Prestatus and status dystonicus in children and adolescents.

AIM: To critically analyse the management of status dystonicus and prestatus dystonicus in children and adolescents, in order to examine clinical features, acute management, and risk of relapse in a paediatric cohort. METHOD: Clinical, demographic, and therapeutic features were analysed according to disease severity. Risk of subsequent relapse was estimated through Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (eight females, 26 males) experiencing 63 episodes of acute dystonia exacerbations at a tertiary referral Italian hospital were identified. Mean age at status dystonicus presentation was 9 years 11 months (11y at inclusion in the study). Onset of dystonia dated back to infancy in most cases. Fourteen patients experienced two or more episodes. Infections were the most common trigger (48%). Benzodiazepines were the most commonly used drugs for acute management. Stereotactic pallidotomy was performed in six cases during status dystonicus, and in two additional patients it was electively performed after medical management. The probability of survival free from status dystonicus relapses was 78% after 4 months and 61% after 27 months. INTERPRETATION: Dystonia exacerbations are potentially life-threating emergencies, with a considerable risk of relapse. Nevertheless, no obvious factors for relapse risk stratification exist. Pallidotomy is a feasible option in medical refractory status dystonicus for patients with limited deep brain stimulation applicability, but the risk of recurrence is elevated. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Acute exacerbations may affect up to 10% of children with dystonia. Infections are the most common precipitant factor. In about 30% of the cases, intensive care unit admission is needed. Subsequent relapses are common, reaching 25% risk at 1 year. Pallidotomy can be considered in medical-refractory cases with no deep brain stimulation applicability.

Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish.

BACKGROUND: Whether information from clinical trial registries (CTRs) and published randomised controlled trial (RCTs) differs remains unknown. Knowing more about discrepancies should alert those who rely on RCTs for medical decision-making to possible dissemination or reporting bias. To provide help in critically appraising research relevant for clinical practice we sought possible discrepancies between what CTRs record and paediatric RCTs actually publish. For this purpose, after identifying six reporting domains including funding, design, and outcomes, we collected data from 20 consecutive RCTs published in a widely read peer-reviewed paediatric journal and cross-checked reported features with those in the corresponding CTRs. METHODS: We collected data for 20 unselected, consecutive paediatric RCTs published in a widely read peer-reviewed journal from July to November 2013. To assess discrepancies, two reviewers identified and scored six reporting domains: funding and conflict of interests; sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria or crossover; primary and secondary outcomes, early study completion, and main outcome reporting. After applying the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, five reviewer pairs cross-checked CTRs and matching RCTs, then mapped and coded the reporting domains and scored combined discrepancy as low, medium and high. RESULTS: The 20 RCTs were registered in five different CTRs. Even though the 20 RCTs fulfilled the CASP general criteria for assessing internal validity, 19 clinical trials had medium or high combined discrepancy scores for what the 20 RCTs reported and the matched five CTRs stated. All 20 RCTs selectively reported or failed to report main outcomes, 9 had discrepancies in declaring sponsorship, 8 discrepancies in the sample size, 9 failed to respect inclusion or exclusion criteria, 11 downgraded or modified primary outcome or upgraded secondary outcomes, and 13 completed early without justification. The CTRs for seven trials failed to index automatically the URL address or the RCT reference, and for 12 recorded RCT details, but the authors failed to report the results. CONCLUSIONS: Major discrepancies between what CTRs record and paediatric RCTs publish raise concern about what clinical trials conclude. Our findings should make clinicians, who rely on RCT results for medical decision-making, aware of dissemination or reporting bias. Trialists need to bring CTR data and reported protocols into line with published data.

Functional and Gait Assessment in Children and Adolescents Affected by Friedreich's Ataxia: A One-Year Longitudinal Study.

Friedreich's ataxia is the most common autosomal recessive form of neurodegenerative ataxia. We present a longitudinal study on the gait pattern of children and adolescents affected by Friedreich's ataxia using Gait Analysis and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA). We assessed the spectrum of changes over 12 months of the gait characteristics and the relationship between clinical and instrumental evaluations. We enrolled 11 genetically confirmed patients affected by Friedreich's ataxia in this study together with 13 normally developing age-matched subjects. Eight patients completed a 12-month follow-up under the same protocol. By comparing the gait parameters of Friedreich's ataxia with the control group, we found significant differences for some relevant indexes. In particular, the increased knee and ankle extension in stance revealed a peculiar biomechanical pattern, which correlated reliably with SARA Total, Gait and Sitting scores. The knee pattern showed its consistency also at the follow-up: Knee extension increased from 6.8±3.5° to -0.5±3.7° and was significantly correlated with the SARA total score. This feature anticipated the loss of the locomotor function in two patients. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that the selective and segmental analysis of kinetic/kinematic features of ataxic gait, in particular the behavior of the knee, provides sensitive measures to detect specific longitudinal and functional alterations, more than the SARA scale, which however has proved to be a reliable and practical assessment tool. Functional outcomes measures integrated by instrumental evaluation increase their sensitivity, reliability and suitability for the follow-up of the disease progression and for the application in clinical trials and in rehabilitative programs.