ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: Teleneurology is common in clinical practice partly due to the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. Impressions about teleneurology from patients and providers alike are generally favorable; some of the reported benefits include ease of access to specialized health care, savings of time and money, and similar quality of care as an in-person visit. However, comparisons between patient and provider impressions about the same teleneurology encounter have not been described. In this study, we describe patient impressions about a teleneurology encounter and evaluate concordance with provider impressions about the same encounter. Methods: Patients and providers at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital Neurology Department were surveyed about their impressions of teleneurology between April 27, 2020, and June 16, 2020. A convenience sample of patients, whose providers completed a questionnaire, were contacted by telephone to solicit their impressions about the same encounter. Unique questionnaires for patients and providers focused on similar themes, such as adequacy of technology, assessment of history obtained, and overall quality of the visit. Summaries of patient responses are reported with the raw percent agreement between patients and providers for similar questions. Results: One hundred thirty-seven patients completed the survey; 64 (47%) were male and 73 (53%) were female. Sixty-six (47%) patients had a primary diagnosis of PD, 42 (30%) a non-PD/parkinsonism movement disorder, and 29 (21%) a nonmovement disorder neurologic disease. One hundred one (76%) were established patient visits and 36 (26%) were new patient visits. Provider responses from 8 different physicians were included. Most of the patients responded that the ease of joining their visit, their comfort engaging with their physicians during their visit, understanding their plan of care after their visit, and the quality of care from their teleneurology visit were satisfactory. Patients and providers agreed about their impressions of the quality of the history obtained (87% agreement), patient-provider relationship (88% agreement), and overall quality of their experience (70% agreement). Discussion: Patients had favorable impressions about their clinical experience with teleneurology and expressed an interest in incorporating telemedicine visits into their ongoing care. Patients and providers were highly concordant for the history obtained, patient-provider relationship, and overall quality.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Aggregated α-synuclein plays an important role in Parkinson's disease pathogenesis. Cinpanemab, a human-derived monoclonal antibody that binds to α-synuclein, is being evaluated as a disease-modifying treatment for Parkinson's disease. METHODS: In a 52-week, multicenter, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1:2:2 ratio, participants with early Parkinson's disease to receive intravenous infusions of placebo (control) or cinpanemab at a dose of 250 mg, 1250 mg, or 3500 mg every 4 weeks, followed by an active-treatment dose-blinded extension period for up to 112 weeks. The primary end points were the changes from baseline in the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) total score (range, 0 to 236, with higher scores indicating worse performance) at weeks 52 and 72. Secondary end points included MDS-UPDRS subscale scores and striatal binding as assessed on dopamine transporter single-photon-emission computed tomography (DaT-SPECT). RESULTS: Of the 357 enrolled participants, 100 were assigned to the control group, 55 to the 250-mg cinpanemab group, 102 to the 1250-mg group, and 100 to the 3500-mg group. The trial was stopped after the week 72 interim analysis owing to lack of efficacy. The change to week 52 in the MDS-UPDRS score was 10.8 points in the control group, 10.5 points in the 250-mg group, 11.3 points in the 1250-mg group, and 10.9 points in the 3500-mg group (adjusted mean difference vs. control, -0.3 points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -4.9 to 4.3], P = 0.90; 0.5 points [95% CI, -3.3 to 4.3], P = 0.80; and 0.1 point [95% CI, -3.8 to 4.0], P = 0.97, respectively). The adjusted mean difference at 72 weeks between participants who received cinpanemab through 72 weeks and the pooled group of those who started cinpanemab at 52 weeks was -0.9 points (95% CI, -5.6 to 3.8) for the 250-mg dose, 0.6 points (95% CI, -3.3 to 4.4) for the 1250-mg dose, and -0.8 points (95% CI, -4.6 to 3.0) for the 3500-mg dose. Results for secondary end points were similar to those for the primary end points. DaT-SPECT imaging at week 52 showed no differences between the control group and any cinpanemab group. The most common adverse events with cinpanemab were headache, nasopharyngitis, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with early Parkinson's disease, the effects of cinpanemab on clinical measures of disease progression and changes in DaT-SPECT imaging did not differ from those of placebo over a 52-week period. (Funded by Biogen; SPARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03318523.).