Search

Abstract Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a leading cause of non-traumatic disability in young adults. Accumulating evidence indicates early diagnosis and early treatment improves long-term outcomes. However, the MS diagnostic pathway is increasingly complex, and delays may occur at several stages. Factors causing delays remain understudied. We aim to quantify the time taken for MS to be diagnosed, and characterise the diagnostic pathway and initial care provided, in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Delays In MultiplE Sclerosis diagnosis (DIMES) in the UK and ROI is a multicentre, observational, retrospective study that will be conducted via the Neurology and Neurosurgery Interest Group (NANSIG) collaborative network. Any hospital in the UK and ROI providing an MS diagnostic service is eligible to participate. Data on consecutive individuals newly diagnosed with MS between 1st July 2022 and 31st December 2022 will be collected. The primary outcomes are 1) time from symptoms/signs prompting referral to neurology, to MS diagnosis; and 2) time from referral to neurology for suspected MS, to MS diagnosis. Secondary outcomes include: MS symptoms, referring specialties, investigations performed, neurology appointments, functional status, use of disease modifying treatments, and support at diagnosis including physical activity, and follow up. Demographic characteristics of people newly diagnosed with MS will be summarised, adherence to quality standards summarised as percentages, and time-to-event variables presented with survival curves. Multivariable models will be used to investigate the association of demographic and clinical factors with time to MS diagnosis, as defined in our primary outcomes. Discussion DIMES aims to be the largest multicentre study of the MS diagnostic pathway in the UK and ROI. The proposed data collection provides insights that cannot be provided from contemporary registries, and the findings will inform approaches to MS services nationally in the future.

High-quality academic publishing is built on rigorous peer review [...]

BackgroundCerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea (CSFR) is a common complication following endonasal skull base surgery, a technique that is fundamental to the treatment of pituitary adenomas and many other skull base tumours. The CRANIAL study explored CSFR incidence and related risk factors, particularly skull base repair techniques, via a multicentre prospective observational study. We sought to use machine learning to leverage this complex multicentre dataset for CSFR prediction and risk factor analysis.MethodsA dataset of 865 cases - 725 transsphenoidal approach (TSA) and 140 expanded endonasal approach (EEA) - with cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea as the primary outcome, was used. Relevant variables were extracted from the data, and prediction variables were divided into two categories, preoperative risk factors; and repair techniques, with 6 and 11 variables respectively. Three types of machine learning models were developed in order to predict CSFR: logistic regression (LR); decision tree (DT); and neural network (NN). Models were validated using 5-fold cross-validation, compared via their area under the curve (AUC) evaluation metric, and key prediction variables were identified using their Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) score.ResultsCSFR rates were 3.9% (28/725) for the transsphenoidal approach and 7.1% (10/140) for the expanded endonasal approach. NNs outperformed LR and DT for CSFR prediction, with a mean AUC of 0.80 (0.70-0.90) for TSA and 0.78 (0.60-0.96) for EEA, when all risk factor and intraoperative repair data were integrated into the model. The presence of intraoperative CSF leak was the most prominent risk factor for CSFR. Elevated BMI and revision surgery were also associated with CSFR for the transsphenoidal approach. CSF diversion and gasket sealing appear to be strong predictors of the absence of CSFR for both approaches.ConclusionNeural networks are effective at predicting CSFR and uncovering key CSFR predictors in patients following endonasal skull base surgery, outperforming traditional statistical methods. These models will be improved further with larger and more granular datasets, improved NN architecture, and external validation. In the future, such predictive models could be used to assist surgical decision-making and support more individualised patient counselling.

Neurology International [...]

ObjectiveDespite progress in endonasal skull-base neurosurgery, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea remains common and significant. The CRANIAL study sought to determine 1) the scope of skull-base repair methods used, and 2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in the endonasal transsphenoidal approach (TSA) and the expanded endonasal approach (EEA) for skull-base tumors.MethodsA prospective observational cohort study of 30 centres performing endonasal skull-base neurosurgery in the UK and Ireland (representing 91% of adult units). Patients were identified for 6 months and followed up for 6 months. Data collection and analysis was guided by our published protocol and pilot studies. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis.ResultsA total of 866 patients were included - 726 TSA (84%) and 140 EEA (16%). There was significant heterogeneity in repair protocols across centres. In TSA cases, nasal packing (519/726, 72%), tissue glues (474/726, 65%) and hemostatic agents (439/726, 61%) were the most common skull base repair techniques. Comparatively, pedicled flaps (90/140, 64%), CSF diversion (38/140, 27%), buttresses (17/140, 12%) and gasket sealing (11/140, 9%) were more commonly used in EEA cases. CSF rhinorrhoea (biochemically confirmed or requiring re-operation) occurred in 3.9% of TSA (28/726) and 7.1% of EEA (10/140) cases. A significant number of patients with CSF rhinorrhoea (15/38, 39%) occurred when no intraoperative CSF leak was reported. On multivariate analysis, there may be marginal benefits with using tissue glues in TSA (OR: 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.7, p

Rigorous peer-reviews are the basis of high-quality academic publishing [...]

Background and purposePrevious studies suggest that mechanisms and outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated stroke differ from those in patients with non-COVID-19-associated strokes, but there is limited comparative evidence focusing on these populations. The aim of this study, therefore, was to determine if a significant association exists between COVID-19 status with revascularization and functional outcomes following thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion (LVO), after adjustment for potential confounding factors.MethodsA cross-sectional, international multicenter retrospective study was conducted in consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients with concomitant acute LVO, compared to a control group without COVID-19. Data collected included age, gender, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, details of the involved vessels, procedural technique, and various outcomes. A multivariable-adjusted analysis was conducted.ResultsIn this cohort of 697 patients with acute LVO, 302 had COVID-19 while 395 patients did not. There was a significant difference (p

Alzheimer disease and other dementias present unique practical challenges for patients, their families, clinicians, and health systems. These challenges reflect not only the growing public health effect of dementia in an aging global population, but also more specific ethical complexities including early loss of patients' capacity to make decisions regarding their own care, the stigma often associated with a dementia diagnosis, the difficulty of balancing concern for patients' welfare with respect for patients' remaining independence, and the effect on the physical, emotional, and financial well-being of family caregivers. Caring for patients with dementia requires respecting patient autonomy while acknowledging progressively diminishing decisional capacity and continuing to provide care in accordance with other core ethical principles (beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence). Whereas these ethical principles remain unchanged, neurologists must reconsider how to apply them given changes across multiple domains including our understanding of disease, clinical and legal tools for addressing manifestations of illness, our expanding awareness of the crucial role of family caregivers in providing care and maintaining patient quality of life, and societal conceptions of dementia and individuals' personal expectations for aging. This revision to the American Academy of Neurology's 1996 position statement summarizes ethical considerations that often arise in caring for patients with dementia; although it addresses how such considerations influence patient management, it is not a clinical practice guideline.