Motor coordination problems in children and adolescents with ADHD rated by parents and teachers: effects of age and gender

Summary. Objective. ADHD is frequently accompanied by motor coordination problems. However, the co-occurrence of poor motor performance has received less attention in research than other coexisting problems in ADHD. The underlying mechanisms of this association remain unclear. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of motor coordination problems in a large sample of children with ADHD, and the relationship between motor coordination problems and inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms. Furthermore, we assessed whether the association between ADHD and motor coordination problems was comparable across ages and was similar for both genders. Method. We investigated 486 children with ADHD and 269 normal controls. Motor coordination problems were rated by parents (Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire) and teachers (Groningen Motor Observation Scale). Results. Parents and teachers reported motor coordination problems in about one third of children with ADHD. Problems of fine and gross motor skills, coordination skills and motor control were all related to inattentive rather than hyperactive/impulsive symptoms. Relative to controls, motor coordination problems in ADHD were still present in teenagers according to parents; the prevalence diminished somewhat according to teachers. Boys and girls with ADHD were comparably affected, but motor performance in controls was better in girls than in boys. Conclusions. Motor coordination problems were reported in one third of children with ADHD and affected both boys and girls. These problems were also apparent in adolescents with ADHD. Clinicians treating children with ADHD should pay attention to co-occurring motor coordination problems because of the high prevalence and the negative impact of motor coordination problems on daily life

Prediction models for clinical outcome after a carotid revascularization procedure: an external validation study

Background and Purpose Prediction models may help physicians to stratify patients with high and low risk for periprocedural complications or long-term stroke risk after carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We aimed to evaluate external performance of previously published prediction models for short- and long-term outcome after carotid revascularization in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods From a systematic review, we selected all prediction models that used only readily available patient characteristics known before procedure initiation. Follow-up data from 2,184 CAS and 2,261 CEA patients from four randomized trials (EVA-3S, SPACE, ICSS, and CREST) were used to validate 23 short-term outcome models to estimate stroke or death risk ≤30 days after the procedure and the original outcome measure for which the model was developed. Additionally, we validated seven long-term outcome models for the original outcome measure. Predictive performance of the models was assessed with c-statistics and calibration plots. Results Stroke or death ≤30 days after the procedure occurred in 158 (7.2%) patients after CAS and in 84 (3.7%) patients after CEA. Most models for short-term outcome after CAS (n=4) or CEA (n=19) had poor discriminative performance (c-statistics ranging from 0.49 to 0.64) and poor calibration with small absolute risk differences between the lowest and highest risk groups and overestimation of risk in the highest risk groups. Long-term outcome models (n=7) had slightly better performance with c-statistics ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 and reasonable calibration. Conclusions Current models did not reliably predict outcome after carotid revascularization in a trial population of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In particular, prediction of short-term outcome appeared to be difficult. Further external validation of existing prediction models or development of new prediction models is needed before such models can be used to support treatment decisions in individual patients

Risk, Clinical Course, and Outcome of Ischemic Stroke in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The frequency of ischemic stroke in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) varies in the current literature, and risk factors are unknown. We assessed the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of acute ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We included patients with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) infection admitted in 16 Dutch hospitals participating in the international CAPACITY-COVID registry between March 1 and August 1, 2020. Patients were screened for the occurrence of acute ischemic stroke. We calculated the cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke and compared risk factors, cardiovascular complications, and in-hospital mortality in patients with and without ischemic stroke. RESULTS: We included 2147 patients with COVID-19, of whom 586 (27.3%) needed treatment at an intensive care unit. Thirty-eight patients (1.8%) had an ischemic stroke. Patients with stroke were older but did not differ in sex or cardiovascular risk factors. Median time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and diagnosis of stroke was 2 weeks. The incidence of ischemic stroke was higher among patients who were treated at an intensive care unit (16/586; 2.7% versus nonintensive care unit, 22/1561; 1.4%; P=0.039). Pulmonary embolism was more common in patients with (8/38; 21.1%) than in those without stroke (160/2109; 7.6%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.52–2.84]). Twenty-seven patients with ischemic stroke (71.1%) died during admission or were functionally dependent at discharge. Patients with ischemic stroke were at a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.13–2.15]) than patients without stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort study, the cumulative incidence of acute ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was ≈2%, with a higher risk in patients treated at an intensive care unit. The majority of stroke patients had a poor outcome. The association between ischemic stroke and pulmonary embolism warrants further investigation

High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease

BACKGROUND: The complexity of chronic diseases is a challenge for investigators conducting randomized trials. The causes for this include the often difficult control for confounding, the selection of outcomes from many potentially important outcomes, the risk of missing data with long follow-up and the detection of heterogeneity of treatment effects. Our aim was to assess such aspects of trial design and analysis for four prevalent chronic diseases. METHODS: We included 161 randomized trials on drug and non-drug treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, stroke and heart failure, which were included in current Cochrane reviews. We assessed whether these trials defined a single outcome or several primary outcomes, statistically compared baseline characteristics to assess comparability of treatment groups, reported on between-group comparisons, and we also assessed how they handled missing data and whether appropriate methods for subgroups effects were used. RESULTS: We found that only 21% of all chronic disease trials had a single primary outcome, whereas 33% reported one or more primary outcomes. Two of the fifty-one trials that tested for statistical significance of baseline characteristics adjusted the comparison for a characteristic that was significantly different. Of the 161 trials, 10% reported a within-group comparison only; 17% (n = 28) of trials reported how missing data were handled (50% (n = 14) carried forward last values, 27% (n = 8) performed a complete case analysis, 13% (n = 4) used a fixed value imputation and 10% (n = 3) used more advanced methods); and 27% of trials performed a subgroup analysis but only 23% of them (n = 10) reported an interaction test. Drug trials, trials published after wide adoption of the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement (2001 or later) and trials in journals with higher impact factors were more likely to report on some of these aspects of trial design and analysis. CONCLUSION: Our survey showed that an alarmingly large proportion of chronic disease trials do not define a primary outcome, do not use appropriate methods for subgroup analyses, or use naïve methods to handle missing data, if at all. As a consequence, biases are likely to be introduced in many trials on widely prescribed treatments for patients with chronic disease

Body mass index and outcome after revascularization for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

To determine whether the obesity paradox exists in patients who undergo carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. We combined individual patient data from 2 randomized trials (Endarterectomy vs Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis and Stent-Protected Angioplasty vs Carotid Endarterectomy) and 3 centers in a third trial (International Carotid Stenting Study). Baseline body mass index (BMI) was available for 1,969 patients and classified into 4 groups: <20, 20-<25, 25-<30, and ≥30 kg/m(2). Primary outcome was stroke or death, investigated separately for the periprocedural and postprocedural period (≤120 days/>120 days after randomization). This outcome was compared between different BMI strata in CAS and CEA patients separately, and in the total group. We performed intention-to-treat multivariable Cox regression analyses. Median follow-up was 2.0 years. Stroke or death occurred in 159 patients in the periprocedural (cumulative risk 8.1%) and in 270 patients in the postprocedural period (rate 4.8/100 person-years). BMI did not affect periprocedural risk of stroke or death for patients assigned to CAS (ptrend = 0.39) or CEA (ptrend = 0.77) or for the total group (ptrend = 0.48). Within the total group, patients with BMI 25-<30 had lower postprocedural risk of stroke or death than patients with BMI 20-<25 (BMI 25-<30 vs BMI 20-<25; hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.94). BMI is not associated with periprocedural risk of stroke or death; however, BMI 25-<30 is associated with lower postprocedural risk than BMI 20-<25. These observations were similar for CAS and CEA

Safety of Carotid Revascularization in Patients With a History of Coronary Heart Disease

Background and Purpose- We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods- We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70-74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results- One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67-5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40-2.65; Pinteraction=0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32-5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79-3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80-7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52-4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63-1.73; 3-way Pinteraction=0.09). Conclusions- History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years

Improving the outcome of infants born at <30 weeks' gestation - a randomized controlled trial of preventative care at home

Background: Early developmental interventions to prevent the high rate of neurodevelopmental problems in very preterm children, including cognitive, motor and behavioral impairments, are urgently needed. These interventions should be multi-faceted and include modules for caregivers given their high rates of mental health problems

Association of Chromosome 9p21 with Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease events:A GENIUS-CHD study of individual participant data

BACKGROUND:Genetic variation at chromosome 9p21 is a recognized risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). However, its effect on disease progression and subsequent events is unclear, raising questions about its value for stratification of residual risk. METHODS:A variant at chromosome 9p21 (rs1333049) was tested for association with subsequent events during follow-up in 103,357 Europeans with established CHD at baseline from the GENIUS-CHD Consortium (73.1% male, mean age 62.9 years). The primary outcome, subsequent CHD death or myocardial infarction (CHD death/MI), occurred in 13,040 of the 93,115 participants with available outcome data. Effect estimates were compared to case/control risk obtained from CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D including 47,222 CHD cases and 122,264 controls free of CHD. RESULTS:Meta-analyses revealed no significant association between chromosome 9p21 and the primary outcome of CHD death/MI among those with established CHD at baseline (GENIUS-CHD OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.05). This contrasted with a strong association in CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.18-1.22; p for interaction Conclusions: In contrast to studies comparing individuals with CHD to disease free controls, we found no clear association between genetic variation at chromosome 9p21 and risk of subsequent acute CHD events when all individuals had CHD at baseline. However, the association with subsequent revascularization may support the postulated mechanism of chromosome 9p21 for promoting atheroma development

Neurodevelopmental treatment not effective in the early stage of stroke.

C