Purpose: Patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often present with sleep disturbances. We evaluated the effectiveness of pediatric prolonged-release melatonin (PedPRM) in real clinical practice, focusing on a population of complex neuropediatric patients with highly refractory insomnia in Spain. Methods: The patients were aged 2 to 18 years, diagnosed with ASD, had sleep maintenance insomnia and/or early morning awakening insomnia, and were refractory to prior therapy. The starting dose of PedPRM was 2 or 5 mg (increased to 10 mg, if necessary). Evaluation at 6 months consisted of a sleep diary, the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC), the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S). Results: The median age of the 23 patients was 11.0 years, 56.5% were male, 73.9% had epilepsy, and 78.3% had intellectual disability. One patient discontinued treatment. The mean total sleep time did not change significantly. PedPRM improved sleep latency (median 30.0 to 15.0 minutes; P=0.001) and reduced the number of nocturnal awakenings (median 3.00 to 1.0; P<0.001). PedPRM significantly improved PDSS scores (14.6±4.5 to 10.4±3.5; P<0.001) and SDSC total scores (75.1±12.9 to 61.6±10.9; P<0.001). The CGI-I scale improved in 73.3% of patients; 46.7% of patients were normal, borderline, or mildly ill per CGI-S scale at the end of treatment. Conclusion In real clinical practice, PedPRM significantly improved sleep parameters in patients with ASD who were heavily medicated for comorbidities and were highly refractory to other insomnia treatments.

Purpose: Patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often present with sleep disturbances. We evaluated the effectiveness of pediatric prolonged-release melatonin (PedPRM) in real clinical practice, focusing on a population of complex neuropediatric patients with highly refractory insomnia in Spain. Methods: The patients were aged 2 to 18 years, diagnosed with ASD, had sleep maintenance insomnia and/or early morning awakening insomnia, and were refractory to prior therapy. The starting dose of PedPRM was 2 or 5 mg (increased to 10 mg, if necessary). Evaluation at 6 months consisted of a sleep diary, the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC), the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S). Results: The median age of the 23 patients was 11.0 years, 56.5% were male, 73.9% had epilepsy, and 78.3% had intellectual disability. One patient discontinued treatment. The mean total sleep time did not change significantly. PedPRM improved sleep latency (median 30.0 to 15.0 minutes; P=0.001) and reduced the number of nocturnal awakenings (median 3.00 to 1.0; P<0.001). PedPRM significantly improved PDSS scores (14.6±4.5 to 10.4±3.5; P<0.001) and SDSC total scores (75.1±12.9 to 61.6±10.9; P<0.001). The CGI-I scale improved in 73.3% of patients; 46.7% of patients were normal, borderline, or mildly ill per CGI-S scale at the end of treatment. Conclusion In real clinical practice, PedPRM significantly improved sleep parameters in patients with ASD who were heavily medicated for comorbidities and were highly refractory to other insomnia treatments.

Purpose: Patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often present with sleep disturbances. We evaluated the effectiveness of pediatric prolonged-release melatonin (PedPRM) in real clinical practice, focusing on a population of complex neuropediatric patients with highly refractory insomnia in Spain. Methods: The patients were aged 2 to 18 years, diagnosed with ASD, had sleep maintenance insomnia and/or early morning awakening insomnia, and were refractory to prior therapy. The starting dose of PedPRM was 2 or 5 mg (increased to 10 mg, if necessary). Evaluation at 6 months consisted of a sleep diary, the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC), the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S). Results: The median age of the 23 patients was 11.0 years, 56.5% were male, 73.9% had epilepsy, and 78.3% had intellectual disability. One patient discontinued treatment. The mean total sleep time did not change significantly. PedPRM improved sleep latency (median 30.0 to 15.0 minutes; P=0.001) and reduced the number of nocturnal awakenings (median 3.00 to 1.0; P<0.001). PedPRM significantly improved PDSS scores (14.6±4.5 to 10.4±3.5; P<0.001) and SDSC total scores (75.1±12.9 to 61.6±10.9; P<0.001). The CGI-I scale improved in 73.3% of patients; 46.7% of patients were normal, borderline, or mildly ill per CGI-S scale at the end of treatment. Conclusion In real clinical practice, PedPRM significantly improved sleep parameters in patients with ASD who were heavily medicated for comorbidities and were highly refractory to other insomnia treatments.

Purpose: Patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often present with sleep disturbances. We evaluated the effectiveness of pediatric prolonged-release melatonin (PedPRM) in real clinical practice, focusing on a population of complex neuropediatric patients with highly refractory insomnia in Spain. Methods: The patients were aged 2 to 18 years, diagnosed with ASD, had sleep maintenance insomnia and/or early morning awakening insomnia, and were refractory to prior therapy. The starting dose of PedPRM was 2 or 5 mg (increased to 10 mg, if necessary). Evaluation at 6 months consisted of a sleep diary, the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC), the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S). Results: The median age of the 23 patients was 11.0 years, 56.5% were male, 73.9% had epilepsy, and 78.3% had intellectual disability. One patient discontinued treatment. The mean total sleep time did not change significantly. PedPRM improved sleep latency (median 30.0 to 15.0 minutes; P=0.001) and reduced the number of nocturnal awakenings (median 3.00 to 1.0; P<0.001). PedPRM significantly improved PDSS scores (14.6±4.5 to 10.4±3.5; P<0.001) and SDSC total scores (75.1±12.9 to 61.6±10.9; P<0.001). The CGI-I scale improved in 73.3% of patients; 46.7% of patients were normal, borderline, or mildly ill per CGI-S scale at the end of treatment. Conclusion In real clinical practice, PedPRM significantly improved sleep parameters in patients with ASD who were heavily medicated for comorbidities and were highly refractory to other insomnia treatments.

Purpose: Patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often present with sleep disturbances. We evaluated the effectiveness of pediatric prolonged-release melatonin (PedPRM) in real clinical practice, focusing on a population of complex neuropediatric patients with highly refractory insomnia in Spain. Methods: The patients were aged 2 to 18 years, diagnosed with ASD, had sleep maintenance insomnia and/or early morning awakening insomnia, and were refractory to prior therapy. The starting dose of PedPRM was 2 or 5 mg (increased to 10 mg, if necessary). Evaluation at 6 months consisted of a sleep diary, the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC), the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), and the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S). Results: The median age of the 23 patients was 11.0 years, 56.5% were male, 73.9% had epilepsy, and 78.3% had intellectual disability. One patient discontinued treatment. The mean total sleep time did not change significantly. PedPRM improved sleep latency (median 30.0 to 15.0 minutes; P=0.001) and reduced the number of nocturnal awakenings (median 3.00 to 1.0; P<0.001). PedPRM significantly improved PDSS scores (14.6±4.5 to 10.4±3.5; P<0.001) and SDSC total scores (75.1±12.9 to 61.6±10.9; P<0.001). The CGI-I scale improved in 73.3% of patients; 46.7% of patients were normal, borderline, or mildly ill per CGI-S scale at the end of treatment. Conclusion In real clinical practice, PedPRM significantly improved sleep parameters in patients with ASD who were heavily medicated for comorbidities and were highly refractory to other insomnia treatments.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic delay of cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is known to be substantially long. A prolonged time from symptoms onset to diagnosis negatively impacts quality of life and life expectancy of the affected patients. We aim to describe the role of the incidental finding of amyloid deposits in prostatic tissue as an early marker of CA. METHODS: A systematic cardiological evaluation, comprising ECG, echocardiogram and 99mTc-DPD scintigraphy, was offered to a cohort of 19 patients with incidental prostatic amyloidosis (PA) findings, propectively detected between 2014-2023, to assess cardiac involvement. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 80.2 years (IQR: 74.9 -82.6 years). Histopathological study revealed amyloid deposits within the walls of small vessels (predominantly small arteries) in 18 patients and mainly in the stroma in the remaining case. All of them were immunohistochemically positive for transthyretin (ATTR) except one patient, with known myeloma, which was unconclusive fo ATTR. Clonal dyscrasia was excluded in the rest of the patients. Thirteen patients (68.4%) underwent all cardiological tests, 4 patients (21.1%) underwent only ECG and echocardiographic evaluation and two patients (10.5%) refused to undergo any cardiological study. Among 13 individuals undergoing the complete evaluation, six patients were eventually diagnosed with CA (46.15%). All of them were asymptomatic from a cardiovascular point of view at the time of the prostate biopsy. CONCLUSION The finding of PA should prompt a complete cardiovascular examination, given the significant percentage of patients eventually diagnosed with early-stage CA. Multidisciplinary collaboration among different medical specialists must be encouraged, given the potential clinical impact of CA early diagnosis.

Background: The Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) has improved the prediction of clinical outcomes for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for MDS (AIPSS-MDS), based on classical clinical parameters, has outperformed the IPSS, revised version (IPSS-R). For the first time, we validated the IPSS-M and other molecular prognostic models and compared them with the established IPSS-R and AIPSS-MDS models using data from South American patients. Methods: Molecular and clinical data from 145 patients with MDS and 37 patients with MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Prognostic power evaluation revealed that the IPSS-M (Harrell’s concordance [C]-index: 0.75, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.68) predicted overall survival better than the European MDS (EuroMDS; C-index: 0.72, AUC: 0.68) and Munich Leukemia Laboratory (MLL) (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.64) models. The IPSS-M prognostic discrimination was similar to that of the AIPSS-MDS model (C-index: 0.74, AUC:0.66) and outperformed the IPSS-R model (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.61). Considering simplified low- and high-risk groups for clinical management, after restratifying from IPSS-R (57% and 32%, respectively, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; P = 0.002) to IPSS-M, 12.6% of patients were upstaged, and 5% were downstaged (HR: 2.9; P = 0.001). The AIPSS-MDS recategorized 51% of the low-risk cohort as high-risk, with no patients being downstaged (HR: 5.6;P < 0.001), consistent with most patients requiring disease-modifying therapy. Conclusions The IPSS-M and AIPSS-MDS models provide more accurate survival prognoses than the IPSS-R, EuroMDS, and MLL models. The AIPSS-MDS model is a valid option for assessing risks for all patients with MDS, especially in resource-limited centers where molecular testing is not currently a standard clinical practice.