Search

Abstract Background The diffuse distribution of nicotinic cholinergic receptors (nAChRs) in both brain and peripheral immune cells points out their involvement in several pathological conditions. Indeed, the deregulated function of the nAChR was previously correlated with cognitive decline and neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The evaluation in peripheral immune cells of nAChR subtypes, which could reflect their expression in brain regions, is a prominent investigation area. Objectives This study aims to evaluate the expression levels of both the nAChR subunits and the main known inflammatory cytokines in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of patients with DLB and AD to better characterize their involvement in these two diseases. Results Higher gene expression levels of TNFα, IL6 and IL1β were observed in DLB and AD patients in comparison with healthy controls (HC). In our cohort, a reduction of nAChRα4, nAChRβ2 and nAChRβ4 was detected in both DLB and AD with respect to HC. Considering nAChR gene expressions in DLB and AD, significant differences were observed for nAChRα3, nAChRα4, nAChRβ2 and nAChRβ4 between the two groups. Moreover, the acetylcholine esterase (AChE) gene expression was significantly higher in DLB than in AD. Correlation analysis points out the relation between different nAChR subtype expressions in DLB (nAChRβ2 vs nAChRα3; nAChRα4 vs nAChRα3) and AD (nAChRα4 vs nAChRα3; nAChRα4 vs nAChRβ4; nAChRα7 vs nAChRα3; nAChRα7 vs nAChRα4). Conclusions Different gene expressions of both pro-inflammatory cytokines and nAChR subtypes may represent a peripheral link between inflammation and neurodegeneration. Inflammatory cytokines and different nAChRs should be valid and accurate peripheral markers for the clinical diagnosis of DLB and AD. However, although nAChRs show a great biological role in the regulation of inflammation, no significant correlation was detected between nAChR subtypes and the examined cytokines in our cohort of patients.

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled.

Abstract Post-stroke arrhythmias represent a risk factor for complications and worse prognosis after cerebrovascular events. The aims of the study were to detect the rate of atrial fibrillation (AF) and other cardiac arrhythmias after acute ischemic stroke, by using a 7-day Holter ECG which has proved to be superior to the standard 24-h recording, and to evaluate the possible association between brain lesions and arrhythmias. One hundred and twenty patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke underwent clinical and neuroimaging assessment and were monitored with a 7-day Holter ECG. Analysis of the rhythm recorded over 7 days was compared to analysis limited at the first 24 h of monitoring. 7-day Holter ECG detected AF in 4% of patients, supraventricular extrasystole (SVEB) in 94%, ventricular extrasystole (VEB) in 88%, short supraventricular runs (SVRs) in 54%, supraventricular tachycardia in 20%, and bradycardia in 6%. Compared to the first 24 h of monitoring, 7-Holter ECG showed a significant higher detection for all arrhythmias (AF p = 0.02; bradycardia p = 0.03; tachycardia p = 0.0001; SVEB p = 0.0002; VEB p = 0.0001; SVRs p = 0.0001). Patients with SVRs and bradycardia were older (p = 0.0001; p = 0.035) and had higher CHA2DS2VASc scores (p = 0.004; p = 0.026) respectively, in the comparison with patients without these two arrhythmias. An association was found between SVEB and parietal (p = 0.013) and temporal (p = 0.013) lobe lesions, whereas VEB correlated with insular involvement (p = 0.002). 7-day Holter ECG monitoring proved to be superior as compared to 24-h recording for the detection of all arrhythmias, some of which (SVEB and VEB) were associated with specific brain areas involvement. Therefore, 7-day Holter ECG should be required as an effective first-line approach to improve both diagnosis and therapeutic management after stroke.

Visual Hallucinations (VH) are a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s Disease (PD) and the Lewy body dementias (LBD) of Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB). The origin of VH in PD and LBD is debated: earlier studies considered a number of different possible mechanisms underlying VH including visual disorders, Rapid Eye Movement (REM) Sleep Intrusions, dysfunctions of top down or bottom up visual pathways, and neurotransmitter imbalance.

Predicting long-term prognosis and choosing the appropriate therapeutic approach in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) at the time of diagnosis is crucial in view of a personalized medicine. We investigated the impact of early therapeutic response on the 5-year prognosis of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). We recruited patients from MSBase Registry covering the period between 1996 and 2022. All patients were diagnosed with RRMS and actively followed-up for at least 5 years to explore the following outcomes: clinical relapses, confirmed disability worsening (CDW) and improvement (CDI), EDSS 3.0, EDSS 6.0, conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), new MRI lesions, Progression Independent of Relapse Activity (PIRA). Predictors included demographic, clinical and radiological data, and sub-optimal response (SR) within the first year of treatment. Female sex (HR 1.27; 95 ​% CI 1.16-1.40) and EDSS at baseline (HR 1.19; 95 ​% CI 1.15-1.24) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of relapses during the first 5 years after diagnosis, while high-efficacy treatment (HR 0.78; 95 ​% CI 0.67-0.91) and age at diagnosis (HR 0.83; 95 ​% CI 0.79-0.86) significantly reduced the risk. SR predicted clinical relapses (HR ​= ​3.84; 95 ​% CI 3.51-4.19), CDW (HR ​= ​1.74; 95 ​% CI 1.56-1.93), EDSS 3.0 (HR ​= ​3.01; 95 ​% CI 2.58-3.51), EDSS 6.0 (HR ​= ​1.77; 95 ​% CI 1.43-2.20) and new brain (HR ​= ​2.33; 95 ​% CI 2.04-2.66) and spinal (HR 1.65; 95 ​% CI 1.29-2.09) MRI lesions. This study highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate DMT for each patient soon after MS diagnosis, also providing clinicians with a practical tool able to calculate personalized risk estimates for different outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Spelman, Dr Ozakbas, Dr Prat, Dr Girard, Dr Gerlach, Dr Surcinelli, Dr Onofrj, Dr Cartechini, Dr Slee, Dr Soysal, Dr Etemadifar, Dr Turkoglu and Dr Besora have nothing to declare. Dr Toscano has received congress and travel/accommodation from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Janssen and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Alroughani received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Bayer, Biogen, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Chisari has received congress and travel/accommodation from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Lo Fermo has received congress and travel/accommodation from Alexion, Almirall, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Duquette served on editorial boards and has been supported to attend meetings by EMD, Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, and TEVA Neuroscience; he holds grants from the CIHR and the MS Society of Canada and has received funding for investigator-initiated trials from Biogen, Novartis, and Genzyme. Dr Izquierdo received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, Almirall and Teva. Dr Eichau received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche and Teva. Dr Grammond has served in advisory boards for Novartis, EMD Serono, Roche, Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Pendopharm and has received grant support from Genzyme and Roche, has received research grants for his institution from Biogen idec, Sanofi Genzyme, EMD Serono. Dr Boz received conference travel support from Biogen, Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. Dr Kalincik served on scientific advisory boards for MS International Federation and World Health Organisation, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Merck and Biogen, steering committee for Brain Atrophy Initiative by Sanofi Genzyme, received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL and Merck and received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene and Merck. Dr Blanco received speaker honoraria/consulting fees from Merck, Biogen, Roche, Brystol, Novartis, Sanofi and Sandoz. Dr Buzzard received speaker honoraria and/or education support from Biogen, Teva, Novartis, Genzyme-Sanofi, Roche, Merck and Alexion; has been a member of advisory boards for Merck and Biogen. Dr Skibina received honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Novartis, Merck, Biogen and Genzyme. Dr Sa received consulting fees, speaker honoraria, and/or travel expenses for scientific meetings from Alexion, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Teva. Dr van der Walt served on advisory boards and receives unrestricted research grants from Novartis, Biogen, Merck and Roche She has received speaker's honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Roche, and Merck; she receives grant support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MS Research Australia. Dr Butzkueven received institutional (Monash University) funding from Biogen, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Merck, Alexion, CSL, and Novartis; has carried out contracted research for Novartis, Merck, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Biogen; has taken part in speakers' bureaus for Biogen, Genzyme, UCB, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck; has received personal compensation from Oxford Health Policy Forum for the Brain Health Steering Committee. Dr Terzi received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer-Schering, Merck and Teva; has participated in clinical trials by Sanofi Aventis, Roche and Novartis. Dr Grand’Maison received honoraria or research funding from Biogen, Genzyme, Novartis, Teva Neurosciences, and ATARA Pharmaceuticals. Dr Foschi received travel and meeting attendance support from Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Merck. Dr Barnett served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme and has received conference travel support from Biogen and Novartis; he serves on steering committees for trials conducted by Novartis. His institution has received research support from Biogen, Merck and Novartis. Dr Lugaresi has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking or other activities from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Sanofi/Genzyme, and Her institutions have received research grants from Novartis and Sanofi/Genzyme. Dr Yamout received honoraria as a speaker and member of scientific advisory boards from Sanofi, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Roche and Aspen. Dr Khoury received compensation for scientific advisory board activity from Merck and Roche, and received compensation for serving on the IDMC for Biogen. Dr Prevost accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme and Teva. Dr Lechner-Scott received travel compensation from Novartis, Biogen, Roche and Merck. Her institution receives the honoraria for talks and advisory board commitment as well as research grants from Biogen, Merck, Roche, TEVA and Novartis. Dr Maimone received speaker honoraria for Advisory Board and travel grants from Almirall, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva. Dr Amato received honoraria as consultant on scientific advisory boards by Biogen, Bayer-Schering, Merck, Teva and Sanofi-Aventis; has received research grants by Biogen, Bayer-Schering, Merck, Teva and Novartis. Dr Spitaleri received honoraria as a consultant on scientific advisory boards by Bayer-Schering, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis and compensation for travel from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi Aventis, Teva and Merck. Dr van Pesch received travel grants from Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Biogen, Sanofi, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Almirall and Roche. His institution has received research grants and consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), Bristol Meyer Squibb, Janssen, Almirall, Novartis Pharma, and Alexion. Dr Macdonell or his institution have received remuneration for his speaking engagements, advisory board memberships, research and travel from Biogen, Merck, Genzyme, Bayer, Roche, Teva, Novartis, CSL, BMS, MedDay and NHMRC. Dr de Gans served on scientific advisory boards for Roche, Janssen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis and Merck, received conference fee and travel support from Novartis, Biogen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva, Abbvie and Merck and received educational event support from Novartis. Dr Castillo-Triviño received speaking/consulting fees and/or travel funding from Almirall, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva. Dr Sanchez-Menoyo accepted travel compensation from Novartis, Merck and Biogen, speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall, Bayer and Teva and has participated in clinical trials by Biogen, Merck and Roche. Dr laureys received travel and/or consultancy compensation from Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, Teva, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Biogen. Dr Van Hijfte received travel compensation from Merck. Dr McCombe received speaker fees and travel grants from Novartis, Biogen, T’évalua, Sanofi. Dr Altintas received speaker honoraria from Novartis and Alexion. Dr Weinstock-Guttman has participated in speaker's bureaus and/or served as a consultant for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Genentech, Celgene/Bristol Meyers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Janssen and Horizon; he has received grant/research support from the agencies listed in the previous sentence. She serves in the editorial board for BMJ Neurology, Children, CNS Drugs, MS International and Frontiers Epidemiology. Dr Aguera-Morales has received honoraria as a speaker and for serving on scientific advisory boards from Biogen, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Ramo-Tello has received research funding, or compensation for consulting services and speaker honoraria, or meetings travels from Biogen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol, Roche, Almirall and Merck. Dr John received funding from Novartis, Biogen, Amicus and Sanofi. Dr Hodgkinson has received consulting fees and speaker honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and has received grants for her Institution from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche. Dr Van Wijmeersch received research and travel grants, honoraria for MS-Expert advisor and Speaker fees from Almirall, Biogen, BMS, Imcyse, Janssen, Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva. Dr Fernandez-Bolaños received speaking honoraria from Biogen, Novartis, Merck and Teva. Prof. Patti has received honoraria for speaking activities by Alexion, Almirall, Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he also served as advisory board member for the following companies: Bayer Schering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA; he was funded by Pfizer and FISM for epidemiological studies; he received grants for congress participation from Alexion, Almirall, Bayer Shering, Biogen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and TEVA. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a multifaceted neurodegenerative disorder characterized, in addition to the well-recognized motor disturbances, by a complex interplay between cognitive and psychiatric manifestations. We dissect the complex landscape of PD-related psychiatric symptoms, taking into account the impact of functional neurological disorders, somatic delusions, impulse control disorders, and conditions within the bipolar spectrum. The newer entities of somatoform and functional neurological disorders, as well as preexisting bipolar spectrum disorders, are analyzed in detail. Moreover, we emphasize the need for a holistic understanding of PD, wherein the cognitive and psychiatric dimensions are valued alongside motor symptoms. Such an approach aims to facilitate early detection and personalized interventions, and enhance the overall quality of life for individuals suffering from this neurodegenerative disorder.

(1) Background: The study of the microbiome is crucial for its role in major systemic diseases, in particular the oral and gut microbiota. In recent years, the study of microorganisms correlated, for example, with neurodegenerative disease has increased the prospect of a possible link between gut microbiota and the brain. Here, we report a new case concerning a patient who was initially evaluated genetically for dementia and late-onset dyskinesia, and later tested with 16S metagenomics sequencing. (2) Methods: Starting from a buccal swab, we extracted bacterial DNA and then we performed NGS metagenomics sequencing based on the amplification of the hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene in bacteria. (3) Results: The sequencing revealed the presence of the Spirochaetes phylum, a pathogenic bacterium generally known to be capable of migrating to the Central Nervous System. (4) Conclusions: Oral infections, as our results suggest, could be possible contributing factors to various neurodegenerative conditions.

Objectives: We investigated the occurrence and relative contribution of relapse-associated worsening (RAW) and progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) to confirmed disability accrual (CDA) and transition to secondary progression (SP) in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS)., Methods: Relapsing-onset MS patients with follow-up > / = 5 years (16,130) were extracted from the Italian MS Registry. CDA was a 6-month confirmed increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score. Sustained disability accumulation (SDA) was a CDA with no EDSS improvement in all subsequent visits. Predictors of PIRA and RAW and the association between final EDSS score and type of CDA were assessed using logistic multivariable regression and multivariable ordinal regression models, respectively., Results: Over 11.8 ± 5.4 years, 16,731 CDA events occurred in 8998 (55.8%) patients. PIRA (12,175) accounted for 72.3% of CDA. SDA occurred in 8912 (73.2%) PIRA and 2583 (56.7%) RAW (p < 0.001). 4453 (27.6%) patients transitioned to SPMS, 4010 (73.2%) out of 5476 patients with sustained PIRA and 443 (24.8%) out of 1790 patients with non-sustained PIRA. In the multivariable ordinal regression analysis, higher final EDSS score was associated with PIRA (estimated coefficient 0.349, 95% CI 0.120-0.577, p = 0.003)., Discussion: In this real-world relapsing-onset MS cohort, PIRA was the main driver of disability accumulation and was associated with higher disability in the long term. Sustained PIRA was linked to transition to SP and could represent a more accurate PIRA definition and a criterion to mark the putative onset of the progressive phase., (© 2024. The Author(s).)