Background Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care–level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support–free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d -dimer level. Results The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support–free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d -dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d -dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d -dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. Conclusions In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589 , NCT04505774 , NCT04359277 , and NCT02735707 .)

BackgroundHuntington's disease (HD) is a fatal inherited neurodegenerative disease, caused by a

Huntington's disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disease for which there is no curative treatment available. Given that the endocannabinoid system is involved in the pathogenesis of HD mouse models, stimulation of specific targets within this signaling system has been investigated as a promising therapeutic agent in HD. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over pilot clinical trial with Sativex(®), a botanical extract with an equimolecular combination of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Both Sativex(®) and placebo were dispensed as an oral spray, to be administered up to 12 sprays/day for 12 weeks. The primary objective was safety, assessed by the absence of more severe adverse events (SAE) and no greater deterioration of motor, cognitive, behavioral and functional scales during the phase of active treatment. Secondary objectives were clinical improvement of Unified Huntington Disease Rating Scale scores. Twenty-six patients were randomized and 24 completed the trial. After ruling-out period and sequence effects, safety and tolerability were confirmed. No differences on motor (p = 0.286), cognitive (p = 0.824), behavioral (p = 1.0) and functional (p = 0.581) scores were detected during treatment with Sativex(®) as compared to placebo. No significant molecular effects were detected on the biomarker analysis. Sativex(®) is safe and well tolerated in patients with HD, with no SAE or clinical worsening. No significant symptomatic effects were detected at the prescribed dosage and for a 12-week period. Also, no significant molecular changes were observed on the biomarkers. Future study designs should consider higher doses, longer treatment periods and/or alternative cannabinoid combinations.Clincaltrals.gov identifier: NCT01502046.

Drug induced parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia are iatrogenic consequences of the use of antidopaminergic drugs. Both entities share risk factors, physiopathological mechanisms and to some degree, therapeutic approaches. Here we review both entities and discuss emerging therapies including the recently approved drug deutetrabenazine and relevant aspects for clinical practice such as new diagnostic techniques. Key points:-Drug induced parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia are iatrogenic consequences of the use of antidopaminergic drugs.-DIP is considered a direct consequence of the blockage of D2 receptors while TD has a more complex physiopathology, including enhanced sensitivity of dopamine receptors.-Both entities are more frequent in older people due to a progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons with age.-New therapies are available for TD, including deutetrabenazine. Compliance with ethical Standards:Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: no funding was received for this study.The risks of drug-induced parkinsonism/tardive dyskinesia in the elderly and current methods to overcome it. 1.-IntroductionTardive dyskinesia (TD) and drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP) are iatrogenic disorders caused by dopamine receptor blockers (DRB) [1]. They were recognized early after the introduction of antipsychotics[2] to the clinical practice, leading to the finding that DIP caused by reserpine, a dopamine depleter, was related to dopamine deficiency [3].Elderly patients are more susceptible to these side effects, probably due to an age-related decrease in nigral neurons and dopamine [4]. Since the introduction of newer second generation antipsychotics (SGA) the frequency and intensity of these side effects has improved [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] but there is still room for concern [9], [10].TD and DIP share risk factors, pathological mechanisms and management, and might coexist in one given subject. Latest available evidence has clarified some intriguing features of TD and DIP. Meanwhile, new medications to treat TD are now available, highlighting the importance of a thorough, updated, knowledge of this pathologies.This article offers a comprehensive review of the incidence, clinical features and mechanisms behind DIP and TD. The benefits and risks of previous available drugs and those that have been recently approved by regulatory agencies are discussed. Drug induced Parkinsonism DefinitionDIP occurs when symptoms emerge after exposure to drugs, usually those that either deplete dopamine storages [11] or block dopamine receptors [12]. By definition, symptoms should be reversible, six months after the offending agent has been withdrawn[13] but actually up to 20% of patients develop persistent deficits despite drug discontinuation [14] leading to the hypothesis that these patients might have subclinical Parkinson's Disease (PD) unmasked by neuroleptic exposure (umPD), complicating the differential diagnosis [15], especially between aged patients, who are more prone to both PD and DIP. Epidemiology and risk factorsAfter PD, DI...

Botulinum toxin type A is one of the most useful treatments of sialorrhea in neurological disorders. Evidence for the use of incobotulinumtoxin A (inco-A) in the treatment of sialorrhea is limited. Thirty-six patients with sialorrhea were treated with infiltrations of inco-A into both parotid glands. The severity of sialorrhea was evaluated by the Drooling Severity Scale (DSS), and the Drooling Frequency Scale (DFS). Patients’ perceptions of clinical benefit were recorded via the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Following treatment, there was a significant difference in both the DFS and the DSS (p < 0.001). Clinical benefits on the basis of the PGI-I were present in up to 90% of patients.

In our sample of patients with suspected PD, SN hyperechogenicity predicted PD diagnosis in the long term with a high odds ratio. Conversely, a baseline normal SN echogenicity was associated with a poorer response to PD therapy and change to a different diagnosis from PD. Normal SN appears to be a caveat for clinicians to check for atypical parkinsonism features during follow-up.

ImportanceRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making.ObjectiveTo evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsExploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial.ExposuresParticipants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOrgan support–free days, assigning a value of −1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival.ResultsBaseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support–free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support–free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI &amp;lt;30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs &amp;gt;90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR &amp;gt;1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR &amp;lt;1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589

No abstract