Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders最新文献

Introduction

Method(s)

Results

Discussion

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Nocturnal and sleep-related motor disorders in people with Parkinson’s disease (PD) have a wide spectrum of manifestations and present a complex clinical picture. Problems can arise due to impaired movement ability (hypokinesias), e.g. nocturnal hypokinesia or early-morning akinesia, or to excessive movement (hyperkinesias), e.g. end-of-the-day dyskinesia, parasomnias, periodic limb movement during sleep and restless legs syndrome. These disorders can have a significant negative impact on the sleep, daytime functional ability, and overall quality of life of individuals with PD and their carers. The debilitating motor issues are often accompanied by a combination of non-motor symptoms, including pain and cramping, which add to the overall burden. Importantly, nocturnal motor disorders encompass a broader timeline than just the period of sleep, often starting in the evening, as well as occurring throughout the night and on awakening, and are not just limited to problems of insomnia or sleep fragmentation. Diagnosis can be challenging as, in many cases, the ‘gold standard’ assessment method is video polysomnography, which may not be available in all settings. Various validated questionnaires are available to support evaluation, and alternative approaches, using wearable sensors and digital technology, are now being developed to facilitate early diagnosis and monitoring. This review sets out the parameters of what can be considered normal nocturnal movement and describes the clinical manifestations, usual clinical or objective assessment methods, and evidence for optimal management strategies for the common nocturnal motor disorders that neurologists will encounter in people with PD in their clinical practice.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Background

The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment BIG® (LSVT BIG®) intervention, originally designed for the patients with Parkinson’s disease, is a high amplitude, high repetition therapy protocol that encourages bigger, more quality movements. The purpose of this study was to understand practitioner utilization and perspectives of the LSVT BIG® intervention as there is no published work in this area.

Methods

An electronic survey with optional debriefings was distributed to LSVT BIG® certified practitioners via the Facebook page run by parent company, LSVT Global Inc.

Results

Forty-seven practitioners engaged in this study. Practitioners were largely in the outpatient setting. Forty-seven percent reported utilizing the LSVT BIG® intervention for patient populations outside of the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis. Sixty-one percent of respondents reported using the same assessment tools and ninety-five percent reported billing insurance for their services. Twenty-three percent reported offering the LSVT BIG® intervention via telehealth. Debriefings identified barriers to implementation.

Conclusion

Practitioners are implementing the LSVT BIG® intervention across settings and are most likely to be in the outpatient setting, serving patients who possess a neurological diagnosis, and focus their assessment on lower extremity, gait, and balance. When billing insurance, practitioners routinely select the three CPT® codes: Neuromuscular Re-Education, Therapeutic Activity, and Therapeutic Procedure/Exercise. Practitioners identified several barriers to implementing the LSVT BIG® program, such as the high frequency of in-clinic visits. Practitioners are currently unsystematically modifying the program to meet patient and practitioner needs. Further research should continue to explore the practitioner perspectives on implementation of the LSVT BIG® intervention.

Introduction

Task specific dystonia is a movement disorder only affecting a highly practiced skill and is found in a broad set of expert movements including in sports. Despite affecting many sports, there is no comprehensive review of treatment options, which is in contrast to better studied forms of task specific dystonia in musicians and writers. For this reason, studies involving an intervention to treat task specific dystonia in sports were systematically reviewed, with special attention for the quality of outcome measures.

Methods

The PICO systematic search strategy was employed on task-specific dystonia, and all synonyms. Inclusion criteria were peer reviewed published studies pertaining to sports, studies with a measurement and/or intervention in TSD, all in English. We excluded abstracts, expert opinions, narrative review articles, unpublished studies, dissertations and studies exclusively relating to choking. We included case reports, case studies and case-control studies.

Results

In April 2022 Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Psychinfo were searched. Of the 7000 articles identified, 31 were included that described psychological and invasive and/or pharmacological interventions. There was a lack of formal standardized outcome measures in studies resulting in low quality evidence for the effectiveness of treatment options. A descriptive synthesis showed emotional regulation was effective, but was exclusively tried in golfers. Interventions like botulinum toxin or pharmacology had a similar effectiveness compared to studies in musicians dystonia, however there was almost no formal evidence for these treatments.

Conclusion

The quality of studies was low with a lack of standardized outcome measures. Future studies with larger cohorts and quantitative outcome measures are needed to improve understanding of treatments for task specific dystonia in athletes.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Background

Both measured orthostatic hypotension and symptomatic orthostasis are common in PD but their relationship is unclear.

Objective

We aim to determine clinical predictors of both measured orthostatic hypotension and reported symptomatic orthostasis in PD, including the impact of “on”/“off” status and seasons, and to determine the correlation between measured OH and subjective orthostasis.

Methods

We analyzed BP readings, demographic and disease state predictors for both 1. Measured blood pressure OH criteria and 2. The subjective report of orthostatic symptoms, using logistic regression analyses from an initial “on” motor state clinical visit in all PD patient visits. We then correlated subjective orthostasis symptoms with BP measurements. We also compared intra-subject BP measures in PD patients seen in both “on” and “off” states, and when seen “on” in both summer and winter.

Results

723 consecutive visits over 2 years identified 250 unique PD individuals. Subjective orthostasis was reported by 44 % and “on” measured OH (>20 drop in SBP or 10 DBP upon standing) was seen in 30 %. Measured OH did not significantly correlate with any assessed clinical feature or specific medicine. Subjective orthostasis correlated most with older age, dementia, and L-dopa use. Subjective orthostasis correlated equally with absolute lower measured standing SBP and the drop in SBP from sitting to standing. Compared to the “off” state, “on” state showed lower sitting and standing SBP, more than DBP, but no significant change in BP drop upon standing. Seasons did not impact measured BP.

Conclusions

Both OH and symptomatic orthostasis are common. Dopaminergic medications did not cause traditionally defined OH but lowered all SBP (sitting and standing) and thus reduced pulse pressure, possibly by increasing arteriole compliance simply by reducing motor tone, as this BP-lowering effect may be specific to Parkinsonism.

Introduction

In the United States (US), prophylactic treatment with the antiemetic trimethobenzamide has been used before initiating apomorphine therapy. However, US trimethobenzamide stores have been depleted, leaving uncertainty regarding whether antiemetic pretreatment is needed.

Methods

This modified Delphi panel aimed to inform circumstances when apomorphine is initiated without antiemetic pretreatment. During Round 1, a panel of 9 US movement disorder specialists rated the appropriateness of prescribing apomorphine therapy with and without antiemetic pretreatment across 192 patient scenarios and were able to review their scores in relation to other scores. During the Round 2, consensus was defined for each scenario as either strong (>75 % agreement) or moderate (66 % agreement).

Results

There was strong consensus on 118 of 192 scenario’s (97 as appropriate and 21 as inappropriate), moderate consensus on 29 scenarios, some agreement on 32 scenarios, and lack of agreement on 13 scenarios. In the absence of an antiemetic, there was strong consensus that titration schedules should be flexible and based on dose response. However, the group only reached moderate consensus on the speed of titration, highlighting the need for more systematic information on this area. In the presence of an antiemetic, panelists considered usual initial dosing and flexible titration to be appropriate in most scenarios except for when the patient is already experiencing dopaminergic adverse events.

Conclusions

Experts generally reached consensus that apomorphine can usually be prescribed without antiemetic pretreatment. Recommendations described here reflect the areas of greatest agreement among a panel of experts based on current available evidence.

Introduction

Objective

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions