Abstract Background : Non‐motor symptoms are well established phenotypic components of adult‐onset idiopathic, isolated, focal cervical dystonia (AOIFCD). However, improved understanding of their clinical heterogeneity is needed to better target therapeutic intervention. Here, we examine non‐motor phenotypic features to identify possible AOIFCD subgroups. Methods : Participants diagnosed with AOIFCD were recruited via specialist neurology clinics (dystonia wales: n = 114, dystonia coalition: n = 183). Non‐motor assessment included psychiatric symptoms, pain, sleep disturbance, and quality of life, assessed using self‐completed questionnaires or face‐to‐face assessment. Both cohorts were analyzed independently using Cluster, and Bayesian multiple mixed model phenotype analyses to investigate the relationship between non‐motor symptoms and determine evidence of phenotypic subgroups. Results : Independent cluster analysis of the two cohorts suggests two predominant phenotypic subgroups, one consisting of approximately a third of participants in both cohorts, experiencing increased levels of depression, anxiety, sleep impairment, and pain catastrophizing, as well as, decreased quality of life. The Bayesian approach reinforced this with the primary axis, which explained the majority of the variance, in each cohort being associated with psychiatric symptomology, and also sleep impairment and pain catastrophizing in the Dystonia Wales cohort. Conclusions : Non‐motor symptoms accompanying AOIFCD parse into two predominant phenotypic sub‐groups, with differences in psychiatric symptoms, pain catastrophizing, sleep quality, and quality of life. Improved understanding of these symptom groups will enable better targeted pathophysiological investigation and future therapeutic intervention.
Movement disorder society criteria for clinically established early Parkinson's disease
Background: Telemedicine is increasingly used to care for patients with movement disorders, but data regarding its global use are limited. Introduction: To obtain baseline international data about telemedicine use among movement disorder clinicians. Methods: An online survey was sent to all 6,056 Movement Disorder Society members in 2015. Scope, reimbursement, and perceived quality of telemedicine were assessed. Results: There were 549 respondents (9.1% overall response rate) from 83 countries. Most (85.8%) were physicians, and most (70.9%) worked in an academic or university practice. Half of respondents ( n = 287, from 57 countries) used telemedicine for clinical care; activities included e-mail (63.2%), video visits (follow-up [39.7%] and new [35.2%]), and video-based education (35.2%). One hundred five respondents personally conducted video visits, most frequently to outpatient clinics (53.5%), patient homes (30.8%), and hospital inpatients (30.3%). The most common challenges were a limited neurological examination (58.9%) and technological difficulties (53.3%), and the most common benefits were reduced travel time (92.9%) and patient costs (60.1%). The most frequent reimbursements were none (39.0%), public insurance (24.5%), and patient payment (9.3%). Half of respondents planned to use telemedicine in the future, and three-quarters were interested in telemedicine education. Conclusions: More than 250 respondents around the world engage in telemedicine for movement disorders; most perceived benefit for patients, despite challenges and reimbursement for clinicians. Formal instruction on telemedicine is highly desired. Although the survey response was low and possibly biased to over represent those with telemedicine experience, the study provides baseline data for future comparison and to improve telemedicine delivery.
Comparison of neuropathology in Parkinson's disease subjects with and without deep brain stimulation