We read with great interest the study by Lim et al, 1 which aimed to develop an easily applicable scale to grade the severity of autoimmune encephalitis (AE). Nine key clinical features were identified and included in the Clinical Assessment Scale in Autoimmune Encephalitis (CASE). CASE showed good interobserver and intraobserver reliability, and internal consistency, as well as a high correlation with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS).We applied CASE retrospectively to a cohort of 60 patients with AE, admitted to our institution between 2012 and 2018, and prospectively in 3 additional patients. Median age at onset was 55 years (range = 3 months-88 years), in 13 of 63 (21%) onset was before 18 years of age, and 34 of 63 (54%) were female. All patients fulfilled the clinical diagnostic criteria for AE 2 : definite AE was diagnosed in 16 of 63 patients (25%), definite anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis in 11 of 63 (17%), definite autoimmune limbic encephalitis in 6 of 63 (10%), antibody-negative probable AE in 4 of 63 (6 %), possible AE in 25 of 63 (40%), and Hashimoto encephalopathy in 1 of 63 (2%). At the disease nadir, median mRS score was 4 (range = 3-5). We applied CASE at maximum clinical severity (median CASE score = 9, range = 3-24). In our cohort, CASE significantly correlated with mRS (p < 0.0001, r 2 = 0.5025; Fig), although the correlation strength was weaker than that reported by Lim et al. However, we encountered several issues when CASE was applied to our patients that need to be clarified. Severe clinical conditions, such as coma and status epilepticus, make other items hardly assessable (eg, gait instability, language). In such cases, it is not specified what score should be given to items that are not directly assessable (we gave the maximum score). Postictal state after seizures also interferes with the evaluation of most items. The authors should clarify how to apply the scale in these situations and whether this score is meant to be used only in clinically stable patients. Furthermore, when applying CASE to a pediatric population, some items, such as memory and language, were not easily assessable. We think that the scale is more suitable for adult patients. Moreover, it would be appropriate to develop a different scale for patients with altered consciousness.CASE is potentially a useful tool and addresses the unmet need of clinical scales to grade AE severity, as mRS is quite coarse in evaluating this condition. However, CASE needs further improvement and validation to be employed in clinical trials.
Background and PurposeObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been shown to increase the risk of stroke. Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is considered the treatment of choice for OSA, whether treating OSA with CPAP reduces the risk of stroke remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of CPAP on incidence of stroke in patients with OSA.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies that provided the number of incident strokes in OSA patients in light of their treatment status with CPAP.ResultsWe identified 8 relevant studies: one randomized controlled study (RCT), 5 cohort studies, and 2 studies using administrative health data. The two overlapping cohort studies in women and the elderly and the 2 studies using administrative health data had analyzed the impact of CPAP on stroke apart from cardiac events, whereas the others had focused on the overall cardiovascular events. Based on a meta-analysis of the cohort studies, treatment with CPAP was associated with a lower incidence of stroke and cardiac events with relative risks of 0.27 [0.14–0.53], and 0.54 [0.38–0.75], respectively, although this could not be reproduced in the RCT and the studies using administrative data.ConclusionsTreating with CPAP in patients with OSA might decrease the risk of stroke, although there is some conflicting evidence. Such effect was more pronounced in stroke than in cardiac events. Future studies analyzing stroke apart from cardiac disease would be of interest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.