Dreaming furiously? – A sleep laboratory study on the dream content of people with parkinson's disease and with or without rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder

Objective: Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) has been related to altered, action-filled, vivid, and aggressive dream content, but research comparing the possible differences in dreams of Parkinson&#39;s disease (PD) patients with and without RBD is scarce. The dream content of PD patients with and without RBD was analyzed with specific focus on action-filledness, vividness, emotional valence, and threats. Methods: A total of 69 REM and NREM dream reports were collected in the sleep laboratory, 37 from nine PD patients with RBD and 32 from six PD patients without RBD. A content analysis of (1) action-filledness (actions and environmental events); (2) vividness (emotions and cognitive activity); (3) intensity of actions, events and emotions; (4) emotional valence, and (5) threatening events was performed on the transcripts. Results: Altogether 563 dream elements expressing action-filledness and vividness were found. There were no significant between-group differences in the number or distribution of elements reflecting action-filledness or vividness, emotional valence or threats. In within-group analyses, PD patients with RBD had significantly more negative compared to positive dreams (p = 0.012) and compared to PD patients without RBD, a tendency to have more intense actions in their dreams (p = 0.066). Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, there are no major between-group differences in the action-filledness, vividness, or threat content of dreams of PD patients with and without RBD. However, within-group analyses revealed that dreams were more often negatively than positively toned in PD patients with RBD.</p

An international comparison of Retinopathy of Prematurity grading performance within the Benefits of Oxygen Saturation Targeting (BOOST) II trials. International variation in ROP grading.

PurposeTo investigate whether the observed international differences in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) treatment rates within the Benefits of Oxygen Saturation Targeting (BOOST) II trials might have been caused by international variation in ROP disease grading.MethodsGroups of BOOST II trial ophthalmologists in UK, Australia, and New Zealand (ANZ), and an international reference group (INT) used a web based system to grade a selection of RetCam images of ROP acquired during the BOOST II UK trial. Rates of decisions to treat, plus disease grading, ROP stage grading, ROP zone grading, inter-observer variation within groups and intra-observer variation within groups were measured.ResultsForty-two eye examinations were graded. UK ophthalmologists diagnosed treat-requiring ROP more frequently than ANZ ophthalmologists, 13.9 (3.49) compared to 9.4 (4.46) eye examinations, P=0.038. UK ophthalmologists diagnosed plus disease more frequently than ANZ ophthalmologists, 14.1 (6.23) compared to 8.5 (3.24) eye examinations, P=0.021. ANZ ophthalmologists diagnosed stage 2 ROP more frequently than UK ophthalmologists, 20.2 (5.8) compared to 12.7 (7.1) eye examinations, P=0.026. There were no other significant differences in the grading of ROP stage or zone. Inter-observer variation was higher within the UK group than within the ANZ group. Intra-observer variation was low in both groups.ConclusionsWe have found evidence of international variation in the diagnosis of treatment-requiring ROP. Improved standardisation of the diagnosis of treatment-requiring ROP is required. Measures might include improved training in the grading of ROP, using an international approach, and further development of ROP image analysis software.Eye advance online publication, 28 July 2017; doi:10.1038/eye.2017.150

Progressive development of augmentation during long-term treatment with levodopa in restless legs syndrome: results of a prospective multi-center study

The European Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) Study Group performed the first multi-center, long-term study systematically evaluating RLS augmentation under levodopa treatment. This prospective, open-label 6-month study was conducted in six European countries and included 65 patients (85% treatment naive) with idiopathic RLS. Levodopa was flexibly up-titrated to a maximum dose of 600 mg/day. Presence of augmentation was diagnosed independently by two international experts using established criteria. In addition to the augmentation severity rating scale (ASRS), changes in RLS severity (International RLS severity rating scale (IRLS), clinical global impression (CGI)) were analyzed. Sixty patients provided evaluable data, 35 completed the trial and 25 dropped out. Augmentation occurred in 60% (36/60) of patients, causing 11.7% (7/60) to drop out. Median time to occurrence of augmentation was 71 days. The mean maximum dose of levodopa was 311 mg/day (SD: 105). Patients with augmentation compared to those without were significantly more likely to be on higher doses of levodopa (≥300 mg, 83 vs. 54%, P = 0.03) and to show less improvement of symptom severity (IRLS, P = 0.039). Augmentation was common with levodopa, but could be tolerated by most patients during this 6-month trial. Patients should be followed over longer periods to determine if dropout rates increase with time

Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Novel Restless Legs Syndrome Susceptibility Loci on 2p14 and 16q12.1

Peer reviewe

Validation of the Augmentation Severity Rating Scale (ASRS): A multicentric, prospective study with levodopa on restless legs syndrome

Background: Augmentation is the main complication during long-term dopaminergic treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) and reflects an overall increase in RLS severity. Its severity varies considerably from a minor problem to a devastating exacerbation of disease. Despite its clinical relevance, systematic evaluations have rarely been undertaken and there has been no development of methods to assess the severity of augmentation. To fill this gap, the European RLS Study Group (EURLSSG) has developed the Augmentation Severity Rating Scale (ASRS), using three items that assess the degree of change in three specific dimensions of augmentation. The changes in each dimension are summed to give an ASRS total score. Methods: The ASRS was developed to cover the basic dimensions defining RLS augmentation. The items were developed by an interactive process involving professional and patient input. The ASRS that was evaluated included four major items and two alternative forms of one item. The validation was conducted using 63 (85%) mostly untreated RLS patients from six centers, who were treated for six months with levodopa (l-Dopa) (up to 500 mg/day, as clinically needed). Two consecutive assessments before and at baseline measured test-retest reliability. Consecutive ASRS ratings by two independent raters on a subsample of patients evaluated inter-rater reliability. Comparison with clinical severity ratings of two independent experts provided external validation of the ASRS. Comparison of patients with and without augmentation with regard to the items and the total score of the ASRS added discriminant validity. Results: Sixty patients (63% females, mean age: 53 years, baseline International RLS Severity Rating (IRLS) score 24.7 ± 5.2) were treated with a median daily dose of 300 mg l-Dopa (range: 50-500 mg). Thirty-six patients (60%) experienced augmentation. Item analyses indicated that one item could be removed as it did not contribute significantly to the test score and only one form of the duplicated item needed to be used. The final ASRS then included three items. Test-retest reliability for the total score was ρ = 0.72, and inter-rater reliability was rcc = 0.94. Cronbach's α was 0.62. Validity as assessed by the correlation between the worst ASRS total score during the trial and the expert rating was ρ = 0.72. ASRS total score differed between patients without versus with augmentation (mean: 7.4 (standard deviation (SD) = 4.0) vs. 2.0 (2.7) (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The ASRS is a reliable and valid scale to measure the severity of augmentation. Due to the need to systematically quantify augmentation for both long-term efficacy and tolerability, the ASRS may become a useful tool to monitor augmentation in future clinical trials. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved