Search

BackgroundBacopa monnieri (BM), a commonly used herb, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal and in vitro studies; but human studies on patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) have been inconclusive. Further high-quality trials are required to conclusively state the utility of BM in AD and other neurodegenerative dementias.MethodsIn the present study, we did a narrative review of the current challenges in designing clinical trials of BM in dementia and their evidence-based recommendations.ResultsMany facets of the BM trials need improvement, especially effect size and sample size estimation. Current assessment and outcomes measures need a more holistic approach and newer scales for diagnosing and monitoring prodromal AD. The stringent guidelines in CONSORT and STROBE are often considered difficult to implement for clinical trials in ayurvedic medications like BM. However, adherence to these guidelines will undoubtedly improve the quality of evidence and go a long way in assessing whether BM is efficacious in treating AD/prodromal AD patients and other neurodegenerative dementias.ConclusionFuture studies on BM should implement more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate sample size of accurately diagnosed AD/prodromal AD patients, administering a recommended dosage of BM and for a pre-specified time calculated to achieve adequate power for the study. Researchers should also develop and validate more sensitive cognitive scales, especially for prodromal AD. BM should be evaluated in accordance with the same rigorous standards as conventional drugs to generate the best quality evidence.

Introduction: Neurologists in their clinical practice are faced with inquiries about the suitability of stem cell approaches by patients with a variety of acute and chronic (namely neurodegenerative) disorders. The challenge is to provide these patients with accurate information about the scope of stem cell use as well as at the same time, empowering patients with the capacity to make an autonomous decision regarding the use of stem cells. Methods: The Indian Academy of Neurology commissioned an Expert Group Meeting to formulate an advisory to practicing neurologists to counsel patients seeking information and advice about stem cell approaches. Results and Conclusions: In the course of such counselling, it should be emphasized that the information provided by many lay websites might be unsubstantiated. Besides, standard recommendations for the stem cell research, in particular, the application of several layers of oversight should be strictly adhered in order to ensure safety and ethical use of stem cells in neurological disorders.

The concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) emerged from the recognition that statistical significance alone is not enough to determine the clinical relevance of treatment effects in clinical research. In many cases, statistically significant changes in outcomes may not be meaningful to patients or may not result in any tangible improvements in their health. This has led to a growing emphasis on the importance of measuring patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials and other research studies, in order to capture the patient perspective on treatment effectiveness. MCID is defined as the smallest change in scores that is considered meaningful or important to patients. MCID is particularly important in fields such as neurology, where many of the outcomes of interest are subjective or based on patient-reported symptoms. This review discusses the challenges associated with interpreting outcomes of clinical trials based solely on statistical significance, highlighting the importance of considering clinical relevance and patient perception of change. There are two main approaches to estimating MCID: anchor-based and distribution-based. Anchor-based approaches compare change scores using an external anchor, while distribution-based approaches estimate MCID values based on statistical characteristics of scores within a sample. MCID is dynamic and context-specific, and there is no single 'gold standard' method for estimating it. A range of MCID thresholds should be defined using multiple methods for a disease under targeted intervention, rather than relying on a single absolute value. The use of MCID thresholds can be an important tool for researchers, neurophysicians and patients in evaluating the effectiveness of treatments and interventions, and in making informed decisions about care.

Cryptococcosis is a serious systemic mycosis. Its incidence has escalated in the past four decades. Cryptococcus neoformans causes localized or disseminated infection in immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients. The capsulated form is commonly encountered which can be diagnosed on an India ink preparation or antigen detection. However, the noncapsulated forms are very rare and require a high index of suspicion for correct diagnosis. Herein, we present a case of cryptococcal meningitis due to a noncapsulated strain in an apparently immunocompetent patient with no proven immunodeficiencies along with review of world literature. Such cases are a diagnostic challenge for the clinician as well as microbiologist.

Antiparasitic treatment improves the prognosis for neurocysticercosis (NCC)-induced seizures. However, patients with high lesion loads are typically denied the possible benefit of cysticidal therapy because of fear of complications, and such patients are not represented in clinical trials involving cysticidal therapy. We provide proof of concept for combination treatment with dual antiparasitic therapy and corticosteroids in patients with diffuse lesions, including starry sky patterns, or calcific NCC. The safety and efficacy of treating patients with high lesion loads or calcific NCC should be tested in a randomized controlled trial.