This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Rocha et al. developed a discriminatory score in a cohort of 30 patients with reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) and 80 patients with non-RCVS arteriopathy, and they validated it in a separate cohort of RCVS and its mimic, primary angiitis of the CNS (PACNS). They found that a score that evaluated for recurrent/single thunderclap headache, carotid artery involvement (less likely with RCVS), vasoconstrictive trigger, female sex, and subarachnoid hemorrhage could accurately distinguish RCVS from other intracranial arteriopathies. In response, Drs. Yuan and Hu highlight some limitations of the study, including the use of retrospective study data, limited sample size, inclusion of 2 variables relying on the patient's subjective recall (vasoconstrictive trigger and thunderclap headache), lack of a gold standard, and the need to validate the score's ability to distinguish RCVS from arteriopathies other than PACNS. They propose using additional readily available clinical variables and imaging markers such as vessel wall imaging and transcranial color-coded sonography to further refine and validate the score. Responding to these comments, Drs. Singhal and Rocha note that several of these limitations were acknowledged in the article. They counter that advanced vessel wall imaging or biomarker studies are unlikely to improve the near-perfect performance of RCVS2 scores >5 or <2 in their study but may have some utility in patients with intermediate scores. They argue that patients' recall of thunderclap headache is likely to be reliable, given the uniqueness of the experience, whereas patients may underreport vasoconstrictive triggers such as illicit drugs and over-the-counter medications. This exchange underscores the challenges and disagreements that may be encountered when developing and refining clinical scores for neurologic conditions.
Rocha et al. developed a discriminatory score in a cohort of 30 patients with reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) and 80 patients with non-RCVS arteriopathy, and they validated it in a separate cohort of RCVS and its mimic, primary angiitis of the CNS (PACNS). They found that a score that evaluated for recurrent/single thunderclap headache, carotid artery involvement (less likely with RCVS), vasoconstrictive trigger, female sex, and subarachnoid hemorrhage could accurately distinguish RCVS from other intracranial arteriopathies. In response, Drs. Yuan and Hu highlight some limitations of the study, including the use of retrospective study data, limited sample size, inclusion of 2 variables relying on the patient's subjective recall (vasoconstrictive trigger and thunderclap headache), lack of a gold standard, and the need to validate the score's ability to distinguish RCVS from arteriopathies other than PACNS. They propose using additional readily available clinical variables and imaging markers such as vessel wall imaging and transcranial color-coded sonography to further refine and validate the score. Responding to these comments, Drs. Singhal and Rocha note that several of these limitations were acknowledged in the article. They counter that advanced vessel wall imaging or biomarker studies are unlikely to improve the near-perfect performance of RCVS2 scores >5 or <2 in their study but may have some utility in patients with intermediate scores. They argue that patients' recall of thunderclap headache is likely to be reliable, given the uniqueness of the experience, whereas patients may underreport vasoconstrictive triggers such as illicit drugs and over-the-counter medications. This exchange underscores the challenges and disagreements that may be encountered when developing and refining clinical scores for neurologic conditions.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2020 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.