriate immunosuppression don’t develop a crisis with mild COVID-19. Secondly, it would be interesting to know what specific therapy for COVID-19 was offered to these patients. It is possible that steroids given as a part of therapy for COVID-19 could also act to stabilize disease activity in myasthenia. Similarly, IVIg given to manage Myasthenic crisis could have prevented progression in the severity of COVID-19. Likewise, myasthenic patients who receive drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and macrolides can have precipitation of myasthenic crisis.3,4 In case 2, we would also be interested to know if other causes of chest pain and breathlessness like pulmonary thromboembolism were considered and ruled out as COVID-19 is known to be associated with a hypercoagulable state. In this series, none of the patients died, however, other series have reported a mortality of more than 30% in myasthenic crisis associated with COVID-19.5 It would also be interesting if the authors could present a comparative analysis of their patients who presented with myasthenic crisis with and without COVID-19 during this pandemic period to study the severity of crisis and response to therapy.
1. Hübers A, Lascano AM, Lalive PH. Management of patients with generalised myasthenia gravis and COVID-19: four case reports. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020;91(10):1124-1125. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323565
2. (Released by National Health Commission & National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine on March 3 2020). Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (Trial Version 7). Chinese Medical Journal. 2020;133(9):1087–1095. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000000819
3. Elavarasi A, Goyal V. Hydroxychloroquine and myasthenia gravis-can one take this risk? Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology. 2020;23(3):360. doi:10.4103/aian.AIAN_363_20
4. Argov Z, Mastaglia FL. Disorders of Neuromuscular Transmission Caused by Drugs. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:409-413. doi:DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197908233010805
5. Camelo-Filho AE, Silva AMS, Estephan EP, et al. Myasthenia Gravis and COVID-19: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes. Front Neurol. 2020;11. doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.01053
We were interested to read the study of Filosto et al [1] concluding a significant link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and COVID-19 infection in Northern Italy at the peak of the 1st wave SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We urge caution in accepting such a causative conclusion using a retrospective observational study; causation is not conclusively proven and is drawn from potentially biased data and small case numbers of a rare condition, and a rate calculation without confidence intervals to infer uncertainty.
Only 34 cases of GBS, of whom 30 were COVID-19 positive, are reported over a 2-month period, with a denominator population of 8,400,107. We calculated the 95% confidence intervals of the incidence rates as 0.08 per 100,000 per month (95% C.I.: 0.04-0.15) in 2019 and 0.2 per 100,000 per month (95% C.I.: 0.14-0.28) in 2020. The overlapping confidence intervals do not support a statistically significant increase in GBS rates from 2019 to 2020. Furthermore, the simple multiplication of the monthly rate by 12 to create an approximate annualised incidence potentially amplifies the inaccuracy. We suggest that the 2.6-fold difference in GBS incidence from 2019 to 2019 is prone to meaningful statistical error.
During the initial stages of the pandemic the denominator of COVID-19 positive cases will have been under-reported because testing was limited to the symptomatic and presenting populations. We are told that 62,679 inhabitants of the regi...
We were interested to read the study of Filosto et al [1] concluding a significant link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and COVID-19 infection in Northern Italy at the peak of the 1st wave SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We urge caution in accepting such a causative conclusion using a retrospective observational study; causation is not conclusively proven and is drawn from potentially biased data and small case numbers of a rare condition, and a rate calculation without confidence intervals to infer uncertainty.
Only 34 cases of GBS, of whom 30 were COVID-19 positive, are reported over a 2-month period, with a denominator population of 8,400,107. We calculated the 95% confidence intervals of the incidence rates as 0.08 per 100,000 per month (95% C.I.: 0.04-0.15) in 2019 and 0.2 per 100,000 per month (95% C.I.: 0.14-0.28) in 2020. The overlapping confidence intervals do not support a statistically significant increase in GBS rates from 2019 to 2020. Furthermore, the simple multiplication of the monthly rate by 12 to create an approximate annualised incidence potentially amplifies the inaccuracy. We suggest that the 2.6-fold difference in GBS incidence from 2019 to 2019 is prone to meaningful statistical error.
During the initial stages of the pandemic the denominator of COVID-19 positive cases will have been under-reported because testing was limited to the symptomatic and presenting populations. We are told that 62,679 inhabitants of the region had positive COVID-19 swabs during the study, but this is unlikely to provide an accurate population-based rate of COVID-19 infection. More specifically, given that hospital admissions were the only ascertainment source for GBS cases in this study, we are not given comparative information on the rate of COVID-19 positivity in the hospital population, which was likely to have been very high as the Northern Italy healthcare system was reportedly overwhelmed. It is possible, or probable, that a large proportion of the hospitalised population were COVID-19 positive independent of other factors. It is thus likely that these data report a coincidental association between COVID-19 and GBS rather than a causative one.
The COVID-19 seroprevalence rate in the Italian Instituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) study for Lombardy was the highest in Italy at 7.5%. [2] From this rate, the estimated number of COVID-19 cases would be approximately 630,000 across the seven cities, compared to the 62 679 reported from swabs in the Filosto study. Using seroprevalence as the denominator, we believe the reported calculated incidence reduces from 47.9 to approximately 4.76 per 100,000 COVID-19 infections. The 7.5% seroprevalence may also be an underestimate because of selection bias (under half the planned sample size were tested) or imperfect sensitivity of the assay. It is striking that the seroprevalence reported in London from the NHS Blood Transfusion Service at a similar time was 17.5%;[3] Northern Italy, recognised as one of the hardest hit populations worldwide, seemingly had a seroprevalence of less than half that. Without major differences in health care structure and economic status of these two European countries it is difficult to explain the discrepancy other than the recorded seroprevalence figures were lower than actual infection rates.
Importantly, no account is given for the dramatic 3.3-fold decline in non-COVID GBS to 0.29/100000 per year either. One potential reason for the apparent decline is the mis-attribution of GBS causation, where COVID-19 causation is applied to every COVID-19 positive GBS case. The authors do not explore the possibility of alternative causes of GBS and incidental COVID-19 infection. For example, four of the COVID-19 cases had gastrointestinal symptoms but causation was still attributed to COVID-19 despite a gastroenteritis being the commonest precursor of GBS and occurring less frequently as a COVID-19 specific feature. The authors have presented no data on the exclusion of other causes of GBS such as Campylobacter serology etc. and this is of relevance, as without excluding other causes as far as possible the possibility of misattribution again exists.
Part of the justification Filosto et al make for the causative link is published data to support an interaction of the SarCoV2 spike protein with ganglioside GM1, referencing in silico modelling studies. [4] These studies model shape and energy efficient interactions of the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the spike (S-)protein of SARS-CoV2 with the ACE2 Receptor. Convincing in silico predictive data of the subsequent available N-Terminal Domain of the S-Protein also indicate energy efficient potential binding sites for two GM1 molecules. However, these are models and interactions have not been shown to occur in or ex-vivo. Furthermore, there are no data to suggest that ACE2 receptors are present in peripheral nerve axons or myelin to provide the basis of binding to a colocalised ganglioside.
GBS is a para- or more likely post-infectious autoimmune neuropathy, although acute polyradiculoneuropathies indistinguishable from classical Campylobacter jejuni enteritis associated GBS may occur by direct infection in Zika- and West Nile viruses and others. These cases of GBS occur with short latency whereas classical GBS occurs one to three (and possibly up to six) weeks after infection after an immune response induction. In the series of Filosto et al their median time from infection to GBS was 23 days (IQR 16-34), almost all within the COVID-19 symptom period (5 cases started after COVID symptoms resolved and thus are most consistent with a post-infectious timing). Thus, if it proposed that covalent binding to gangliosides is a mechanism for direct infection of peripheral nerves this would be considered too long a latency, and if an immune response is the key, then COVID-19 spike protein binding to a ganglioside is possibly irrelevant to the pathogenesis. Clearly more work is required to establish whether a definitive temporal relationship exists between COVID-19 and GBS, and more so the pathogenic mechanism which links infection to neuropathy.
The Witebsky Postulates, with some minor modifications, have stood the test of time to provide support for autoimmune linkage of a pathogen to a disease.[5] None are really fulfilled here and we should be very cautious about drawing causative conclusions from observational studies of small numbers of patients where the prevalence of COVID-19 in the population is so high as to have affected very many people who may have been presenting to hospital anyway.
Lastly, it is reassuring that the treatment and outcomes of patients are no different between COVID-19 positive and negative GBS patients and that given the lack of any spike in GBS presentations in Northern Italy (with the total incidence rate being 2.43/100000) we do not expect an additional pandemic of acute neuromuscular paralysis.
Stephen Keddie, Julia Pakpoor, Aisling Carr, Michael P Lunn
References
1. Filosto M, Cotti Piccinelli S, Gazzina S, et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome and COVID-19: an observational multicentre study from two Italian hotspot regions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;0:jnnp-2020-324837. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-324837
2. ISTAT, Ministero della Salute. Primi risultati dell’indagine di sieroprevalenza sul SARS-CoV-2. 2020;:10.
3. Public Health England. Sero-surveillance of COVID-19. 2020.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-covid-19-surveillanc... (accessed 13 Jul 2020).
4. Fantini J, Di Scala C, Chahinian H, et al. Structural and molecular modelling studies reveal a new mechanism of action of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020;55. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105960
5. Witebsky E, Rose NR, Terplan K, et al. Chronic thyroiditis and autoimmunization. J Am Med Assoc 1957;164:1439–47. doi:10.1001/jama.1957.02980130015004
We read with great interest the article by Macerollo et al. entitled “Non-invasive intervention for motor signs of Parkinson’s Disease: the effect of vibratory stimuli.”[1] The authors evaluated the use of a wearable device called the "Emma Watch" that produces a constant vibratory stimulus (200 Hz) to the wrist with frequencies of 20 bpm or 60 bpm in terms of motor function of the arms of 16 patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).[1] Motor performance was assessed through three different tasks: a nine-peg hole test, a STYAR tracing task, and a SPIRAL tracking test.[1] The authors found that patients with PD who used the device with 200 Hz peripheral vibration modulated by 60 bpm as they carried out these tasks performed better in terms of speed and precision.[1] The final conclusion was that vibrotactile stimulation can improve motor function in patients with PD.[1] It is important to comment that the authors did not discuss their results in terms of other studies in the literature, including one systematic review published in 2014 [2] and another with a meta-analysis published in 2020. [3] In these studies, vibratory stimulation in patients with PD was generally seen to yield positive results with regard to balance and gait. [2,3] From a historical point of view, the pioneering and seminal work of Jean-Martin Charcot, who used a vibrating chair to treat patients with PD, should also be noted.[4,5]
1. Macerollo A, Holz C, Cletheror D, et al. Non-invasiv...
We read with great interest the article by Macerollo et al. entitled “Non-invasive intervention for motor signs of Parkinson’s Disease: the effect of vibratory stimuli.”[1] The authors evaluated the use of a wearable device called the "Emma Watch" that produces a constant vibratory stimulus (200 Hz) to the wrist with frequencies of 20 bpm or 60 bpm in terms of motor function of the arms of 16 patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).[1] Motor performance was assessed through three different tasks: a nine-peg hole test, a STYAR tracing task, and a SPIRAL tracking test.[1] The authors found that patients with PD who used the device with 200 Hz peripheral vibration modulated by 60 bpm as they carried out these tasks performed better in terms of speed and precision.[1] The final conclusion was that vibrotactile stimulation can improve motor function in patients with PD.[1] It is important to comment that the authors did not discuss their results in terms of other studies in the literature, including one systematic review published in 2014 [2] and another with a meta-analysis published in 2020. [3] In these studies, vibratory stimulation in patients with PD was generally seen to yield positive results with regard to balance and gait. [2,3] From a historical point of view, the pioneering and seminal work of Jean-Martin Charcot, who used a vibrating chair to treat patients with PD, should also be noted.[4,5]
1. Macerollo A, Holz C, Cletheror D, et al. Non-invasive intervention for motor signs of Parkinson’s Disease: the effect of vibratory stimuli. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020; September. Online ahead of print.
2. Sharififara S, Coronado RA, Romero S, Azari H, Thigpen M. The effects of whole body vibration on mobility and balance in Parkinson’s Disease: a systematic review. IJMS 2014; 39 (4): 318-326.
3. Marazzi S, Kiper P, Palmer K, Agostini M, Turolla A. Effects of vibratory stimulation on balance and gait in Parkinson’s Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2020; Jan 14. Doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06099. Online ahead of print.
4. Goetz CG. Jean-Martin Charcot and his vibratory chair for Parkinson Disease. Neurology 2009; 73 (6): 475-478.
5. Kapur SS, Stebbins G, Goetz CG. Vibration therapy for Parkinson’s Disease: Charcot´s studies revisited. J Parkinsons Dis 2012; 2 (1): 23-27.
Dear editor,
We read with great interest the article by Rousseau et al. “Location of intracranial aneurysms is the main factor associated with rupture in the ICAN population.”1
They compared ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) with unruptured cerebral aneurysms (UCAs) in the ICAN registry, and analyzed factors that were considered associated with subarachnoid hemorrhage in previous literature. As a result, they found the location of the aneurysm showed the largest hazard ratio as much as 6.05 and showed their result with beautiful info-graphic.
We should be careful that their result is derived from comparisons between the aneurysms, which caused subarachnoid hemorrhage and UCAs that was found without bleeding. Hence, the meaning is different from that of ISUIA2, UCAS Japan3, and other studies, which investigated the risk of bleeding from the known UCAs. As noted in the discussion of the headache, which prefers UCAs to RIAs, the factors examined may be seeing factors, which lead to brain examination without causing subarachnoid hemorrhage in France.
As in the title, they focused on the location of the aneurysm, and found ACA and posterior circulation aneurysms have high odds ratio of 4.99 and 6.05 respectively comparing with ICA aneurysms. As in ISUIA study, they included internal carotid- posterior communicating artery (IC-Pcom) aneurysms in the posterior circulation aneurysms, and “ICA” includes other aneurysms occurring on the ICA. However...
Dear editor,
We read with great interest the article by Rousseau et al. “Location of intracranial aneurysms is the main factor associated with rupture in the ICAN population.”1
They compared ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) with unruptured cerebral aneurysms (UCAs) in the ICAN registry, and analyzed factors that were considered associated with subarachnoid hemorrhage in previous literature. As a result, they found the location of the aneurysm showed the largest hazard ratio as much as 6.05 and showed their result with beautiful info-graphic.
We should be careful that their result is derived from comparisons between the aneurysms, which caused subarachnoid hemorrhage and UCAs that was found without bleeding. Hence, the meaning is different from that of ISUIA2, UCAS Japan3, and other studies, which investigated the risk of bleeding from the known UCAs. As noted in the discussion of the headache, which prefers UCAs to RIAs, the factors examined may be seeing factors, which lead to brain examination without causing subarachnoid hemorrhage in France.
As in the title, they focused on the location of the aneurysm, and found ACA and posterior circulation aneurysms have high odds ratio of 4.99 and 6.05 respectively comparing with ICA aneurysms. As in ISUIA study, they included internal carotid- posterior communicating artery (IC-Pcom) aneurysms in the posterior circulation aneurysms, and “ICA” includes other aneurysms occurring on the ICA. However, in the real world, we experience subarachnoid hemorrhage due to bleeding from internal carotid- anterior choroidal artery aneurysms and less often (superiorly projecting large) paraclinoid aneurysm, which accounts less than 5%. According to the baseline characteristics of this study (Table 1), the ICA aneurysms occupy 33.4% in the RIA group, while it is only 11.8% in the UCA group. It should be misleading to use such small risk aneurysms as a reference for comparison and to say that the hazard ratio is high. The ISUIA study4 was first criticized for its inclusion of aneurysms within the cavernous sinus that did not cause subarachnoid hemorrhage, and they were no longer included in subsequent analyses. Similarly, given the proportion of aneurysms that cause subarachnoid hemorrhage, it is time to stop discussing anterior choroidal artery aneurysms and paraclinoid aneurysms collectively.
References
1. Rousseau O, Karakachoff M, Gaignard A, et al. Location of intracranial aneurysms is the main factor associated with rupture in the ICAN population. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;23(324371):2020-324371.
2. Wiebers DO, Whisnant JP, Huston J, 3rd, et al. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: natural history, clinical outcome, and risks of surgical and endovascular treatment. Lancet 2003;362(9378):103-10. [published Online First: 2003/07/18]
3. Morita A, Kirino T, Hashi K, et al. The natural course of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in a Japanese cohort. N Engl J Med 2012;366(26):2474-82. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113260 [published Online First: 2012/06/29]
4. International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Investigators. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms--risk of rupture and risks of surgical intervention. N Engl J Med 1998;339(24):1725-33. doi: 10.1056/nejm199812103392401 [published Online First: 1998/12/29]
Jacobs et al. investigated the association of environmental factors and prodromal features with incident Parkinson's disease (PD) with special reference to the interaction of genetic factors [1]. The authors constructed polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for the risk assessment. Family history of PD, family history of dementia, non-smoking, low alcohol consumption, depression, daytime somnolence, epilepsy and earlier menarche were selected as PD risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the highest 10% of PRSs for the risk of PD was 3.37 (2.41 to 4.70). I have some concerns about their study.
Regarding risk/protective factors of PD, Daniele et al. conducted a case-control study to performed a simultaneous evaluation of potential factors of PD [2]. Among 31 environmental and lifestyle factors, 9 factors were extracted by multivariate analysis. The adjusted OR (95% CI) of coffee consumption, smoking, physical activity, family history of PD, dyspepsia, exposure to pesticides, metals, and general anesthesia were 0.6 (0.4-0.9), 0.7 (0.6-0.9), 0.8 (0.7-0.9), 3.2 (2.2- 4.8), 1.8 (1.3-2.4), 2.3 (1.3- 4.2), 5.6 (2.3-13.7), 2.8 (1.5-5.4), and 6.1 (2.9-12.7), respectively. Family history of PD and non-smoking were common risk factors, which had also been reported by several prospective studies.
Regarding smoking, Angelopoulou et al. investigated the association between environmental factors and PD subtypes (early-onset, mid-and-late on...
Jacobs et al. investigated the association of environmental factors and prodromal features with incident Parkinson's disease (PD) with special reference to the interaction of genetic factors [1]. The authors constructed polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for the risk assessment. Family history of PD, family history of dementia, non-smoking, low alcohol consumption, depression, daytime somnolence, epilepsy and earlier menarche were selected as PD risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the highest 10% of PRSs for the risk of PD was 3.37 (2.41 to 4.70). I have some concerns about their study.
Regarding risk/protective factors of PD, Daniele et al. conducted a case-control study to performed a simultaneous evaluation of potential factors of PD [2]. Among 31 environmental and lifestyle factors, 9 factors were extracted by multivariate analysis. The adjusted OR (95% CI) of coffee consumption, smoking, physical activity, family history of PD, dyspepsia, exposure to pesticides, metals, and general anesthesia were 0.6 (0.4-0.9), 0.7 (0.6-0.9), 0.8 (0.7-0.9), 3.2 (2.2- 4.8), 1.8 (1.3-2.4), 2.3 (1.3- 4.2), 5.6 (2.3-13.7), 2.8 (1.5-5.4), and 6.1 (2.9-12.7), respectively. Family history of PD and non-smoking were common risk factors, which had also been reported by several prospective studies.
Regarding smoking, Angelopoulou et al. investigated the association between environmental factors and PD subtypes (early-onset, mid-and-late onset, familial and sporadic) [3]. The adjusted OR (95% CI) of smoking for PD overall, mid-and-late onset PD, familial PD, and sporadic PD were 0.48 (0.35-0.67), 0.46 (0.32-0.66), 0.53 (0.34-0.83) and 0.46 (0.32-0.65), respectively. In addition, there was an inverse linear association of PD with pack-years of smoking, except for early-onset PD. Additionally, the adjusted OR (95% CI) of coffee consumption for PD overall, early-onset PD, and familial PD were 0.52 (0.29-0.91), 0.16 (0.05-0.53) and 0.36 (0.17-0.75), respectively. Although the mechanism of the association might be difficult to be confirmed, smokers have a trend of high prevalence of coffee consumption.
Finally, Li et al. evaluated whether the genetic profile might modify PD development and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pathological biomarkers by using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and PRSs [4]. Some SNPs had significant correlations with PD, and PRSs could predict PD risk and the age at onset. In contrast, the CSF α-synuclein level had no significant correlation with the PRSs in normal subjects. Anyway, further studies are needed to verify PD determinants and gene-environment interactions.
References
1. Jacobs BM, Belete D, Bestwick J, et al. Parkinson's disease determinants, prediction and gene-environment interactions in the UK Biobank. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;91(10):1046-1054.
2. Daniele B, Roberta P, Andrea F, et al. Risk factors of Parkinson's disease: Simultaneous assessment, interactions and etiological subtypes. Neurology. 2020 Sep 17 doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010813
3. Angelopoulou E, Bozi M, Simitsi AM, et al. The relationship between environmental factors and different Parkinson's disease subtypes in Greece: Data analysis of the Hellenic Biobank of Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019 Oct;67:105-112.
4. Li WW, Fan DY, Shen YY, et al. Association of the polygenic risk score with the incidence risk of Parkinson's disease and cerebrospinal fluid α-Synuclein in a Chinese cohort. Neurotox Res. 2019 Oct;36(3):515-522.
The recently published paper ‘Abnormal pain perception is associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy in C9orf72 expansion carriers in the GENFI cohort’ by Convery et al.[1] draws attention to a topic of great importance in the field of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) research. In this study, Convery and colleagues investigated differences in pain responsiveness within a group of patients with genetic FTD. Changes in pain responsiveness compared to baseline were captured using a scale designed by the group, and patients were scored from 0-3 (0 = no change, 0.5 = questionable or very mild change, 1 = mild change, 2 = moderate change, 3 = severe change). Within the sample, symptomatic C9orf72 mutation carriers (9/31) experienced greater changes in pain responsiveness than symptomatic MAPT (1/10) and GRN (1/24) mutation-carriers or normal controls (1/181). Within the C9orf72 mutation carriers, these changes were associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy.
This research brings attention to an important but little-investigated clinical feature of FTD. Changes in pain responsiveness, including both increases and decreases, have now been reported in both sporadic and genetic FTD, along with other somatic complaints.[1–4] However, the changes are not widely captured in either clinical or research settings, and the field lacks standardized and objective measurements to do so. The ability to measure changes in pain responsiveness may be a useful clinical marker to di...
The recently published paper ‘Abnormal pain perception is associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy in C9orf72 expansion carriers in the GENFI cohort’ by Convery et al.[1] draws attention to a topic of great importance in the field of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) research. In this study, Convery and colleagues investigated differences in pain responsiveness within a group of patients with genetic FTD. Changes in pain responsiveness compared to baseline were captured using a scale designed by the group, and patients were scored from 0-3 (0 = no change, 0.5 = questionable or very mild change, 1 = mild change, 2 = moderate change, 3 = severe change). Within the sample, symptomatic C9orf72 mutation carriers (9/31) experienced greater changes in pain responsiveness than symptomatic MAPT (1/10) and GRN (1/24) mutation-carriers or normal controls (1/181). Within the C9orf72 mutation carriers, these changes were associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy.
This research brings attention to an important but little-investigated clinical feature of FTD. Changes in pain responsiveness, including both increases and decreases, have now been reported in both sporadic and genetic FTD, along with other somatic complaints.[1–4] However, the changes are not widely captured in either clinical or research settings, and the field lacks standardized and objective measurements to do so. The ability to measure changes in pain responsiveness may be a useful clinical marker to differentiate FTD from other neurodegenerative diseases,[4] and, if the C9orf72 results of Convery et al. are replicated, as an indicator of possible genetic underpinnings.
Recent findings raise the possibility that changes in pain responsiveness differ between FTD phenotypes. Increased pain responsiveness has been reported in patients with semantic-variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), particularly in those with right-temporal atrophy, which stands in contrast to decreased pain responsiveness observed in behavioral-variant FTD (bvFTD).[2–5] These findings, in conjunction with those of Convery et al., highlight the importance of capturing directionality of change as well as severity. Similarly, analyses of different phenotypes within the FTD spectrum will be critical to broaden the clinical relevance of this research to sporadic FTD, as some phenotypes are rarely genetic (e.g., svPPA). In the Convery et al. paper, the overwhelming majority of symptomatic participants had bvFTD, which is typical for genetic cohorts. However, the extension of this research into sporadic cases raises the exciting question of whether changes in responsiveness to pain can distinguish between FTD phenotypes, which implicate overlapping but distinct neuroanatomical circuits. This question has great theoretical, as well as clinical, importance.
The Convery et al. paper highlights that altered responsiveness to pain was present in symptomatic but not presymptomatic genetic mutation carriers. It thus remains unclear whether altered pain responsiveness is an early feature of the disease or develops later. Elucidating this timeline will clarify the clinical utility of this research: whether it is useful for early diagnosis or for distinguishing between phenotypes after the dementia syndrome has developed.
As we continue to expand this line of research, it will be essential to develop both subjective and objective measurements of pain responsiveness and other somatic changes in patients with FTD. Refining our understanding of these changes has the potential to be useful in clinical and research settings alike.
1 Convery RS, Bocchetta M, Greaves CV, et al. Abnormal pain perception is associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy in C9orf72 expansion carriers in the GENFI cohort. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Published Online First: 5 August 2020. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323279
2 Barker MS, Silverman HE, Fremont R, et al. ‘Everything hurts!’ Distress in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Cortex J Devoted Study Nerv Syst Behav 2020;127:396–8. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.002
3 Snowden JS, Bathgate D, Varma A, et al. Distinct behavioural profiles in frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;70:323–32. doi:10.1136/jnnp.70.3.323
4 Fletcher PD, Downey LE, Golden HL, et al. Pain and temperature processing in dementia: a clinical and neuroanatomical analysis. Brain J Neurol 2015;138:3360–72. doi:10.1093/brain/awv276
5 Ulugut Erkoyun H, Groot C, Heilbron R, et al. A clinical-radiological framework of the right temporal variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain J Neurol 2020;143:2831–43. doi:10.1093/brain/awaa225
We thank White and colleagues for their correspondence on our article(1) and note many of the observations raised are already addressed by our robust study design and discussed in the original manuscript text. Importantly, we are quite clear throughout that this is a study designed to investigate whether there is higher risk of common mental health disorder in former professional soccer players than anticipated from general population controls.
Undoubtedly, there will be physically active individuals in our general population control group, including a number who might have participated in some form of contact sport. However, we would suggest this does not define our over 23,000 matched general population controls as a cohort of ‘non-elite’ athletes, as proposed by White et al. Instead, we would assert this merely underlines their legitimacy as a general population control cohort for comparison with our cohort of almost 8000 former professional soccer players.
Potential study limitations regarding healthy worker effect, illness behavior in former professional soccer players and use of hospitalization datasets are addressed in detail in our manuscript text. Regarding data on duration of hospital stay and therapy, while these might indeed be of interest in follow-on studies regarding illness severity, we would suggest that they are not immediately relevant to a study designed to address risk of common mental health disorder.
We thank White and colleagues for their correspondence on our article(1) and note many of the observations raised are already addressed by our robust study design and discussed in the original manuscript text. Importantly, we are quite clear throughout that this is a study designed to investigate whether there is higher risk of common mental health disorder in former professional soccer players than anticipated from general population controls.
Undoubtedly, there will be physically active individuals in our general population control group, including a number who might have participated in some form of contact sport. However, we would suggest this does not define our over 23,000 matched general population controls as a cohort of ‘non-elite’ athletes, as proposed by White et al. Instead, we would assert this merely underlines their legitimacy as a general population control cohort for comparison with our cohort of almost 8000 former professional soccer players.
Potential study limitations regarding healthy worker effect, illness behavior in former professional soccer players and use of hospitalization datasets are addressed in detail in our manuscript text. Regarding data on duration of hospital stay and therapy, while these might indeed be of interest in follow-on studies regarding illness severity, we would suggest that they are not immediately relevant to a study designed to address risk of common mental health disorder.
As White et al observe, while our data reporting lower risk of hospitalization for common mental health disorder in former professional soccer players might appear ‘surprising’, this is perhaps a reflection of methodological limitations and biases in previous reporting in this issue, as discussed in our text. As such, as a robust study specifically designed to address many previous limitations and minimize biases, we would disagree with White et al’s suggestion that our ‘surprising’ observations are ‘not necessarily a significant contribution’ to this field.
1 Russell ER, McCabe T, Mackay DF, et al Mental health and suicide in former professional soccer players Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry Published Online First: 21 July 2020. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323315
Russell et al. (1) published a retrospective cohort study with a population of former professional soccer players with known high neurodegenerative mortality. Findings showed that they are at lower risk of common mental health disorders and have lower rates of suicide than a matched general population. These findings are surprising and different from previous studies, which have used first-hand clinical accounts of ex-athletes who have lived with neurodegeneration (1). We suggest there may be reasons for this disparity and welcome critical dialogue with the authors of this research.
Cohort Comparison
Russell et al. has compared their soccer cohort with a matched population cohort. However, the matched cohort may also include those who have experienced repetitive head impacts, such as amateur soccer players, rugby players or boxers. Therefore, the study represents differences of elite versus non-elite rather than sport versus non-sport. While Russell recognises the healthy worker effect (2), it may have a greater influence in this study than presented.
Soccer Stoicism
Men’s engagement in health-seeking behaviours has been a long-standing concern in health care and is often attributed to factors such as stigma, hypermasculinity and stoicism (3). Furthermore, working-class sports such as soccer, require the acceptance of pain, suffering, and physical risk, so these players are more likely to ‘suffer in silence’ than the general population (4). Give...
Russell et al. (1) published a retrospective cohort study with a population of former professional soccer players with known high neurodegenerative mortality. Findings showed that they are at lower risk of common mental health disorders and have lower rates of suicide than a matched general population. These findings are surprising and different from previous studies, which have used first-hand clinical accounts of ex-athletes who have lived with neurodegeneration (1). We suggest there may be reasons for this disparity and welcome critical dialogue with the authors of this research.
Cohort Comparison
Russell et al. has compared their soccer cohort with a matched population cohort. However, the matched cohort may also include those who have experienced repetitive head impacts, such as amateur soccer players, rugby players or boxers. Therefore, the study represents differences of elite versus non-elite rather than sport versus non-sport. While Russell recognises the healthy worker effect (2), it may have a greater influence in this study than presented.
Soccer Stoicism
Men’s engagement in health-seeking behaviours has been a long-standing concern in health care and is often attributed to factors such as stigma, hypermasculinity and stoicism (3). Furthermore, working-class sports such as soccer, require the acceptance of pain, suffering, and physical risk, so these players are more likely to ‘suffer in silence’ than the general population (4). Given the effectiveness of masculine socialisation through sport participation, the absence of elevated medical reporting between male athletes and non-athletes does not indicate an actual absence of a larger disease profile. The lack of ex-elite athletes engaging with mental health support at a hospital may rather be indicative of health-avoidance behaviours.
Mental Health Concerns Defined by Hospital Admission
Using hospital admission records as the primary definition for mental health concerns is problematic. Hospital admission is reserved for the most severe acute psychiatric concerns. Therefore, such records miss many mental health concerns that are better managed in primary and community care settings. This may be particularly pertinent for this study, given that many of the sample have diagnosed dementia, and may be fully supported with their neuro-psychiatric needs by health care professionals outside the hospital context.
The Bigger Picture
It appears that only a selective subsection of data, or part of the picture, has been reported. No information on the length of visit to hospital, extent and nature of medical interventions, public health burden, number or frequency of visits by an individual and any further care has been provided. This information may illuminate other explanations for why there is a difference in common mental health disorders for soccer and match control samples.
Concluding thoughts
Russell et al assert research, “… has placed greater emphasis on psychiatric symptomatology in CTE. Nevertheless, data supporting this association are weak”. This study does little to support or contest this position. While the results presented are novel, they are not necessarily a significant contribution to the debate on the relationship between soccer participation, common mental health disorders and other neurological
References
(1) Russell, E. R., McCabe, T., Mackay, D. F., Stewart, K., MacLean, J. A., Pell, J. P., & Stewart, W. (2020). Mental health and suicide in former professional soccer players. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
(2) Li CY, Sung FC. A review of the healthy worker effect in occupational epidemiology. Occup Med 1999;49:225–9.
(3) Wang Y, Hunt K, Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Petersen I. Do men consult less than women? An analysis of routinely collected UK general practice data. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):e003320
(4) Anderson, E., & White, A. (2017). Sport, theory and social problems: A critical introduction. Routledge.
I read an interesting case report of GBS with antiganglioside antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 by Civardi et al1. We are also seeing various complications like GBS, pseudotumorcerebri, precipitation of stroke, seizures etc2 but do not have the access to antiganglioside antibodies but, all those who can afford and get it done we should try for that and get it documented for academic and research purpose in this pandemic of modern time of advanced technology. We may screen for ganglioside antibodies to assess autoimmunity in Covid-19 patients3. The gangliosides are particularly abundant in the brain and in the nervous system; they participate in maintenance and repair of neuronal cells, memory formation and synaptic transmission4. So we have to be watchful in this regard towards impairment of these neurological functions i.e. new autoimmune disorder like GBS, multiple sclerosis(MS), neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders(NMO-SD), chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy(CIDP) etc. and precipitation of neurodegenerative and cognitive disorders in acute, convalescent ant post recovery follow up. Of course the paediatric population is less affected but as the gangliodides also take part in the development and regeneration of neurons the SARS-CoV-2 may affect the growth and development of paediatric population.
As the intravenous immunoglobulins(IVIg) and plasmapharesis are useful in the treatment of GBS with antiganglioside antibodies the trial of IVIg, and monoclonal a...
I read an interesting case report of GBS with antiganglioside antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 by Civardi et al1. We are also seeing various complications like GBS, pseudotumorcerebri, precipitation of stroke, seizures etc2 but do not have the access to antiganglioside antibodies but, all those who can afford and get it done we should try for that and get it documented for academic and research purpose in this pandemic of modern time of advanced technology. We may screen for ganglioside antibodies to assess autoimmunity in Covid-19 patients3. The gangliosides are particularly abundant in the brain and in the nervous system; they participate in maintenance and repair of neuronal cells, memory formation and synaptic transmission4. So we have to be watchful in this regard towards impairment of these neurological functions i.e. new autoimmune disorder like GBS, multiple sclerosis(MS), neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders(NMO-SD), chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy(CIDP) etc. and precipitation of neurodegenerative and cognitive disorders in acute, convalescent ant post recovery follow up. Of course the paediatric population is less affected but as the gangliodides also take part in the development and regeneration of neurons the SARS-CoV-2 may affect the growth and development of paediatric population.
As the intravenous immunoglobulins(IVIg) and plasmapharesis are useful in the treatment of GBS with antiganglioside antibodies the trial of IVIg, and monoclonal antibodies in other neurological complications with SARS-CoV-2 along with monitoring of antiganglioside antibodies may prove to be a game changer, as it has been claimed to be effective in general treatment of COVID-195. Besides this there are emerging data that chloroquine which is under investigation for treating COVID-19, binds with high-affinity sialic acids and GM1 gangliosides and, in the presence of chloroquine, the SARS-CoV viral spike cannot bind gangliosides to infect the targeted cells. If it is confirmed to be beneficial and safety is established, chloroquine may have an additional therapeutic value in future patients with COVID-19–triggered GBS in conjunction with IVIg3.
References-
1. Civardi C, Collini A, Geda D J, Geda C. Antiganglioside antibodies in Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-324279
2. Shubhakaran K, Bhargava A, Sutaria N et al. Unpublished data.
3. Marinos C. Dalakas. Guillain-Barré syndrome: The first ocumented COVID-19–triggered autoimmune neurologic disease More to come with myositis in the offing. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000781
4. Cutillo G, Saariaho A-H, Meri S. Physiology of gangliosides and the role of antiganglioside antibodies in human diseases. Cell Mol Immunol 2020;17:313–22.doi:10.1038/s41423-020-0388-9
5. Alan A. Nguyen, Saddiq B. Habiballah, Craig D. Platt, Raif S. Geha, Janet S. Chou, and Douglas R. McDonald. Immunoglobulins in the treatment of COVID-19 infection: Proceed with caution! Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul; 216: 108459. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108459
We read Larrabee and colleagues’ e-letter response to our systematic review on Performance Validity Testing (PVT). Whilst we welcome debate, and we recognize that some clinicians will disagree with our conclusions, we were disappointed that they misrepresented our paper in formulating their response:
1. The authors state “Throughout the paper, the authors refer to PVTs as “effort tests”, a characterization that is no longer in use in the United States..”. In reality we used the term “effort test” only twice in our paper; in the introduction: “(PVTs), also historically called effort tests” and once in the methods in describing our search terms. By contrast we use the term PVT on 45 occasions.
2. We are concerned that they then go on to misrepresent the results of our review. We found a wide variation in results in different clinical groups and in different tests. We noted that failure rates for some groups and some tests exceeds 25%. We did not conclude that all failure rates were as high as this, but rather that failing a PVT was not a rare phenomenon but was reasonably common in a range of clinical groups.
We presented results to support our conclusion that the PVT literature is problematic with regards to blinding to diagnosis and potential for selection bias.
We also uphold our speculation that an alternate explanation for failure on forced choice tests at above chance cutoffs may result from attentional deficit related to other symptoms. W...
We read Larrabee and colleagues’ e-letter response to our systematic review on Performance Validity Testing (PVT). Whilst we welcome debate, and we recognize that some clinicians will disagree with our conclusions, we were disappointed that they misrepresented our paper in formulating their response:
1. The authors state “Throughout the paper, the authors refer to PVTs as “effort tests”, a characterization that is no longer in use in the United States..”. In reality we used the term “effort test” only twice in our paper; in the introduction: “(PVTs), also historically called effort tests” and once in the methods in describing our search terms. By contrast we use the term PVT on 45 occasions.
2. We are concerned that they then go on to misrepresent the results of our review. We found a wide variation in results in different clinical groups and in different tests. We noted that failure rates for some groups and some tests exceeds 25%. We did not conclude that all failure rates were as high as this, but rather that failing a PVT was not a rare phenomenon but was reasonably common in a range of clinical groups.
We presented results to support our conclusion that the PVT literature is problematic with regards to blinding to diagnosis and potential for selection bias.
We also uphold our speculation that an alternate explanation for failure on forced choice tests at above chance cutoffs may result from attentional deficit related to other symptoms. We were explicit that there are likely to be many reasons that a person might fail a PVT, and invite further research and discussion of the various causes of PVT failure that might help to explain the observed variation in failure rates across a range of diverse clinical conditions.
3. We did not ignore the importance of using multiple PVTs. On the contrary we explicitly stated “the manner in which we have described PVT failure rates does not necessarily reflect how they are used in practice by skilled neuropsychologists” and that “Guidance documents recommend that multiple performance validity measures should be used, including both free-standing and embedded indicators ...” But that was not the subject of the study which was the performance of individual tests.
4. They allege that we did not mention any of the previous published meta-analyses summarizing data from multiple investigations. However, the Sollman and Berry review they suggest has a quite different focus from our study, and the majority of studies included were of mixed clinical populations (e.g. ‘psychiatric’, or ‘neurological’ or ‘head injury’ without severity specified)(1). It was not relevant to our question.
Larrabee et al. raise three valid points of criticism:
1. That we were inaccurate in our portrayal of the Novitski paper. We have reviewed the Novitski et al. paper and although % fail rate was accurately transcribed we agree the study was erroneously included, as the included mTBI patients had already failed the WMT(2). Although interestingly, 36% of the amnestic MCI sample in this paper (who were not administered the WMT) also failed RBANS digit span <9. Of note, the mTBI group in the Novitski paper was not included in our Figure 2, due to the rather higher-than-usual cutoff score of 9. This isolated error does not alter our overall conclusions.
2. They challenge our statement that there is little consensus amongst experts on the use of PVTs. However Kemp et al, in further correspondence with us, stated explicitly that the view of these tests as ones of malingering was old fashioned and largely no longer accepted, whereas Larrabee and colleagues refer to them as just that. The British Psychological Society refer to them as ‘effort’ tests throughout their guidance whereas Larrabee and colleagues criticize such nomenclature. It seems to us even from the responses to our paper that there is a lack of consensus.
3. Finally, while Larrabee et al. report that our results are “not representative of the research database” we counter with an assurance that this data was just that: a systematic extraction of all available date from the research base on PVTs.
2. Novitski J, Steele S, Karantzoulis S, Randolph C. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Effort scale. Arch Clin Neuropsychol [Internet]. 2012;27(2 PG-190–195):190–5.
We appreciate the authors for describing their patients’ data in myasthenia with COVID-19 which would help clinicians caring for such patients.1 We have the following comments and queries. We would like to point out that, three out of the four patients who had SARS-CoV-2 infection were not having any infiltrates on chest x-ray, suggesting that these patients had mild COVID-19 infection.2 It is also noteworthy that all these patients who had a normal chest radiograph were either on very low dose azathioprine or no immunosuppressant apart from low dose steroids. As the authors rightly point out, the myasthenia disease activity prior to infection with SARS-CoV-2 is an important predictor of the severity of the myasthenic crisis. It is possible that patients with better control of symptoms or those on appropriate immunosuppression don’t develop a crisis with mild COVID-19. Secondly, it would be interesting to know what specific therapy for COVID-19 was offered to these patients. It is possible that steroids given as a part of therapy for COVID-19 could also act to stabilize disease activity in myasthenia. Similarly, IVIg given to manage Myasthenic crisis could have prevented progression in the severity of COVID-19. Likewise, myasthenic patients who receive drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and macrolides can have precipitation of myasthenic crisis.3,4 In case 2, we would also be interested to know if other causes of chest pain and breathlessness like pulmonary thromboembolism w...
Show MoreTo the Editor
We were interested to read the study of Filosto et al [1] concluding a significant link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and COVID-19 infection in Northern Italy at the peak of the 1st wave SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We urge caution in accepting such a causative conclusion using a retrospective observational study; causation is not conclusively proven and is drawn from potentially biased data and small case numbers of a rare condition, and a rate calculation without confidence intervals to infer uncertainty.
Only 34 cases of GBS, of whom 30 were COVID-19 positive, are reported over a 2-month period, with a denominator population of 8,400,107. We calculated the 95% confidence intervals of the incidence rates as 0.08 per 100,000 per month (95% C.I.: 0.04-0.15) in 2019 and 0.2 per 100,000 per month (95% C.I.: 0.14-0.28) in 2020. The overlapping confidence intervals do not support a statistically significant increase in GBS rates from 2019 to 2020. Furthermore, the simple multiplication of the monthly rate by 12 to create an approximate annualised incidence potentially amplifies the inaccuracy. We suggest that the 2.6-fold difference in GBS incidence from 2019 to 2019 is prone to meaningful statistical error.
During the initial stages of the pandemic the denominator of COVID-19 positive cases will have been under-reported because testing was limited to the symptomatic and presenting populations. We are told that 62,679 inhabitants of the regi...
Show MoreWe read with great interest the article by Macerollo et al. entitled “Non-invasive intervention for motor signs of Parkinson’s Disease: the effect of vibratory stimuli.”[1] The authors evaluated the use of a wearable device called the "Emma Watch" that produces a constant vibratory stimulus (200 Hz) to the wrist with frequencies of 20 bpm or 60 bpm in terms of motor function of the arms of 16 patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).[1] Motor performance was assessed through three different tasks: a nine-peg hole test, a STYAR tracing task, and a SPIRAL tracking test.[1] The authors found that patients with PD who used the device with 200 Hz peripheral vibration modulated by 60 bpm as they carried out these tasks performed better in terms of speed and precision.[1] The final conclusion was that vibrotactile stimulation can improve motor function in patients with PD.[1] It is important to comment that the authors did not discuss their results in terms of other studies in the literature, including one systematic review published in 2014 [2] and another with a meta-analysis published in 2020. [3] In these studies, vibratory stimulation in patients with PD was generally seen to yield positive results with regard to balance and gait. [2,3] From a historical point of view, the pioneering and seminal work of Jean-Martin Charcot, who used a vibrating chair to treat patients with PD, should also be noted.[4,5]
1. Macerollo A, Holz C, Cletheror D, et al. Non-invasiv...
Show MoreDear editor,
Show MoreWe read with great interest the article by Rousseau et al. “Location of intracranial aneurysms is the main factor associated with rupture in the ICAN population.”1
They compared ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) with unruptured cerebral aneurysms (UCAs) in the ICAN registry, and analyzed factors that were considered associated with subarachnoid hemorrhage in previous literature. As a result, they found the location of the aneurysm showed the largest hazard ratio as much as 6.05 and showed their result with beautiful info-graphic.
We should be careful that their result is derived from comparisons between the aneurysms, which caused subarachnoid hemorrhage and UCAs that was found without bleeding. Hence, the meaning is different from that of ISUIA2, UCAS Japan3, and other studies, which investigated the risk of bleeding from the known UCAs. As noted in the discussion of the headache, which prefers UCAs to RIAs, the factors examined may be seeing factors, which lead to brain examination without causing subarachnoid hemorrhage in France.
As in the title, they focused on the location of the aneurysm, and found ACA and posterior circulation aneurysms have high odds ratio of 4.99 and 6.05 respectively comparing with ICA aneurysms. As in ISUIA study, they included internal carotid- posterior communicating artery (IC-Pcom) aneurysms in the posterior circulation aneurysms, and “ICA” includes other aneurysms occurring on the ICA. However...
Jacobs et al. investigated the association of environmental factors and prodromal features with incident Parkinson's disease (PD) with special reference to the interaction of genetic factors [1]. The authors constructed polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for the risk assessment. Family history of PD, family history of dementia, non-smoking, low alcohol consumption, depression, daytime somnolence, epilepsy and earlier menarche were selected as PD risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the highest 10% of PRSs for the risk of PD was 3.37 (2.41 to 4.70). I have some concerns about their study.
Regarding risk/protective factors of PD, Daniele et al. conducted a case-control study to performed a simultaneous evaluation of potential factors of PD [2]. Among 31 environmental and lifestyle factors, 9 factors were extracted by multivariate analysis. The adjusted OR (95% CI) of coffee consumption, smoking, physical activity, family history of PD, dyspepsia, exposure to pesticides, metals, and general anesthesia were 0.6 (0.4-0.9), 0.7 (0.6-0.9), 0.8 (0.7-0.9), 3.2 (2.2- 4.8), 1.8 (1.3-2.4), 2.3 (1.3- 4.2), 5.6 (2.3-13.7), 2.8 (1.5-5.4), and 6.1 (2.9-12.7), respectively. Family history of PD and non-smoking were common risk factors, which had also been reported by several prospective studies.
Regarding smoking, Angelopoulou et al. investigated the association between environmental factors and PD subtypes (early-onset, mid-and-late on...
Show MoreThe recently published paper ‘Abnormal pain perception is associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy in C9orf72 expansion carriers in the GENFI cohort’ by Convery et al.[1] draws attention to a topic of great importance in the field of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) research. In this study, Convery and colleagues investigated differences in pain responsiveness within a group of patients with genetic FTD. Changes in pain responsiveness compared to baseline were captured using a scale designed by the group, and patients were scored from 0-3 (0 = no change, 0.5 = questionable or very mild change, 1 = mild change, 2 = moderate change, 3 = severe change). Within the sample, symptomatic C9orf72 mutation carriers (9/31) experienced greater changes in pain responsiveness than symptomatic MAPT (1/10) and GRN (1/24) mutation-carriers or normal controls (1/181). Within the C9orf72 mutation carriers, these changes were associated with thalamo-cortico-striatal atrophy.
Show MoreThis research brings attention to an important but little-investigated clinical feature of FTD. Changes in pain responsiveness, including both increases and decreases, have now been reported in both sporadic and genetic FTD, along with other somatic complaints.[1–4] However, the changes are not widely captured in either clinical or research settings, and the field lacks standardized and objective measurements to do so. The ability to measure changes in pain responsiveness may be a useful clinical marker to di...
We thank White and colleagues for their correspondence on our article(1) and note many of the observations raised are already addressed by our robust study design and discussed in the original manuscript text. Importantly, we are quite clear throughout that this is a study designed to investigate whether there is higher risk of common mental health disorder in former professional soccer players than anticipated from general population controls.
Undoubtedly, there will be physically active individuals in our general population control group, including a number who might have participated in some form of contact sport. However, we would suggest this does not define our over 23,000 matched general population controls as a cohort of ‘non-elite’ athletes, as proposed by White et al. Instead, we would assert this merely underlines their legitimacy as a general population control cohort for comparison with our cohort of almost 8000 former professional soccer players.
Potential study limitations regarding healthy worker effect, illness behavior in former professional soccer players and use of hospitalization datasets are addressed in detail in our manuscript text. Regarding data on duration of hospital stay and therapy, while these might indeed be of interest in follow-on studies regarding illness severity, we would suggest that they are not immediately relevant to a study designed to address risk of common mental health disorder.
As White et al observe, wh...
Show MoreRussell et al. (1) published a retrospective cohort study with a population of former professional soccer players with known high neurodegenerative mortality. Findings showed that they are at lower risk of common mental health disorders and have lower rates of suicide than a matched general population. These findings are surprising and different from previous studies, which have used first-hand clinical accounts of ex-athletes who have lived with neurodegeneration (1). We suggest there may be reasons for this disparity and welcome critical dialogue with the authors of this research.
Cohort Comparison
Russell et al. has compared their soccer cohort with a matched population cohort. However, the matched cohort may also include those who have experienced repetitive head impacts, such as amateur soccer players, rugby players or boxers. Therefore, the study represents differences of elite versus non-elite rather than sport versus non-sport. While Russell recognises the healthy worker effect (2), it may have a greater influence in this study than presented.
Soccer Stoicism
Show MoreMen’s engagement in health-seeking behaviours has been a long-standing concern in health care and is often attributed to factors such as stigma, hypermasculinity and stoicism (3). Furthermore, working-class sports such as soccer, require the acceptance of pain, suffering, and physical risk, so these players are more likely to ‘suffer in silence’ than the general population (4). Give...
I read an interesting case report of GBS with antiganglioside antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 by Civardi et al1. We are also seeing various complications like GBS, pseudotumorcerebri, precipitation of stroke, seizures etc2 but do not have the access to antiganglioside antibodies but, all those who can afford and get it done we should try for that and get it documented for academic and research purpose in this pandemic of modern time of advanced technology. We may screen for ganglioside antibodies to assess autoimmunity in Covid-19 patients3. The gangliosides are particularly abundant in the brain and in the nervous system; they participate in maintenance and repair of neuronal cells, memory formation and synaptic transmission4. So we have to be watchful in this regard towards impairment of these neurological functions i.e. new autoimmune disorder like GBS, multiple sclerosis(MS), neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders(NMO-SD), chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy(CIDP) etc. and precipitation of neurodegenerative and cognitive disorders in acute, convalescent ant post recovery follow up. Of course the paediatric population is less affected but as the gangliodides also take part in the development and regeneration of neurons the SARS-CoV-2 may affect the growth and development of paediatric population.
Show MoreAs the intravenous immunoglobulins(IVIg) and plasmapharesis are useful in the treatment of GBS with antiganglioside antibodies the trial of IVIg, and monoclonal a...
We read Larrabee and colleagues’ e-letter response to our systematic review on Performance Validity Testing (PVT). Whilst we welcome debate, and we recognize that some clinicians will disagree with our conclusions, we were disappointed that they misrepresented our paper in formulating their response:
1. The authors state “Throughout the paper, the authors refer to PVTs as “effort tests”, a characterization that is no longer in use in the United States..”. In reality we used the term “effort test” only twice in our paper; in the introduction: “(PVTs), also historically called effort tests” and once in the methods in describing our search terms. By contrast we use the term PVT on 45 occasions.
2. We are concerned that they then go on to misrepresent the results of our review. We found a wide variation in results in different clinical groups and in different tests. We noted that failure rates for some groups and some tests exceeds 25%. We did not conclude that all failure rates were as high as this, but rather that failing a PVT was not a rare phenomenon but was reasonably common in a range of clinical groups.
We presented results to support our conclusion that the PVT literature is problematic with regards to blinding to diagnosis and potential for selection bias.
We also uphold our speculation that an alternate explanation for failure on forced choice tests at above chance cutoffs may result from attentional deficit related to other symptoms. W...
Show MorePages