Safety of Plasma Infusions in Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Young plasma infusions have emerged as a potential treatment for neurodegenerative disease, and convalescent plasma therapy has been used safely in the management of viral pandemics. However, the effect of plasma therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of plasma infusions in people with PD. METHODS: A total of 15 people with clinically established PD, at least 1 cognitive complaint, and on stable therapy received 1 unit of young fresh frozen plasma twice a week for 4 weeks. Assessments and adverse effects were performed/reported on and off therapy at baseline, immediately after, and 4 weeks after the infusions ended. Adverse effects were also assessed during infusions. The primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, and feasibility. Exploratory outcomes included Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III off medication, neuropsychological battery, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, inflammatory markers (tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6), uric acid, and quantitative kinematics. RESULTS: Adherence rate was 100% with no serious adverse effects. There was evidence of improvement in phonemic fluency (P = 0.002) and in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 stigma subscore (P = 0.013) that were maintained at the delayed evaluation. Elevated baseline tumor necrosis factor-α levels decreased 4 weeks after the infusions ended. CONCLUSIONS: Young fresh frozen plasma was safe, feasible, and well tolerated in people with PD, without serious adverse effects and with preliminary evidence for improvements in phonemic fluency and stigma. The results of this study warrant further therapeutic investigations in PD and provide safety and feasibility data for plasma therapy in people with PD who may be at higher risk for severe complications of COVID-19. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Give it a rest: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy.

We systematically searched the literature for studies with a randomized design that compared different inter-set rest interval durations for estimates of pre-/post-study changes in lean/muscle mass in healthy adults while controlling all other training variables. Bayesian meta-analyses on non-controlled effect sizes using hierarchical models of all 19 measurements (thigh: 10; arm: 6; whole body: 3) from 9 studies meeting inclusion criteria analyses showed substantial overlap of standardized mean differences across the different inter-set rest periods [binary: short: 0.48 (95%CrI: 0.19-0.81), longer: 0.56 (95%CrI: 0.24-0.86); Four categories: short: 0.47 (95%CrI: 0.19-0.80), intermediate: 0.65 (95%CrI: 0.18-1.1), long: 0.55 (95%CrI: 0.15-0.90), very long: 0.50 (95%CrI: 0.14-0.89)], with substantial heterogeneity in results. Univariate and multivariate pairwise meta-analyses of controlled binary (short vs. longer) effect sizes showed similar results for the arm and thigh with central estimates tending to favor longer rest periods [arm: 0.13 (95%CrI: -0.27 to 0.51); thigh: 0.17 (95%CrI: -0.13 to 0.43)]. In contrast, central estimates closer to zero but marginally favoring shorter rest periods were estimated for the whole body [whole body: -0.08 (95%CrI: -0.45 to 0.29)]. Subanalysis of set end-point data indicated that training to failure or stopping short of failure did not meaningfully influence the interaction between rest interval duration and muscle hypertrophy. In conclusion, results suggest a small hypertrophic benefit to employing inter-set rest interval durations >60 s, perhaps mediated by reductions in volume load. However, our analysis did not detect appreciable differences in hypertrophy when resting >90 s between sets, consistent with evidence that detrimental effects on volume load tend to plateau beyond this time-frame. Systematic Review Registration: OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVC.