Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease across the spectrum of severity

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia affecting nearly 18 million people around the world and 4.5 million in the US. It is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that is estimated to dramatically increase in prevalence as the elderly population continues to grow. As the cognitive and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms of AD progresses in severity over time, affected individuals become increasingly dependent on others for assistance in performing all activities of daily living. The burden of caring for someone affected by the disorder is great and has substantial impact on a family’s emotional, social and financial well-being. In the US, the currently approved medications for the treatment of mild to moderate stages of AD are the cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs). Cholinesterase inhibitors have shown modest efficacy in terms of symptomatic improvement and stabilization for periods generally ranging from 6 to 12 months. There are additional data that have emerged, which suggest longer-term benefits. For the moderate to severe stages of AD, memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist is in widespread use and has shown modest benefit as monotherapy and in combination with ChEIs. The cost effectiveness of the currently available therapeutic agents for AD has undergone great scrutiny and remains controversial, especially outside the US. Neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation and psychosis are common in AD. Unfortunately, in the US there are no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents for the treatment of these symptoms, although atypical antipsychotics have shown some efficacy and have been widely used. However, the use of these agents has recently warranted special caution due to reports of associated adverse effects such as weight gain, hyperlipidemia, glucose intolerance, cerebrovascular events, and an increased risk for death. Alternative agents used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms include serotonergic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and anticonvulsant medications.     

Safety and efficacy of early amino acids in preterm <28 weeks gestation: prospective observational comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of early amino acid (AA) administration in preterm neonates <28 weeks gestational age. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective data collection for 1 year for the late AA group (AA started at 12-30 h) and for another year with practice change to early AA administration (immediately after stabilization). RESULTS: Time of initiation of AA differed (early group 4+/-3 h vs late group 20+/-6 h; P<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of clinically significant metabolic acidosis. Blood urea at 24 h was higher in the early AA group. No significant differences in growth rate or neonatal outcomes were identified. Days to regain birth weight and sepsis were lower in the early AA group. CONCLUSIONS: Early AA administration was not associated with any clinically significant adverse effects; it was associated with reduction in the incidence of sepsis and marginally effective in reducing time to regain birth weight.     

Experience with the International League Against Epilepsy Classifications of Epileptic Seizures (1981) and Epilepsies and Epileptic Syndrome (1989) in Epileptic Children in a Developing Country

Four hundred eighty-three epileptic children attending the Pediatric Epilepsy Clinic at Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Bombay, India were classified according to the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification of epileptic seizures (1981) and epilepsies and epileptic syndromes (1989). The predominant seizures were partial (53.6), generalized (40.3%), and unclassifiable (6%). In epilepsies and epileptic syndromes, 55.3% were partial, 27% were generalized, 13.5% were undetermined, and 4.1% were special syndromes. Although our results were similar in many respects to those of other reported series, some differences were observed in the incidence of partial and generalized seizures, and partial and generalized epileptic syndromes and their subgroups, such as idiopathic, symptomatic, and cryptogenic partial syndromes, idiopathic generalized syndromes, and symptomatic specific syndromes. These differences are probably due to different age limits, methods of case ascertainment and inclusion criteria, different genetic and environmental factors, variable interpretation of clinical and EEG features, and lack of facilities for investigation in developing countries. Despite various limitations, we were able to classify most cases; the ILAE classification can be used in developing countries so that comparison can be made with other studies.     

Endoscopic pituitary surgery - a. beginner’s guide

Endonasal endoscopic surgery is now the preferred technique to tackle pituitary tumours. Our paper describes the stepwise endoscopic approach for surgeons embarking on pituitary surgery. It also highlights the common pitfalls encountered during surgery and the ways to avoid them. One must proceed in a gradual step- wise manner starting from simple exposure of the sphenoid sinus to complete endoscopic tumour removal so us to gain the neurosurgeon’s confidence as well as develop our own skills, confidence and ability to tackle complications. We use the endonasal paraseptal trans- sphenoidal approach. Surgery begins with gentle packing between the middle turbinate and septum to expose the anterior sphenoid wall and expose the sphenoid astium. The ostitum is then widened inferiorly and onto the opposite side to expose both sphenoid sinuses. The inter- sphenoid sinus and necessary mucosa is removed to expose the sella. We then use a bone flap technique or punches to open the sella. After incising the dura, tumour is removed with a suction curette. An endoscope holder facilitates the operation. The bone flap is replaced at the end of surgery to reconstruct the sella. This is especially important if a CSF leak is present. Nasal packing is usually not required.     

Implications of sub-specialisation on the waiting times of general surgical clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy around sub-specialisation in a district general hospital (DGH) has been ongoing for years. AIM: To study the effect of colorectal sub-specialisation on general surgical cases. METHODS: A retrospective audit between October 2002 and September 2003, including all referrals to the outpatient clinics of a single consultant surgeon in a DGH. RESULTS: 1,055 patients were seen in outpatient clinics, of which 53% (563) were seen in rapid access colorectal clinics. Overall, 87% (914) of patients were diagnosed to have colorectal pathology. The majority of the colorectal cases were referred using the designated referral forms. There were 427 urgent, 162 soon and 325 routine referrals with colorectal pathology, and 35 urgent, 22 soon and 84 routine referrals with non-colorectal pathology. Median waiting times for urgent, soon and routine referrals were 12, 61 and 91 days, respectively, for patients with colorectal pathology, in comparison with 44, 75 and 397 days for non-colorectal pathology. CONCLUSION: This audit confirms that colorectal sub-specialisation has resulted in a significant delay in the management of patients with non-colorectal diseases. This has major implications within a DGH setting.