Comparative efficacy of fingolimod vs natalizumab: A French multicenter observational study

International audienceOBJECTIVE: To compare natalizumab and fingolimod on both clinical and MRI outcomes in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) from 27 multiple sclerosis centers participating in the French follow-up cohort Observatoire of Multiple Sclerosis. METHODS: Patients with RRMS included in the study were aged from 18 to 65 years with an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0-5.5 and an available brain MRI performed within the year before treatment initiation. The data were collected for 326 patients treated with natalizumab and 303 with fingolimod. The statistical analysis was performed using 2 different methods: logistic regression and propensity scores (inverse probability treatment weighting). RESULTS: The confounder-adjusted proportion of patients with at least one relapse within the first and second year of treatment was lower in natalizumab-treated patients compared to the fingolimod group (21.1% vs 30.4% at first year, p = 0.0092; and 30.9% vs 41.7% at second year, p = 0.0059) and supported the trend observed in nonadjusted analysis (21.2% vs 27.1% at 1 year, p = 0.0775). Such statistically significant associations were also observed for gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions and new T2 lesions at both 1 year (Gd-enhancing lesions: 9.3% vs 29.8%, p \textless 0.0001; new T2 lesions: 10.6% vs 29.6%, p \textless 0.0001) and 2 years (Gd-enhancing lesions: 9.1% vs 22.1%, p = 0.0025; new T2 lesions: 16.9% vs 34.1%, p = 0.0010) post treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these results suggest the superiority of natalizumab over fingolimod to prevent relapses and new T2 and Gd-enhancing lesions at 1 and 2 years. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with RRMS, natalizumab decreases the proportion of patients with at least one relapse within the first year of treatment compared to fingolimo

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 SARSCoV-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" (kappa <= 0.4), "moderate" or "good" (kappa > 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-Barre ' 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). settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed

Combined Bacterial Meningitis and Infective Endocarditis: When Should We Search for the Other When Either One is Diagnosed?

Auteurs groupes collaboratifs AEPEI study group & the COMBAT study groupInternational audienc