Global uncertainty in the diagnosis of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection by both neurologists and non-neurologists: An international inter-observer variability study

Introduction: Uniform case definitions are required to ensure harmonised reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is unclear how clinicians perceive the relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 in neurological syndromes, which risks under- or over-reporting. Methods: We invited clinicians through global networks, including the World Federation of Neurology, to assess ten anonymised vignettes of SARS-CoV-2 neurological syndromes. Using standardised case definitions, clinicians assigned a diagnosis and ranked association with SARS-CoV-2. We compared diagnostic accuracy and assigned association ranks between different settings and specialties and calculated inter-rater agreement for case definitions as “poor” (κ ≤ 0.4), “moderate” or “good” (κ > 0.6). Results: 1265 diagnoses were assigned by 146 participants from 45 countries on six continents. The highest correct proportion were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST, 95.8%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS, 92.4%) and headache (91.6%) and the lowest encephalitis (72.8%), psychosis (53.8%) and encephalopathy (43.2%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between neurologists and non-neurologists (median score 8 vs. 7/10, p = 0.1). Good inter-rater agreement was observed for five diagnoses: cranial neuropathy, headache, myelitis, CVST, and GBS and poor agreement for encephalopathy. In 13% of vignettes, clinicians incorrectly assigned lowest association ranks, regardless of setting and specialty. Conclusion: The case definitions can help with reporting of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2, also in settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed, and clinicians underestimated the association with SARS-CoV-2. Future work should refine the case definitions and provide training if global reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2 is to be robust

A comparison of low-dose risperidone to paroxetine in the treatment of panic attacks: a randomized, single-blind study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Because a large proportion of patients with panic attacks receiving approved pharmacotherapy do not respond or respond poorly to medication, it is important to identify additional therapeutic strategies for the management of panic symptoms. This article describes a randomized, rater-blind study comparing low-dose risperidone to standard-of-care paroxetine for the treatment of panic attacks.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty six subjects with a history of panic attacks were randomized to receive either risperidone or paroxetine. The subjects were then followed for eight weeks. Outcome measures included the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (Ham-A), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D), the Sheehan Panic Anxiety Scale-Patient (SPAS-P), and the Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All subjects demonstrated a reduction in both the frequency and severity of panic attacks regardless of treatment received. Statistically significant improvements in rating scale scores for both groups were identified for the PDSS, the Ham-A, the Ham-D, and the CGI. There was no difference between treatment groups in the improvement in scores on the measures PDSS, Ham-A, Ham-D, and CGI. Post hoc tests suggest that subjects receiving risperidone may have a quicker clinical response than subjects receiving paroxetine.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We can identify no difference in the efficacy of paroxetine and low-dose risperidone in the treatment of panic attacks. Low-dose risperidone appears to be tolerated equally well as paroxetine. Low-dose risperidone may be an effective treatment for anxiety disorders in which panic attacks are a significant component.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT100457106</p

Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) expert consensus for CMR imaging endpoints in clinical research: part I - analytical validation and clinical qualification

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Changing natural history of the disease due to improved care of acute conditions and ageing population necessitates new strategies to tackle conditions which have more chronic and indolent course. These include an increased deployment of safe screening methods, life-long surveillance, and monitoring of both disease activity and tailored-treatment, by way of increasingly personalized medical care. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a non-invasive, ionising radiation-free method, which can support a significant number of clinically relevant measurements and offers new opportunities to advance the state of art of diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. The objective of the SCMR Clinical Trial Taskforce was to summarizes the evidence to emphasize where currently CMR-guided clinical care can indeed translate into meaningful use and efficient deployment of resources results in meaningful and efficient use. The objective of the present initiative was to provide an appraisal of evidence on analytical validation, including the accuracy and precision, and clinical qualification of parameters in disease context, clarifying the strengths and weaknesses of the state of art, as well as the gaps in the current evidence This paper is complementary to the existing position papers on standardized acquisition and post-processing ensuring robustness and transferability for widespread use. Themed imaging-endpoint guidance on trial design to support drug-discovery or change in clinical practice (part II), will be presented in a follow-up paper in due course. As CMR continues to undergo rapid development, regular updates of the present recommendations are foreseen