European guidelines on management of restless legs syndrome: report of a joint task force by the European Federation of Neurological Societies, the European Neurological Society and the European Sleep Research Society

Since the publication of the first European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) guidelines in 2005 on the management of restless legs syndrome (RLS; also known as Willis-Ekbom disease), there have been major therapeutic advances in the field. Furthermore, the management of RLS is now a part of routine neurological practice in Europe. New drugs have also become available, and further randomized controlled trials have been undertaken. These guidelines were undertaken by the EFNS in collaboration with the European Neurological Society and the European Sleep Research Society.

Strategies to advance translational research into brain barriers

There is a paucity of therapies for most neurological disorders--from rare lysosomal storage diseases to major public health concerns such as stroke and Alzheimer's disease. Advances in the targeting of drugs to the CNS are essential for the future success of neurotherapeutics; however, the delivery of many potentially therapeutic and diagnostic compounds to specific areas of the brain is restricted by the blood-brain barrier, the blood-CSF barrier, or other specialised CNS barriers. These brain barriers are now recognised as a major obstacle to the treatment of most brain disorders. The challenge to deliver therapies to the CNS is formidable, and the solution will require concerted international efforts among academia, government, and industry. At a recent meeting of expert panels, essential and high-priority recommendations to propel brain barrier research forward in six topical areas were developed and these recommendations are presented here.

Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients: implications and interpretation of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials: A report from the Working Group of International Congress of Interventional Neurology

OBJECTIVE The results of Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, Magnetic Resonance and REcanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials are expected to affect the practice of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this report is to review the components of the designs and methods of these trials and to describe the influence of those components on the interpretation of trial results. METHODS A critical review of trial design and conduct of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION is performed with emphasis on patient selection, shortcomings in procedural aspects, and methodology of data ascertainment and analysis. The influence of each component is estimated based on published literature including multicenter clinical trials reporting on endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. RESULTS We critically examined the time interval between symptom onset and treatment and rates of angiographic recanalization to differentiate between "endovascular treatment" and "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" as it relates to the IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials. All the three trials failed to effectively test "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" due to the delay between symptom onset and treatment and less than optimal rates of recanalization. In all the three trials, the magnitude of benefit with endovascular treatment required to reject the null hypothesis was larger than could be expected based on previous studies. The IMS III and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials demonstrated that rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages subsequent to treatment are similar between IV thrombolytics and endovascular treatment in matched acute ischemic stroke patients. The trials also indirectly validated the superiority/equivalence of IV thrombolytics (compared with endovascular treatment) in patients with minor neurological deficits and those without large vessel occlusion on computed tomographic/magnetic resonance angiography. CONCLUSIONS The results do not support a large magnitude benefit of endovascular treatment in subjects randomized in all the three trials. The possibility that benefits of a smaller magnitude exist in certain patient populations cannot be excluded. Large magnitude benefits can be expected with implementation of "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" in patients with ischemic stroke who are candidates for IV thrombolytics.