Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

8 citation(s) found for "Walker, Richard".

Phase 3 randomized trial of chemotherapy with or without oblimersen in older AML patients: CALGB 10201 (Alliance)
Walker, Alison R. , Marcucci, Guido , Yin, Jun , Blum, William , Kohlschmidt, Jessica, Mrózek, Krzysztof , Carroll, Andrew J. , Eisfeld, Ann-Kathrin, Kolitz, Jonathan E. , Thakuri, Mohan C., Sutamtewagul, Grerk , Vij, Ravi , Byrd, John C. , Bloomfield, Clara D. , Stone, Richard M. , Byrd, John C. , Jacobson, Sawyer , Sutamtewagul, Grerk , Larson, Richard A , Stock, Wendy , Eisfeld, Ann‐Kathrin , Wang, Eunice S. , Stuart, Robert K. , Larson, Richard A. , Byrd, John C

Blood Advances | July 12, 2021 | Volume: 5 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 2775-2787

10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004233 | PMID 34251414 Get It

Abstract Overexpression of B-cell leukemia/lymphoma 2 (BCL2) renders acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells resistant to chemotherapy and has been associated with unfavorable outcomes. Oblimersen (G3139) is a phosphorothioate 18-mer antisense oligonucleotide directed against the first 6 BCL2 codons. In a phase 1 study of AML patients treated with G3139, cytarabine, and daunorubicin induction with cytarabine consolidation, no antisense-related toxicity was reported, and BCL2 downregulation occurred in patients achieving complete remission. In this phase 3 trial, untreated older AML patients were randomized to cytarabine (100 mg/m2 per day on days 4-10) and daunorubicin (60 mg/m2 per day on days 4-6) followed by cytarabine consolidation (2000 mg/m2 per day on days 4-8) with (arm A) or without (arm B) G3139 (7 mg/m2 per day on days 1-10 [induction] or days 1-8 [consolidation]). A total of 506 patients were enrolled. No differences in toxicity were observed between arms. Estimated overall survival (OS) at 1 year was 43% for arm A and 40% for arm B (1-sided log rank P = .13), with no differences in disease-free (DFS; P = .26) or event-free survival (P = .80). Subgroup analyses showed patients age <70 years in arm A had improved OS by 1 month vs those in arm B (P = .04), and patients with secondary AML in arm A had better DFS vs those in arm B (P = .04). We conclude that addition of G3139 to chemotherapy failed to improve outcomes of older AML patients. However, more effective means of inhibiting BCL2 are showing promising results in combination with chemotherapy in AML. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00085124.
Precision Medicine Treatment in Older AML: Results of Beat AML Master Trial
Burd, Amy , Ruppert, Amy S. , Borate, Uma , Stein, Eytan M. , Patel, Prapti A. , Baer, Maria R. , Deininger, Michael W. , Blum, William , Schiller, Gary J. , Olin, Rebecca L. , Litzow, Mark R. , Foran, James M. , Ball, Brian , Boyiadzis, Michael , Odenike, Olatoyosi , Arellano, Martha , Walker, Alison R. , Collins, Robert H. , Heerema, Nyla A. , Vergilio, Jo‐Anne, Vietz, Christine, Vittorio, Molly, Rosenberg, Leonard, Marcus, Sonja, Yocum, Ashley O. , Stefanos, Mona , Byrd, John C. , Byrd, John C. , Levine, Ross L. , Mims, Alice S , Stock, Wendy , Lin, Tara L. , Traer, Elie , Duong, Vu H. , Brennan, Timothy J. , Druker, Brian J , Byrd, John C

Blood | February 14, 2020 | Volume: 134 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: 175-175

10.1182/blood-2019-130201 Get It

*equal contribution of AB, RLL, BD and JCB Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is common with increasing age, and older adults with AML rarely achieve long-term remission with chemotherapy. Gene discovery studies in older adults with AML have shown that this malignancy is characterized by a multitude of somatic genomic alterations beginning with initiating somatic events followed by acquisition of collaborative transforming mutations. Despite these important biologic insights, current therapeutic approaches to AML remain limited, particularly in adults ≥ 60 years of age. The Beat AML trial was designed to assess the feasibility of using genetic profiling to assign patients (pts) to molecularly defined, subtype-specific therapies within 7 days of the initial diagnosis in a multi-center clinical trial setting, and to delineate the role of molecularly informed first-line treatment of AML with mechanism based novel therapies. Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with AML were enrolled in this prospective trial which offered accelerated cytogenetic and comprehensive mutational testing within 7 days followed by treatment assignment using these molecular data. Pt eligibility included age ≥ 60 years with non-APML AML, no known CNS leukemia, no prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy and no clinical need for emergent therapy. Eligible pts were profiled by local cytogenetics analysis and using a central next generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Foundation Medicine, Inc.) with all molecular data required for treatment assignment (TA) obtained < 7 days. TA was made centrally using a pre-determined algorithm considering somatic cytogenetic and molecular alterations in the dominant clone, available targeted therapeutics for specific AML subsets, and the likelihood of cure with intensive chemotherapy. Results: From November 2016 to January 2019, 487 pts with a suspected diagnosis of AML had enrolled at 14 clinical sites; 395 were eligible for the study (77% of the patients not eligible for the study had an alternative diagnosis). The median age of eligible patients was 72 years (range: 60 to 92) with 38% being≥ 75 years and 16% with treatment-related AML. From the 395 eligible patients, 374 (94.7%) were centrally assigned to the different cytogenetic/genomic groups within 7 days. The most common groups were TP53 mutated (19%) and marker negative (18%) molecular groups. The Beat AML trial is dynamic by design, thereby allowing different arms to open over time; all trial arms are designed to evaluate for substantial clinical efficacy in small, molecularly defined patient subsets. As shown in Figure 1, 224 patients (57%) had a TA and consented to a BEAT AML sub-study. Of the remaining 171 patients, 103 received standard therapy defined as induction therapy (7+3) or hypomethylation agent (25 before TA and 78 after TA), 28 received an alternative investigational agent (5 before TA and 23 after TA), 38 received palliative care, and 2 had an unknown treatment status and are grouped with the palliative care patients in subsequent analyses; 9 patients died before TA (2 who received standard therapy and 7 in the palliative care group). Demographic, clinical, performance and molecular characteristics were not largely different between pts who elected targeted therapy as part of the BEAT AML trial versus those who elected standard therapy. As shown in Figure 2, the overall survival was significantly longer for patients enrolled in a targeted therapy arm as part of the BEAT AML trial compared to those who elected standard therapy. (p<0.0001). The 30-day estimated death rate was 3.7% (95% CI: 1.9-7.2) for patients electing treatment on a BEAT AML sub-study, 20.4% (95% CI: 13.0-31.2) for those receiving standard therapy, 0% for those receiving an investigational therapy, and 72.6% (95% CI: 57.8-85.7) for the palliative care group. Conclusion: Our data support the feasibility of a rapid precision medicine approach in older patients with previously untreated AML. Patients with AML who elected treatment assigned based upon cytogenetic and molecular alterations in the dominant clone using a novel precision medicine approach had significantly improved overall survival versus those who elected standard of care treatment. Disclosures Levine: Gilead: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Stein:Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Deininger:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; TRM: Consultancy; Sangoma: Consultancy; Fusion Pharma: Consultancy; Adelphi: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humana: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sangamo: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blum:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Astellas,: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; AmerisourceBergen: Consultancy. Schiller:Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding. Olin:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Ignyta: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Mirati Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lin:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Traer:AbbVie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Notable Labs: Equity Ownership. Odenike:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; Oncotherapy: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; CTI/Baxalta: Research Funding. Arellano:Gilead: Consultancy. Vergilio:Roche Holding AG: Equity Ownership; Foundation Medicine: Employment. Brennan:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Vietz:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Druker:ALLCRON: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees , Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cepheid: Consultancy, Honoraria; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Equity Ownership, Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; Patient True Talk: Consultancy; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (antibody royalty): Patents & Royalties: #2524, antibody royalty; Pfizer: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute license #2063, Monoclonal antiphosphotyrosine antibody 4G10, exclusive commercial license to Merck & Co; OHSU (licensing fees): Patents & Royalties: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees ; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beta Cat: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Beat AML LLC: Other: Service on joint steering committee; CureOne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; ICON: Other: Scientific Founder of Molecular MD, which was acquired by ICON in Feb. 2019; Monojul: Other: former consultant; Novartis: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Patents & Royalties: Patent 6958335, Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, exclusively licensed to Novartis, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding. Byrd:Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.
Phase I study of AR-42 and decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia
Liva, Sophia G. , Coss, Christopher C. , Wang, Jiang , Blum, William , Klisovic, Rebecca B. , Bhatnagar, Bhavana , Walsh, Katherine, Geyer, Susan M. , Zhao, Qiuhong , Garzon, Ramiro , Marcucci, Guido , Phelps, Mitch A. , Walker, Alison R. , Phelps, Mitch

Leukemia & Lymphoma | February 8, 2020 | Volume: 61 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1484-1492

10.1080/10428194.2020.1719095 | PMID 32037935 Get It

Crossover Assessment of Intraoral and Cuffed Ventilation by Emergency Responders
Lowndes, Bethany R. , Thompson, Darcy L., Wadman, Michael C. , Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D. , Lomneth, Carol, McCrory, Bernadette , Walker, Richard, Hallbeck, M. Susan

Military Medicine | March 22, 2019 | Volume: 184 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: 310-317

10.1093/milmed/usy304 | PMID 30901420 Get It

AbstractObjectivesA cuffed bag valve mask (BVM) is the most common device used by emergency medical responders to ventilate patients. The BVM can be difficult for users to seal around the patient’s mouth and nose. An intraoral mask (IOM) with snorkel-like design may facilitate quicker and better ventilation particularly under austere conditions.MethodsBoth a BVM and IOM were utilized by 27 trained emergency medical technicians and paramedics to ventilate a lightly embalmed cadaver. Ventilation efficacy, workload, and usability were assessed for both devices across four study conditions.ResultsThe IOM was superior to the BVM in delivered tidal volume ratio (measure of leak, p < 0.03) and minute ventilation (p < 0.0001). Workload, ergonomic and usability assessments indicated that the IOM facilitated gripping through the reduced hand interface size (p < 0.01), decreased user effort (p < 0.001), and reduced upper limb workload (p = 0.0088).ConclusionsIn the assessed model, the IOM represented a better choice for airway management than the standard cuffed BVM. An emergency medical device that is intuitive, efficacious and less demanding has the potential to reduce responder stress and improve resuscitation efforts, especially during austere rescue and patient transport.
Randomized trial of 10 days of decitabine ± bortezomib in untreated older patients with AML: CALGB 11002 (Alliance)
Mandrekar, Sumithra J. , Laumann, Kristina, Walker, Alison R. , Wang, Eunice S. , Kolitz, Jonathan E. , Powell, Bayard L., Attar, Eyal C. , Bloomfield, Clara D. , Kohlschmidt, Jessica, Mrózek, Krzysztof , Garraway, Levi A. , Jané‐Valbuena, Judit , Baltay, Michele , Tracy, Adam , Marcucci, Guido , Stone, Richard M. , Wang, Eunice S. , Roboz, Gail J. , Desai, Pinkal , Stock, Wendy , Hassane, Duane C. , Larson, Richard A.

Blood Advances | December 19, 2018 | Volume: 2 | Issue: 24 | Pages: 3608-3617

10.1182/bloodadvances.2018023689 | PMID 30567725 Get It

Abstract Novel treatment strategies are needed for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This randomized phase 2 trial compared the efficacy and safety of 20 mg/m2 of IV decitabine on days 1 to 10 alone (arm A) with those of 1.3 mg/m2 of subcutaneous bortezomib (arm B) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for up to 4 10-day cycles followed by monthly 5-day cycles. Previously untreated AML patients age ≥60 years (excluding those with FLT3 mutations and favorable-risk cytogenetics) without restrictions in performance status (PS) or organ function were eligible. Median age was 72.4 years (range, 60.5-92.3 years); 31 patients (19%) had baseline PS ≥2, 35 (22%) had an antecedent hematological disorder, 58 had (39%) adverse cytogenetics, and 7 (5%) and 23 (14%) had abnormal cardiac or renal function. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) or responses between the 2 treatment arms. The overall response rate (complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) was 39% (n = 64), with median OS of 9.3 months. Nineteen responders (31%) underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The most common adverse event was febrile neutropenia, and there were no unexpected toxicities. Adding bortezomib to decitabine did not improve outcomes, but responses were better than those in previous trials using 5-day decitabine cycles. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01420926.
The effect of a simultaneous versus a staged resection of metastatic colorectal cancer on time to adjuvant chemotherapy
Souder, Emily , Azin, Arash , Wood, Trevor , Hirpara, Dhruvin H. , Elnahas, Ahmad , Wei, Alice C. , Walker, Richard , Parsyan, Armen , Chadi, Sami A. , Quereshy, Fayez A. , Cleary, Sean, Walker, Richard , Le Souder, Emily B , Cleary, Sean P.

Journal of Surgical Oncology | June 7, 2018 | Volume: 118 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 86-94

10.1002/jso.25122 | PMID 29878392 Get It

Background and Objectives Patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases may undergo a staged or a simultaneous resection. This study aimed to determine whether the time to adjuvant chemotherapy was delayed in patients undergoing a simultaneous resection. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was time to adjuvant chemotherapy. A multivariate linear regression was conducted to ascertain the adjusted effect of a simultaneous versus a staged approach on time to adjuvant chemotherapy. Results A total of 155 patients were included. A total of 127 patients underwent a staged resection, whereas 28 patients underwent a simultaneous resection. Age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class as well tumor, node, metastasis stage, tumor location, and number and size of metastases were not significantly different between the groups. The median time to adjuvant chemotherapy was 70 and 63 days for the staged and simultaneous groups, respectively ( P = .27). Multivariate analysis did not demonstrate an increased propensity for prolonged time to chemotherapy after simultaneous resection (rate ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.71‐1.32, P = .84). There were no significant differences in the length of stay, complications, overall survival, and disease‐free survival between the groups ( P > .05). Conclusions This study demonstrated that simultaneous resection does not result in significant delay of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with a staged approach.
Considering the cost of a simultaneous versus staged approach to resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases in a publicly funded healthcare model
Souder, Emily , Azin, Arash , Hirpara, Dhruvin H. , Walker, Richard , Quereshy, Fayez A. , Le Souder, Emily B , Cleary, Sean, Quereshy, Fayez , Cleary, Sean P.

Journal of Surgical Oncology | February 27, 2018 | Volume: 117 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1376-1385

10.1002/jso.25020 | PMID 29484664 Get It

BackgroundSimultaneous resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is an established alternative to a staged approach. This study aimed to compare these approaches with regards to economic parameters and short‐term outcomes.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was cost per episode of care. Secondary measures included 30‐day clinical outcomes. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of a simultaneous surgical approach on total cost of care.ResultsFifty‐three cases were identified; 27 in the staged approach, and 26 in the simultaneous group. Age (P = 0.49), sex (P = 0.20), BMI (P = 0.74), and ASA class (P = 0.44) were comparable between groups. Total cost ($20297 vs $27522), OR ($6830 vs $10376), PACU ($675 vs $1182), ward ($7586 vs $11603) and pharmacy costs ($728 vs $1075) were significantly less for the simultaneous group (P < 0.05). The adjusted rate ratio for total cost of care in the staged group compared to simultaneous group was 1.51 (95%CI: 1.16‐1.97, P < 0.05). The groups had comparable Clavien‐Dindo scores (P = 0.89), 30‐day readmissions (P = 0.44), morbidity (P = 0.50) and mortality (P = 1.00).ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that a simultaneous approach is associated with a significantly lower total cost while maintaining comparable short‐term outcomes.
The past, present, and future of telemedicine for Parkinson's disease
Achey, Meredith A. , Aldred, Jason , Aljehani, Noha, Bloem, Bastiaan R. , Biglan, Kevin , Chan, Piu, Cubo, Esther , Dorsey, E. Ray , Guttman, Mark, Hassan, Anhar , Khandhar, Suketu M., Spindler, Meredith , Haak, Pieter van den , Walker, Richard , Wilkinson, Jayne , Force, on behalf of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Telemedicine Task, Goetz, Christopher G. , Mari, Zoltan K. , Tanner, Caroline M. , Force, on behalf of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Telemedicine Task

Movement Disorders | May 17, 2014 | Volume: 29 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 871-883

10.1002/mds.25903 | PMID 24838316 Get It

ABSTRACT Travel distance, growing disability, and uneven distribution of doctors limit access to care for most Parkinson's disease (PD) patients worldwide. Telemedicine, the use of telecommunications technology to deliver care at a distance, can help overcome these barriers. In this report, we describe the past, present, and likely future applications of telemedicine to PD. Historically, telemedicine has relied on expensive equipment to connect single patients to a specialist in pilot programs in wealthy nations. As the cost of video conferencing has plummeted, these efforts have expanded in scale and scope, now reaching larger parts of the world and extending the focus from care to training of remote providers. Policy, especially limited reimbursement, currently hinders the growth and adoption of these new care models. As these policies change and technology advances and spreads, the following will likely develop: integrated care networks that connect patients to a wide range of providers; education programs that support patients and health care providers; and new research applications that include remote monitoring and remote visits. Together, these developments will enable more individuals with PD to connect to care, increase access to expertise for patients and providers, and allow more‐extensive, less‐expensive participation in research. © 2014 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society