Gatto, Emilia

AbstractBackgroundAs gene‐targeted therapies are increasingly being developed for Parkinson's disease (PD), identifying and characterizing carriers of specific genetic pathogenic variants is imperative. Only a small fraction of the estimated number of subjects with monogenic PD worldwide are currently represented in the literature and availability of clinical data and clinical trial‐ready cohorts is limited.ObjectiveThe objectives are to (1) establish an international cohort of affected and unaffected individuals with PD‐linked variants; (2) provide harmonized and quality‐controlled clinical characterization data for each included individual; and (3) further promote collaboration of researchers in the field of monogenic PD.MethodsWe conducted a worldwide, systematic online survey to collect individual‐level data on individuals with PD‐linked variants in SNCA, LRRK2, VPS35, PRKN, PINK1, DJ‐1, as well as selected pathogenic and risk variants in GBA and corresponding demographic, clinical, and genetic data. All registered cases underwent thorough quality checks, and pathogenicity scoring of the variants and genotype–phenotype relationships were analyzed.ResultsWe collected 3888 variant carriers for our analyses, reported by 92 centers (42 countries) worldwide. Of the included individuals, 3185 had a diagnosis of PD (ie, 1306 LRRK2, 115 SNCA, 23 VPS35, 429 PRKN, 75 PINK1, 13 DJ‐1, and 1224 GBA) and 703 were unaffected (ie, 328 LRRK2, 32 SNCA, 3 VPS35, 1 PRKN, 1 PINK1, and 338 GBA). In total, we identified 269 different pathogenic variants; 1322 individuals in our cohort (34%) were indicated as not previously published.ConclusionsWithin the MJFF Global Genetic PD Study Group, we (1) established the largest international cohort of affected and unaffected individuals carrying PD‐linked variants; (2) provide harmonized and quality‐controlled clinical and genetic data for each included individual; (3) promote collaboration in the field of genetic PD with a view toward clinical and genetic stratification of patients for gene‐targeted clinical trials. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic restricted usual healthcare management for movement‐disorders patients, with a consequent upsurge in telemedicine to bridge the gap.ObjectiveTo assess global telemedicine usage in the context of the pandemic.MethodsThe Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Telemedicine Study Group surveyed telemedicine experts from 40 countries across all continents in March–April 2020. Four domains of telemedicine were assessed: legal regulations, reimbursement, clinical use, and barriers; comparing emerging responses to the pandemic versus the baseline scenario.ResultsAll forms of telemedicine for movement disorders increased globally, irrespective of country income categorization, as an immediate response to the pandemic. This was aided by widespread availability of technology and updated government regulations. However, privacy concerns, lack of reimbursement, limited access, and lack of telemedicine training were barriers highlighted worldwide.ConclusionsQuestions remain about the longevity and extent of changes in regulations and reimbursement regarding telemedicine in the aftermath of the pandemic. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

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.