Back to Journal

SM Journal of Neurology and Neuroscience

Ange A. Mele, MD, Henry Ogbuagu, MD, Sahil Parag, DO, Bradley Pierce, MD

[ ISSN : 2573-6728 ]

Abstract Introduction Case Presentation Discussion Conclusion References
Details

Received: 17-Jan-2022

Accepted: 20-Feb-2022

Published: 28-Feb-2022

Ange A. Mele, MD, Henry Ogbuagu, MD, Sahil Parag, DO, Bradley Pierce, MD

Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Internal Medicine Residency Program, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ange A. Mele, MD, Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Internal Medicine Residency Program, USA

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis is a demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system characterized by lesions disseminated in time and space. The diagnostic criteria for laboratory-supported definite multiple sclerosis involves two episodes of symptoms, evidence of at least one white matter lesion on MRI and abnormal oligoclonal bands in cerebrospinal fluid. Patients usually present in their early twenties and on average have up to one flare up per year. While vaccines play an important role in the prevention of many diseases, they have often been purported as a potential trigger of multiple sclerosis and multiple sclerosis relapses. The medical literature provides reliable information concerning the risk of developing multiple sclerosis and multiple sclerosis relapses following administration of most vaccines, but not much is known about the novel Moderna SARS-CoV-2 PF vaccine.

We report the case of 24-year-old male who presented with right sided facial weakness, dizziness, and dysarthria two days after receiving his first dose of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Imaging studies noted both acute and chronic central nervous system lesions. He met the diagnostic criteria for laboratory-supported definite multiple sclerosis. His acute flare was treated with intravenous corticosteroids and the patient was subsequently started on Ocrelizumab.

This case serves as an important example of the novel Moderna SARS-CoV-2 PF vaccine as a potential trigger of multiple sclerosis relapse; it reviews the literature for similar occurrences with the other COVID-19 vaccines and provides reliable guidance for COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis.

Introduction

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, different vaccines have been developed to protect the population and curtail the increasing number of deaths from the virus. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that patients with neurological disorders were at risk of severe illness from COVID-19. This statement was based on the evidence collected from reviews, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies [2]. As part of this group, patients with multiple sclerosis were therefore given priority to receive the vaccine first. Several cases of multiple sclerosis relapse have however been reported following the administration of the different COVID-19 vaccines. This occurrence calls for further investigations of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines on the health of multiple sclerosis patients.

Case Presentation

We report the case of a 24-year-old male with a medical history of obesity who presented to the Emergency Department for evaluation of right sided facial weakness, dysarthria, and dizziness two days after receiving his first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He denied a previous similar presentation, headaches, chest pain, shortness of breath and abdominal tenderness. Motor strength was 5/5 bilaterally in both upper and lower extremities, tandem gait was intact, and there were no sensory neurological deficit, dysdiadochokinesia or abnormal Romberg sign.

His chest X-ray was negative for any acute cardiopulmonary disease, EKG consistent with sinus rhythm with a rate of 89 beats per minutes. Transthoracic echocardiogram showed normal left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions with an ejection fraction of 55 to 60%. Bubble study was positive for a trivial intracardiac shunt. CT angiography of the head and neck was negative for acute intracranial processes and did not show any focal narrowing of the cervical or intracranial arteries. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the brain was notable for an active demyelinating lesion in the left frontal subcortical white matter. Additional regions of white matter signal abnormality, most notably involving the left frontal horn, are expected to be older regions of demyelination. There was no evidence of involvement below the tentorium cerebelli and the optic nerves appeared normal. At this point his acute flare was treated with intravenous corticosteroids.

The patient subsequently underwent lumbar puncture. Meningitis and encephalitis PCR panel was unremarkable. His multiple sclerosis panel was positive for seven oligoclonal bands, consistent with the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. His immunoglobulin G level in the cerebrospinal fluid was within normal limits. The results of his CSF cell count with differential were all within normal limits. Lupus anticoagulant profile, antinuclear antibodies and aquaporin-4 antibodies were negative, effectively ruling out antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus and neuromyelitis optica respectively. The patient met the diagnostic criteria for laboratory supported definite multiple sclerosis and was diagnosed with the condition. He was subsequently started on Ocrelizumab.

Discussion

The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis can be made based on three diagnostic criteria; namely clinically definite multiple sclerosis; laboratory-supported definite multiple sclerosis and probable multiple sclerosis. Clinically definite multiple sclerosis requires two episodes of symptoms and evidence of two white matter lesions on imaging or clinically. Laboratory-supported definite multiple sclerosis is characterized by two episodes of symptoms as well as evidence of at least one white matter lesion on MRI and abnormal cerebrospinal fluid showing oligoclonal bands. Probable multiple sclerosis requires two episodes of symptoms and either one white matter lesion or oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid [1]. As previously discussed, our patient met the diagnostic criteria for laboratory supported definite multiple sclerosis.

The mechanism of action of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines has been explained by Mascellino et al. According to this journal, the mRNA able to translate and codify for the superficial spike proteins of the virus is isolated and included in a lipid nanoparticle. This nanoparticle is injected intramuscularly as a vaccine, attaches to the host cells, and inserts its mRNA into the cytoplasm to reach the ribosome and synthesize the viral spike proteins. The latter reach the cellular membrane and attract antibodies against the viral spike proteins and the cells of the immune system in particular helper T cells. The interleukins 2, 4 and 5 produced by helper T cells stimulate T cells to proliferate memory T-cells and kill the infected cells [3]. Before receiving the vaccine, our patient did not know he had multiple sclerosis. His MRI noted older regions of demyelination in the left frontal horn as well as new active demyelinating lesion in the left frontal subcortical white matter. He developed a multiple sclerosis relapse after receiving the first dose of the mRNA vaccine. His acute flare was treated with intravenous corticosteroids, and he recovered promptly. The patient received his second dose of Moderna vaccine one month and four days later without further side effects. He was then started on scheduled Ocrelizumab infusions.

Maniscalco et al. also reports a case of multiple sclerosis relapse in a 26-year-old female patient 48 hours after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The patient presented with paresthesia in her left arm and limbs along with walking difficulties. The patient’s MRI showed three new voluminous enhancing lesions. She recovered following five days of methylprednisolone therapy. The authors call for further work to redefine the risk/ benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis [4]. However, a study that imply a low risk/benefit ratio was conducted by Achiron et al. It was an observational study in one clinical Centre in Israel where 555 multiple sclerosis patients received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The safety profile was noted to be the same as in premarketing clinical trials where patients mostly experienced fatigue, headache, and injection site reactions. Acute relapses were detected in 2.1% of patients following the first vaccine dose and 1.6% of patients after the second dose [5]. The authors noted increased risks of adverse effects in younger patients aged 18 to 55. This low rate of relapse might be explained by the short follow up period of 20 and 38 days following the first and second vaccine administration, respectively.

To further corroborate the previous findings, Nistri et al. reported a series of 16 cases of multiple sclerosis relapses occurring between 3 days and 3 weeks following administration of the Pfizer vaccine for 10 patients, Moderna vaccine for 2 of them and AstraZeneca for 4 patients between March and June 2021 [6]. Three of these 16 patients were newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis after COVID-19 vaccination, 13 were known multiple sclerosis patients and 9 of those were being treated with disease modifying drugs. All patients had evidence of newly active lesions on MRI. The authors state that the causative or incidental nature of this relationship remains to be established.

Vaccines with other mechanism of action have also been implicated in multiple sclerosis relapse. This is the case of the Sputnik vaccine in Russia. Its mechanism of action involves two adenovirus viral vector (recombinant-adenovirus 5 and 26). According to Etemadifar et al., a 34-year-old rituximab-treated multiple sclerosis patient who was diagnosed with relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis 13 years ago developed hemiplegia and ataxia following administration of the Sputnik vaccine [7]. The journal states that this occurred three months after his last Rituximab infusion and three days following his first dose of Sputnik vaccine. Moreover, it further raises concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in multiple sclerosis patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. Her anti-SARSCOV-2 antibodies were below the lower detectable limit. The patient however received the second dose of the Sputnik vaccine without additional side effects. The authors postulate that the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination is limited in patients who are being treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies and recommend planning a delay in such treatments to enable patients to receive the vaccine and develop anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity.

According to Bagnato et al., multiple sclerosis patients and those on immunosuppressive medications were excluded from clinical trials lead by Pfizer-BioNTech; the Moderna study did not mention multiple sclerosis as a comorbidity and did not make it part of an exclusion criteria either; and the Johnson and Johnson phase 3 clinical trial were not fully public yet [8]. As such, the use of these vaccines in MS patients on disease modifying therapies is mainly based on previous studies of other vaccines. Based on these studies, it claims that immunization in general is considered safe in people with multiple sclerosis and recommends receiving the vaccine if MS patients do not have any other known contraindications to doing so. The Multiple Sclerosis centers of Excellence further postulates that COVID-19 vaccines were important and safe for veterans with multiple sclerosis [9]

recommended to understand the importance of vaccination, the minimal risks associated with it and to decide if any treatment modification is necessary. Furthermore, Righi et al. states mRNA based or inactivated vaccines are also considered safe in multiple sclerosis patients undergoing immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatments [10]. Finally, according to guidance from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, discontinuing disease modifying agents is associated with significant risks of relapse and worsening of clinical course. As such, the NMSS recommends continuing these medications unless otherwise advised by their primary neurologist [11].

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) also released guidance on the vaccination of multiple sclerosis patients on different types of disease modifying therapies [12]. The first recommendation is for patients on beta interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl or monomethyl fumarate or natalizumab. The AAN advised against discontinuing these disease modifying agents and does not recommend a delay or adjustments in dosing or timing of administration of these medications. The second recommendation is for MS patients on anti-CD20 monoclonal infusions. Patients on these medications are prone to an attenuation of humoral response. It is therefore advised to be vaccinated > 12 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine to maximize the efficacy of the vaccine. The third recommendation concerns patients on Alemtuzumab. Given its effects on CD52+ cells, it is advised to be vaccinated > 24 weeks after the last infusion and to resume infusion 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. MS patients starting Alemtuzumab are advised to be fully vaccinated first and starting the medication 4 weeks or more after completing the vaccine. The fourth recommendation concerns MS patients on sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor modulators, oral cladribine and ofatumumab. MS patients starting these medications are also advised to be fully vaccinated and then starting these disease modifying agents 2 to 4 weeks after completing the vaccine. Patients are not advised to change the schedule of administration. When possible, however, patients should restart taking their doses of cladribine or ofatumumab 2 to 4 weeks after the last dose of the vaccine. These recommendations should be followed only when there is enough disease stability to allow delays in treatment. Complete blood count with differential should be collected to obtain an estimate of white blood cell count and lymphocyte in patients with markedly suppressed immune system.

Conclusion

Overall, it can be concluded that many cases of multiple sclerosis relapses have been reported following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different mechanism of action. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence advocate for the safety of the vaccine in MS patients. Moreover, the American Academy of Neurology has released guidelines for the vaccination of MS patients on different disease modifying therapies. Further research needs to be done to better comprehend the mechanism of these relapses following the administration of the different COVID-19 vaccines.In the meantime, following these guidelines, as well as continued patient education and clinical monitoring will contribute to mitigating these incidental side effects.

References

1. Agabegi, S. S., Agabegi, E. D., Duncan, M. D., & Chuang, K. (2020). Stepup to medicine (5th edition.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.

2. Scientific Evidence for Conditions Associated with Higher Risk for Severe COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/ science/science-briefs/underlying-evidence-table.html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. December 29, 2021.

3. Mascellino MT, Di Timoteo F, De Angelis M, Oliva A. Overview of the Main Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: Mechanism of Action, Efficacy and Safety. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:3459-3476. Published 2021 Aug 31. doi:10.2147/IDR.S315727.

4. Maniscalco Giorgia T., Manzo Valentino, Di Battista Maria E., Salvatore Simona, Moreggia Ornella, Scavone Cristina, Capuano Annalisa. Severe Multiple Sclerosis Relapse After COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report. Frontiers in Neurology. Volume 12, 2021. Page 1398. DOI: 10.3389/ fneur.2021.721502

5. Achiron A, Dolev M, Menascu S, Zohar DN, Dreyer-Alster S, Miron S, et al. COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis: what we have learnt by February 2021. Mult Scler. (2021) 15:13524585211003476. doi: 10.1177/13524585211003476

6. Nistri Riccardo, Barbuti Elena, Rinaldi Virginia, Tufano Laura, Pozzilli Valeria, Ianniello Antonio, Marinelli Fabiana, De Luca Giovanna, Prosperini Luca, Tomassini Valentina, Pozzilli Carlo. Case Report: Multiple Sclerosis Relapses After Vaccination Against SARS-CoV2: A Series of Clinical Cases. Frontiers in Neurology. Volume 12, 2021. Page 1866. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2021.765954

7. Etemadifar M, Sigari AA, Sedaghat N, Salari M, Nouri H. Acute relapse and poor immunization following COVID-19 vaccination in a rituximabtreated multiple sclerosis patient. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Oct 3;17(10):3481-3483. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1928463. Epub 2021 May 20. PMID: 34015240; PMCID: PMC8437516

8. Bagnato F, Wallin M. COVID-19 Vaccine in Veterans with Multiple Sclerosis: Protect the Vulnerable. Fed Pract. 2021;38(Suppl 1):S28-S32. doi:10.12788/fp.0113

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence. Coronavirus (COVID-19) and vaccine information. [Accessed March 9, 2021]. Updated February 25, 2021. https://www. va.gov/ms

10.Righi, E., Gallo, T., Azzini, A.M. et al. A Review of Vaccinations in Adult Patients with Secondary Immunodeficiency. Infect Dis Ther 10, 637– 661 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-021-00404-y

11.National Multiple Sclerosis Society. COVID-19 vaccine guidance for people living with MS. [Accessed March 22, 2021]. https://www. nationalmssociety.org/coronavirus-covid-19-information/multiplesclerosis-and-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-guidance

12.Farez MF, Correale J, Armstrong MJ, Rae-Grant A, Gloss D, Donley D, Holler-Managan Y, Kachuck NJ, Jeffery D, Beilman M, Gronseth G, Michelson D, Lee E, Cox J, Getchius T, Sejvar J, Narayanaswami P. Practice guideline update summary: Vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in multiple sclerosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2019 Sep 24;93(13):584-594. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157. Epub 2019 Aug 28. PMID: 31462584.

Citation

Mele AA, Ogbuagu H, Parag S, Pierce B (2022) Multiple sclerosis relapse following Moderna SARS-CoV-2 PF vaccination: Case report and review of literature. SM J Neurol Neurosci 8: 3.

Other Articles

Article Image 1

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) Val66Met polymorphism and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Risk

Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) is required for neuron growth and maintenance. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) are reported in BDNF gene, which reduces proteins activity, Val66Met polymorphism is very well studied and reported as a risk factor for psychiatric diseases. Numerous case-control studies have evaluated the role BDNF Val 66Met (dbSNP: rs6265;196G>A) polymorphism in OCD susceptibility and provided ambiguous findings, hence present meta-analysis was designed to get an exact association between BDNF Val66Met polymorphism and OCD risk. A total of 14 case - control articles were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Springer link databases search, up to July 11, 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% con¬fidence intervals (CIs) were used as association measure. All statistical analyses were done by MetaDiSc (version 1.4).

Fourteen case-control studies involving 2,765 OCD cases and 5,585 controls were included in present meta-analysis. The results showed that the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism was not associated with OCD risk (allele contrast odds ratio ORAvsG = 0.96, 95% CI= 0.82-1.12, p= 0.000; homozygote ORAAvsGG = = 0.79, 95%CI= 0.59-1.06, p= 0.0058; dominant model ORAA+GAvsGG = 0.96, 95%CI= 0.86-1. 06, p= 0.17). In conclusion, the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism was not related to increased OCD susceptibility.

Vandana Rai, Pradeep Kumar, and Abhishek Kannojiya*


Article Image 1

The F-Wave and H-Reflex Patterns with Increased Stimulus Intensity in Patients with Cerebrovascular Disease for the Neurological Evaluation of Affected Arm or Leg

The F-wave is a result of α-motor neurons backfiring following an antidromic invasion of propagated impulses across the axon hillock.

Suzuki T*


Article Image 1

A Typical Anatomy of the Hand Representation in Adults who Stutter

Atypical hand preference may be more common in Adults Who Stutter (AWS). One implication is that stuttering may be a manifestation of a more general dysfunction in motor organization and planning. This study was designed to determine whether AWS have atypical motor cortical anatomy compared to controls, and whether there are group differences in handedness that correlate with anatomical measures. Volumetric MRI was used to measure the anterior bank of the Central Sulcus (CS) and Motor Knob (MK), a structure that corresponds precisely to the motor hand representation, in Adults Who Stutter (AWS) and fluent, matched controls divided into three groups (right-handed and left-handed men, right-handed women). There was an interaction between fluency group and handedness-sex group (p=0.024) with reduced CS volume in right-handed men who stutter (p=0.001). For MK volume there was an interaction with the right MK larger in the left-handed male controls, and the left MK larger in the left-handed AWS (p=0.024). AWS and controls did not differ in hand preference score or finger tapping rate. There was a relationship between CS asymmetry and finger-tapping laterality (p=0.042) with a faster right-hand tapping speed associated with a larger left CS and vice-versa. When controls were examined independently, there were no correlations between finger-tapping laterality and anatomical asymmetry; there was a correlation in the AWS (r= 0.642; p= 0.007). Left hander AWS tapped faster with the right hand and had a larger left CS (atypical). One subgroup of right handed AWS (atypical) tapped faster with the left hand and had a larger right CS. Another subgroup of right handed AWS (typical) tapped faster with the right hand and had a larger left CS. These results show that handedness may systematically influence cortical motor representations in AWS. Further study is warranted in a larger sample of adults and in children who stutter.

Foundas LA¹*, Baucom CC², Knaus TA³, and Corey DM⁴


Article Image 1

Ischemic Stroke at Jordan University Hospital: A One-Year Hospital-Based Study of Subtypes and Risk Factors

Objective: To study the ischemic stroke subtypes and risk factors in 100 patients observed at Jordan University Hospital (JUH) over a one-year-period, and to compare the results with another 100 age-and –sex matched controls as well as with studies from other Arab countries.

Methods: One hundred patients with first-ever ischemic stroke admitted to JUH over a one-year period (between January 2013 to January 2014) were studied.

Results: There were 62 males and 38 females (M/F ratio=1. 6), with a mean age of 66 years (range 22-90 years), the majority (80/100) between the age 51-80 years. The most common stroke subtype was lacunar infarcts (36 patients). Fourty-two out of 51 patients had intracranial atherosclerosis. The most common risk factor was hypertension (85%) followed by hyperlipidemia (71%) and diabetes mellitus (65%).

Conclusion: In accordance with other Arab studies and controls, hypertension was the predominant risk factor but lacunar infarcts were more common than in most reports from other Arab countries . This shows the importance of appropriate management of hypertension to reduce the incidence of stroke in Jordan.

Bahou Y*, Ajour M, and Jaber M


Article Image 1

Longitudinal Language Changes Associated with MRI Anatomy in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Background: Language ability is one of the strongest predictors of prognosis and developmental course in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). A range of language abilities occur in ASD and although many have delays in language it remains unclear why some children’s language continues to lag, while others do not. Abnormal anatomy and function of language-related regions has been found in ASD, however, how these differences relate to language development over time is undetermined.

Methods: This study examined longitudinal changes in language functions in children with ASD and investigated whether cortical language region anatomy was related to these changes in language. Eighteen boys with ASD, 2-8 years old were evaluated (Time 1) and re-examined about 3.5 years later (Time 2) at ages 7-10. MRIs were collected at Time 2 to evaluate gray matter volume of anterior (Pars Triangularis, PTR; pars opercularis, POP) and posterior (Planum Temporale, PT; Posterior Superior Temporal Gyrus, pSTG) language regions and the microstructure of the arcuate fasciculus.

Results: Eleven boys had relative decline in language functions (decline group) and 7 boys had no relative change in language (no change group). The no change group had larger PT and right PTR volume relative to the decline group. In addition, the right PTR was correlated with the language change score, with larger right PTR associated with less language decline. There was a trend for non-right-handers to have more language decline than right-handers.

Conclusions: Results suggest differences in cortical language anatomy may play a role in language development, with further studies warranted.

Tracey A Knaus¹˒²*, Jodi Kamps³˒⁴, and Anne L Foundas⁵


Article Image 1

A New Analysis Method of F-Waves to Obtain

From the observation of different F-wave waveforms, we introduce a new method of differentiating these waveforms, by assigning each with an “F-wave waveform value”, which can be used in the clinic to evaluate the effects of rehabilitation. F-wave waveform values were determined by creating a window from minimum onset latency to maximum onset latency in measurable waveforms. We then calculated the correlation coefficient of each waveform, using Microsoft Excel, and identified F-waves as those with a correlation coefficient of greater than 0.9 or equal to 1.0. The number of different F-wave waveforms types was determined from the number of identified waveforms. We applied F-wave waveform values to evaluate neurophysiological change and the effects of rehabilitation following hemiplegia. In the future, F-wave waveform values should be considered as an important tool when assessing the effects of rehabilitation on impaired neurological responses.

Toshiaki Suzuki¹˒²*, Yoshibumi Bunno¹˒², Makiko Tani¹˒², Chieko Onigata², Yuuki Fukumoto¹, Marina Todo², Hirofumi Watanabe³, Toshihiro Ohnuma¹˒²˒³, and Naoko Komatsu³


Article Image 1

Neuroprotective Effect of Organic and Conventional White Grape Juice against Carbon Tetrachloride Damage in Different Brain Areas of Rats

The consumption of nutrients containing phenolic compounds has been reported due to the benefits they produce on human health. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the antioxidant and neuroprotective effect of the administration of organic (OGJ) and conventional (CGJ) white grape juices from Niagara variety on the oxidative stress in cerebral cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum after the treatment with carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 ) as well as on some biochemical parameters in serum of rats. Adult male rats (~300g; n=6-8/group) were orally treated (gavage) with 7μL/g of OGJ, CGJ or water, for a period of 14 days. On the 15th day it was administered CCl4 (3.0mL/kg). After 4h the animals were euthanized and the cerebral cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum were dissected and used for the analysis of oxidative stress parameters. We observed that CCl4 enhanced lipid peroxidation (TBARS) and protein damage (carbonyl), reduced the nonenzymatic antioxidants defenses (sulfhydryl), and changed the activity of the enzymatic antioxidants defenses catalase (CAT), Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) in the brain of rats. CCl4 also enhanced glucose, Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT), Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) and Gamma-Glutamyl (GGT) and decreased total cholesterol and High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) in serum of rats. CGJ and OGJ were able to prevent or ameliorate most of these alterations. Consequently, regular intake of white grape juice could be considered as an adjuvant in the therapy of oxidative damages, revealing a possible antioxidant and neuroprotective agent.

Clarice M. Peripolli, Tatiane Gabardo, Fernanda de Souza Machado, Mariane Wohlenberg, Juliana D.O. Lima, Alice S. Oliveira, Marina Rocha Frusciante, Niara da Silva Medeiros, Sheila Pereira Feijó, Filipe V.V. Nascimento, Caroline Dani, and Cláudia Funchal


Article Image 1

Global Evidence for the Key Role of the Dopamine D2 Receptor Gene (DRD2) and DRD2 Receptors in Alcoholism

It has been over 27 years since Blum & Noble discovered the first association of the DRD2 A1 allele in severe alcoholism, suggesting reward as the real phenotype, not alcoholism. This has been acknowledged by an explosion of research in the arena of Psychiatric Genetics. To date, a PubMed search listed 6,839 studies (5-15- 17). The A1 allele has been associated with substance use disorders other than alcoholism, including cocaine, nicotine dependence, polysubstance abuse and many Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) behaviors substance and non-substance related. Certainly following extensive controversy, the emerging evidence suggests that the DRD2 is a reinforcement or reward gene. In fact, it could represent one of the most prominent single-gene determinants of susceptibility to severe substance abuse/reward deficiency. While, however, the environment through epigenetic impact and other genes, when combined, still play the larger role, targeting the DRD2 gene through the novel genetic rewriting of the DNA code at the mRNA level may hold the greatest promise to date for potentially “curing” the RDS phenotype.

Kenneth Blum¹⁻⁹˒¹²*, Mark S Gold²˒¹⁵, Lloyd G Mitchell¹⁰˒¹¹, Kareem W Washington¹⁰, David Baron², Panayotis K Thanos¹³, Bruce Steinberg¹⁴, Edward J Modestino¹⁴, Lyle Fried⁷, and Rajendra D Badgaiyan¹²


Article Image 1

Depression in Alzheimer

Background: Pharmacological treatment for AD and depression are unfortunately few and of limited efficacy to cure the disease.

Objectives: To assess the combined effects of rivastigmine and citalopram on Alzheimer’s Disease.

Methods: Longitudinal clinical prospective study with 1278 AD patients on rivastigmine 9,5mg/patch and citalopram 20-40 mg/day over 48 months was assessed on the basis of NINCDS-ADRDA, MMSE, DSM-IV, FRSSD, GDS, HRS-D and follow up of the patients.

Results: Four years after the baseline assessment, there were no significant differences in MMSE, Geriatric depression scale and Hamilton rating scale for depression between patients treated with rivastigmine alone or combined rivastigmine with citalopram with or without depression (p>0.05). Functional Rating Scale for symptoms of dementia, Activities of Daily Living of patients with AD and depression treated with rivastigmine was significantly worse than patients treated with rivastigmine and no depression (p=0.027).

Conclusions: The combination of rivastigmine and citalopram had no better results than rivastigmine alone in patients with AD.

Magda Tsolaki*, Krishna Prasad Pathak, Eleni Verikouki, Chaido Zchou Messini, Tara Gaire, and Paschalis Devranis


Article Image 1

Anxiety and Its Features in Parkinson

Anxiety is one of the most clinically significant psychiatric syndromes in Parkinson’s Disease (PD). It is estimated to affect up to 50% of individuals with PD and is associated with higher levels of dependency and poorer quality of life. Although it is common, it remains widely under recognised by patients, carers and clinicians, and has not been extensively studied [1]. Therefore, in spite of its significant impact, the symptomatology, chronology, and neurobiology of anxiety in PD are not well understood.

Recently, anxiety in PD has been associated with increases in motor fluctuations and gait disturbances including freezing. Freezing of gait (FOG) is the temporary inability to walk and is one of the most debilitating symptoms of PD. It is associated with an increase in falls, injuries and dependency. The associations with motor symptoms have significant consequences for the quality of life of people living with PD. This review summarizes the most recent data on the epidemiology, associated features and possible mechanisms underlying anxiety in PD.

Perri Carlson-Hawke¹˒²*, Belinda Brown², and Simon Hammond¹