Objective REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is usually characterized by potentially injurious dream enactment behaviors (DEB). RBD treatment aims to reduce DEBs and prevent injury, but outcomes require further elucidation. We surveyed RBD patients to describe longitudinal treatment outcomes with melatonin and clonazepam. Methods We surveyed and reviewed records of consecutive RBD patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2008–2010 to describe RBD-related injury frequency/severity as well as RBD Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ratings, medication dosage, and side effects. Statistical analyses were performed with appropriate non-parametric matched pairs tests before and after treatment, and with comparative group analyses for continuous and categorical variables between treatment groups. The primary outcome variables were RBD VAS ratings and injury frequency. Results Forty-five (84.9%) of 53 respondent surveys were analyzed. Mean age was 65.8 years and 35 (77.8%) patients were men. Neurodegenerative disorders were seen in 24 (53%) patients, and 25 (56%) received antidepressants. Twenty-five patients received melatonin, 18 received clonazepam, and 2 received both as initial treatment. Before treatment, 27 patients (60%) reported an RBD associated injury. Median dosages were melatonin 6 mg and clonazepam 0.5 mg. RBD VAS ratings were significantly improved following both treatments (pm=.0001, pc=.0005). Melatonin-treated patients reported significantly reduced injuries (pm=.001, pc=.06) and fewer adverse effects (p=0.07). Mean durations of treatment were no different between groups (for clonazepam 53.9 +/− 29.5 months, and for melatonin 27.4 +/− 24 months, p=0.13) and there were no differences in treatment retention, with 28% of melatonin and 22% of clonazepam-treated patients discontinuing treatment (p=0.43). Conclusions Melatonin and clonazepam were each reported to reduce RBD behaviors and injuries and appeared comparably effective in our naturalistic practice experience. Melatonin-treated patients reported less frequent adverse effects than those treated with clonazepam. More effective treatments that would eliminate injury potential and evidence-based treatment outcomes from prospective clinical trials for RBD are needed.

Objective Since factors associated with injury in REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) remain largely unknown, we aimed to identify such factors. Methods We surveyed consecutive idiopathic (iRBD) or symptomatic RBD patients seen between 2008-2010 regarding RBD-related injuries. Associations between injuries and clinical variables were determined with odds ratios and multiple logistic regression analyses. The primary outcome variables were injury and injury severity. Results Fifty-three patients (40%) responded. Median age was 69 years, and 35 (73.5%) were men. Twenty-eight (55%) had iRBD. Twenty-nine (55%) reported injury, with 37.8% to self and 16.7% to the bed partner. 11.3% had marked injuries requiring medical intervention or hospitalization, including two (4%) subdural hematomas. iRBD diagnosis (OR=6.8, p=0.016) and dream recall (OR=7.5, p=0.03) were associated with injury; and iRBD diagnosis was independently associated with injury and injury severity adjusting for age, gender, DEB frequency and duration. Falls (p=0.03) were also associated with injury severity. DEB frequency was not associated with injury, injury severity, or falls. Conclusions Injuries appear to be a frequent complication of RBD, although the relatively low response rate in our survey could have biased results. iRBD patients are more likely to suffer injury—and more severe injuries—than symptomatic RBD patients. In addition, recall of dreams was also associated with injury, and dream enactment behavior-related (DEB) falls were associated with more severe injuries. One in nine patients suffered injury requiring medical intervention. Frequency of DEB did not predict RBD-related injuries, highlighting the importance of timely initiation of treatment for RBD in patients having even rare DEB episodes. Future prospective studies will be necessary to define predictors of injury in RBD.

No abstract

Trigger finger is a common condition usually curable by a safe, simple corticosteroid injection. Trigger finger results from a stenotic A1 pulley that has lost its gliding surface producing friction and nodular change in the tendon. This results in pain and tenderness to palpation of the A1 pulley, progressing to catching and then locking. Splinting for 6 to 9 weeks produces gradual improvement in most patients as does a quick steroid injection with the latter resulting in resolution of pain in days and resolution of catching or locking in a few weeks. Percutaneous or open release should be reserved for injection failures particularly those at high risk for continued injection failure including diabetics and those with multiple trigger fingers. We present a step-by-step method for injection with illustrations to encourage primary care providers to offer this easily performed procedure to their patients.

No abstract