Paradoxical facilitation after depotentiation protocol can precede dyskinesia onset in early Parkinson’s disease

Loss of dopamine, a key modulator of synaptic signalling, and subsequent pulsatile non-physiological levodopa replacement is believed to underlie altered neuroplasticity in Parkinson's disease (PD). Animal models suggest that maladaptive plasticity (e.g. deficient depotentiation at corticostriatal synapses) is key in the development of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID), a common complication following levodopa replacement in PD. Human studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols have shown similar depotentiation deficit in patients with LID. We hypothesized that subtle depotentiation deficits should precede LID if these deficits are mechanistically linked to LID onset. Moreover, patients on pulsatile levodopa-based therapy may show these changes earlier than those treated with levodopa-sparing strategies. We recruited 22 early non-dyskinetic PD patients (<5 years since diagnosis) and 12 age-matched healthy controls. We grouped patients into those on Levodopa-Based (n = 11) and Levodopa-Sparing therapies (n = 11). Patients were selected to obtain groups matched for age and disease severity. We used a theta-burst stimulation protocol to investigate potentiation and depotentiation in a single session. We report significant depotentiation deficits in the Levodopa-Based group, compared to both Levodopa-Sparing and Healthy Control groups. Potentiation and Depotentiation responses were similar between Levodopa-Sparing and Healthy Control groups. Although differences persist after accounting for potential confounds (e.g. levodopa-equivalent dose), these results may yet be caused by differences in disease severity and cumulative levodopa-equivalent dose as discussed in the text. In conclusion, we show for the first time that paradoxical facilitation in response to depotentiation protocols can occur in PD even prior to LID onset

Author Correction: Sensorimotor adaptation as a behavioural biomarker of early spinocerebellar ataxia type 6

A correction has been published and is appended to both the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper.</p

Intravenous versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin \u2013 Authors' reply

Reply to comment for Intravenous subcutaneous immunoglobuli

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health