No abstract

Twitter is a free, open access social media platform that is widely used in medicine by physicians, scientists, and patients. It provides an opportunity for advocacy, education, and collaboration. However, it is likely not utilized to its full advantage by many disciplines in medicine, and pitfalls exist in its use. In particular, there has not been a review of Twitter use and its applications in the field of neurology. This review seeks to provide an understanding of the current use of Twitter in the field of neurology to assist neurologists in engaging with this potentially powerful application to support their work.

Background As the health systems around the world struggled to meet the challenges of COVID-19 pandemic, care of many non-COVID emergencies was affected. Aims The present study examined differences in the diagnosis, evaluation and management of stroke patients during a defined period in the ongoing pandemic in 2020 when compared to a similar epoch in year 2019. Methods The COVID stroke study group (CSSG) India, included 18 stroke centres spread across the country. Data was collected prospectively between February and July 2020 and retrospectively for the same period in 2019. Details of demographics, stroke evaluation, treatment, in-hospital and three months outcomes were collected and compared between these two time points. Results A total of 2549 patients were seen in both study periods; 1237 patients (48.53%) in 2019 and 1312 (51.47%) in 2020. Although the overall number of stroke patients and rates of thrombolysis were comparable, a significant decline was observed in the month of April 2020, during the initial period of the pandemic and lockdown. Endovascular treatment reduced significantly and longer door to needle and CT to needle times were observed in 2020. Although mortality was higher in 2020, proportion of patients with good outcome were similar in both the study periods. Conclusions Although stroke admissions and rates of thrombolysis were comparable, some work flow metrics were delayed, endovascular stroke treatment rates declined and mortality was higher during the pandemic study period. Reorganization of stroke treatment pathways during the pandemic has likely improved the stroke care delivery across the globe.

Disease modification trials in dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have not met with success. One potential criticism of these trials is the lack of sensitive outcome measures. A large number of outcome measures have been employed in dementia and MCI trials. This review aims to describe and analyze the utility of cognitive/clinical outcome measures in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and MCI trials. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using relevant MeSH terms and exploded keywords. The search was confined to English language publications of human studies from the last five years which describe the latest trends in the use of outcome measures. Results: Despite broad use, the outcome measures employed are heterogeneous, with little data on correlations between scales. Another problem is that most studies are over-reliant on clinician/researcher assessment and cognitive outcomes, and there is a definite lack of stakeholder input. Finetuning of the paradigm is also required for people with early-stage disease, mild to moderate disease, and advanced dementia, as the outcome measures in these subgroups have varying relevance. Disease modification/prevention is an appropriate goal in early disease, whereas palliation and freedom from discomfort are paramount in later stages. The outcome measures selected must be suitable for and sensitive to these particular care goals. Although there is a shift to enrich MCI cohorts using a biomarker-based approach, the clinical relevance of such outcome measures remains uncertain. Conclusions: Outcome measures in dementia/MCI trials remain inhomogeneous and diverse, despite extensive use. Outcome measures fall within several paradigms, including cognitive, functional, quality-of-life, biomarker-based, and patient-reported outcome measures. The success of future disease-modifying trials is reliant to a large extent on the selection of outcome measures which combine all outcomes of clinical relevance as well as clinical meaning. Outcome measures should be tied to the type and stage of dementia and to the specific interventions employed.

Background Bacopa monnieri, a herb that has been used for many centuries in India, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal and in vitro studies; human studies on patients with Alzheimer disease have been inconclusive. Objective The primary objective of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of B. monnieri in persons with mild, moderate, or severe dementia, or mild cognitive impairment, due to Alzheimer disease. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries (World Health Organization, Australia-New Zealand, United States, and South Africa), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. We intended to include all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared B. monnieri, its extract or active ingredients (at any dosage), with a placebo or a cholinesterase inhibitor among adults with dementia due to Alzheimer disease and in those with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease. Results Our comprehensive search yielded 5 eligible studies. A total of 3 studies used B. monnieri in combination with herbal extracts while the remaining 2 used B. monnieri extracts only. Two studies compared B. monnieri with donepezil while the others used a placebo as the control. There was considerable variation in the B. monnieri dose used (ranging between 125 mg to 500 mg twice daily) and heterogeneity in treatment duration, follow-up, and outcomes. The major outcomes were Mini-Mental State Examination scores reported in 3 trials, Cognitive subscale scores of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale in 1 study, and a battery of cognitive tests in 2 studies. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, overall, we judged all 5 studies to be at high risk of bias. While all studies reported a statistically significant difference between B. monnieri and the comparator in at least one outcome, we rated the overall quality of evidence for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Postgraduate Institute Memory Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Wechsler Memory Scale to be very low due to downgrading by 2 levels for high risk of bias and 1 more level for impreciseness due to small sample sizes and wide CIs. Conclusions There was no difference between B. monnieri and the placebo or donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer disease based on very low certainty evidence. No major safety issues were reported in the included trials. Future randomized controlled trials should aim to recruit more participants and report clinically meaningful outcomes. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020169421; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=169421