Screening for idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: usefulness of actigraphy.

Study Objectives: To evaluate the utility of multimodal low-cost approaches including actigraphy, a wrist-worn device monitoring rest/activity cycles, in identifying patients with idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD). Methods: Seventy patients diagnosed with sleep disorders causing different motor manifestations during sleep (iRBD, sleep apnea, restless legs syndrome) and 20 subjects without any relevant motor manifestation during sleep, underwent video-polysomnography (vPSG) and 2 week actigraphy, completed six validated RBD screening questionnaires, and sleep apps use was assessed. Actigraphy was analyzed automatically, and visually by seven blinded sleep medicine experts who rated as "no," "possible," and "probable" RBD. Results: Quantitative actigraphy analysis distinguished patients from controls, but not between patients with different types of motor activity during sleep. Visual actigraphy rating by blinded experts in sleep medicine using pattern recognition identified vPSG confirmed iRBD with 85%-95% sensitivity, 79%-91% specificity, 81%-91% accuracy, 57.7% ± 11.3% positive predictive value, 95.1% ± 3.3% negative predictive value, 6.8 ± 2.2 positive likelihood ratio, 0.14 ± 0.05 negative likelihood ratio and 0.874-0.933 area under the ROC curve (AUC). AUC of the best performing questionnaire was 0.868. Few patients used sleep apps; therefore, their potential utility in the evaluated patients' groups is limited. Conclusions: Visual analysis of actigraphy using pattern recognition can identify subjects with iRBD, and is able to distinguish iRBD from other motor activities during sleep, even when patients are not aware of the disease in contrast to questionnaires. Therefore, actigraphy can be a reliable screening instrument for RBD potentially useful in the general population.

The state of clinical research in neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To study and provide an update on the state of clinical research in neurology in the United States. METHODS: US American Academy of Neurology members and chairs of departments of neurology were surveyed regarding clinical research in 2016. NIH data on the neuroscience pipeline and extramural grant funding were also collected. RESULTS: The response rate was 32% (n = 254) for nonchair researchers and 58% (n = 67) for department chairs. Researcher respondents were on average 50 years old, 66% were men, and 81% were actively conducting clinical research, with phase II/III clinical trials and outcome measure studies being the most common type of research conducted. Time to conduct research, recruitment, and administrative burden were the major barriers reported. According to department chairs, funding and training opportunities in patient-oriented research have increased over the last 10 years. Overall, applicants to neuroscience-specific NIH institutes for extramural funding have decreased over the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: The state of clinical research in neurology has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years, but neurologists still have barriers in conducting clinical research. There has been an interval decrease in neuroscience applicants for NIH funding, which raises concerns about the pipeline and future of clinical research in neurology. These results will serve as a reference for the development of solutions to these issues.