Long-term neuropsychological outcomes of deep brain stimulation in early-stage Parkinson's disease.

INTRODUCTION: The pilot trial of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in early-stage Parkinson's disease (PD) randomized 30 patients (medication duration 0.5-4 years; without dyskinesia or motor fluctuations) to receive optimal drug therapy alone (early ODT) or subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS plus ODT (early DBS + ODT). This study reports long-term neuropsychological outcomes from the early DBS pilot trial. METHODS: This is an extension of an earlier study that examined two-year neuropsychological outcomes in the pilot trial. The primary analysis was conducted on the five-year cohort (n = 28), and a secondary analysis was conducted on the 11-year cohort (n = 12). Linear mixed effects models for each analysis compared overall trend in outcomes for randomization groups. All subjects who completed the 11-year assessment were also pooled to evaluate long-term change from baseline. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in either the five- or 11-year analyses. Across all PD patients who completed the 11-year visit, there was significant decline in Stroop Color and Color-Word and Purdue Pegboard from baseline to 11 years. CONCLUSIONS: Previous significant differences between the groups in phonemic verbal fluency and cognitive processing speed showing more decline for early DBS + ODT subjects one year after baseline diminished as PD progressed. No cognitive domains were worse for early DBS + ODT subjects compared to standard of care subjects. There were shared declines across all subjects on cognitive processing speed and motor control, likely reflecting disease progression. More study is needed to understand the long-term neuropsychological outcomes associated with early DBS in PD.

Eleven-Year Outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation in Early-Stage Parkinson Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The deep brain stimulation (DBS) in early-stage Parkinson's disease (PD) pilot clinical trial randomized 30 patients (Hoehn & Yahr II off; medication duration 0.5-4 years; without dyskinesia/motor fluctuations) to optimal drug therapy (ODT) (early ODT) or bilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS plus ODT (early DBS+ODT). This study aims to report the 11-year outcomes of patients who completed the DBS in early-stage PD pilot clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Attempts were made to contact all 29 subjects who completed the two-year trial to participate in an 11-year follow-up study. Mixed-effects models compared overall trend in outcomes for randomization groups (fixed-effects: assigned treatment, year, their interaction; random-effect: subject) to account for repeated measures. RESULTS: Twelve subjects participated in this 11-year follow-up study (n = 8 early ODT, n = 4 early DBS+ODT). Participating subjects were 70.0 ± 4.8 years old with a PD medication duration of 13.7 ± 1.7 years (early DBS duration 11.5 ± 1.3 years, n = 4). Three early ODT subjects received STN-DBS as standard of care (DBS duration 6.5 ± 2.0 years). Early ODT subjects had worse motor complications (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS]-IV) than early DBS+ODT subjects over the 11-year follow-up period (between-group difference = 3.5 points; pinteraction = 0.03). Early DBS+ODT was well-tolerated after 11 years and showed comparable outcomes to early ODT for other UPDRS domains, Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), and levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD). CONCLUSIONS: Eleven years after randomization, early DBS+ODT subjects had fewer motor complications than early ODT subjects. These results should be interpreted with caution because only 40% of pilot trial subjects participated in this 11-year follow-up study. The Food and Drug Administration has approved the conduct of a pivotal clinical trial evaluating DBS in early-stage PD (IDEG050016). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT00282152.

Exploring the presence of multiple abnormal non-motor features in patients with cervical dystonia.

This study's aim was to investigate prevalence of four non-motor symptoms in patients with cervical dystonia and healthy controls to explore whether the presence of multiple non-motor features is associated with cervical dystonia diagnosis. Fifteen patients with cervical dystonia and 15 healthy controls underwent non-invasive testing of spatial discrimination threshold, temporal discrimination threshold, vibration-induced illusion of movement, and kinesthesia. All spatial discrimination threshold, temporal discrimination threshold, and vibration-induced illusion of movement measures were converted to standardized Z scores with scores >2.0 considered abnormal. Any incorrect kinesthesia response was considered abnormal. Prevalence of each abnormal non-motor feature was compared between groups using a chi-squared test. A higher proportion of patients with cervical dystonia had abnormal spatial discrimination threshold (p = 0.01) and abnormal kinesthesia (p = 0.03) scores compared to healthy control subjects. There were no significant differences between the proportion of patients with cervical dystonia versus healthy controls for abnormal temporal discrimination threshold (p = 0.07) or abnormal vibration-induced illusion of movement (p = 0.14). Forty-seven percent of patients with cervical dystonia (7/15) demonstrated one abnormal non-motor feature, 20% (3/15) displayed two abnormal features, and 13% (2/15) displayed three abnormal features. Kinesthesia was the only non-motor feature identified as abnormal in the control group (20%, 3/15). All four tests demonstrated high specificity (80-100%) and low-moderate sensitivity (13-60%). These findings suggest that non-motor feature testing, specifically for spatial discrimination threshold and kinesthesia, could be a highly specific diagnostic tool to inform cervical dystonia diagnosis. Further investigation is needed to confirm these findings.

A comparative evaluation of telehealth and direct assessment when screening for spasticity in residents of two long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of telehealth as a screening tool for spasticity compared to direct patient assessment in the long-term care setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. SETTING: Two long-term care facilities: a 140-bed veterans' home and a 44-bed state home for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. SUBJECTS: Sixty-one adult residents of two long-term care facilities (aged 70.1 ± 16.2 years) were included in this analysis. Spasticity was identified in 43% of subjects (Modified Ashworth Scale rating mode = 2). Contributing diagnoses included traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, birth trauma, stroke, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. MAIN MEASURES: Movement disorders neurologists conducted in-person examinations to determine whether spasticity was present (reference standard) and also evaluated subjects with spasticity using the Modified Ashworth Scale. Telehealth screening examinations, facilitated by a bedside nurse, were conducted remotely by two teleneurologists using a three-question screening tool. Telehealth screening determinations of spasticity were compared to the reference standard determination to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristics. Teleneurologist agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Teleneurologist 1 had a specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 65% to identify the likely presence of spasticity (n = 61; AUC = 0.770). Teleneurologist 2 showed 100% specificity and 82% sensitivity (n = 16; AUC = 0.909). There was almost perfect agreement between the two examiners at 94% (kappa = 0.875, 95% CI: 0.640-1.000). CONCLUSION: Telehealth may provide a useful, efficient method of identifying residents of long-term care facilities that likely need referral for spasticity evaluation.

A Simple Bedside Screening Tool for Spasticity Referral.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spasticity is common in long-term care facilities; however, this often-disabling condition is largely underdiagnosed in this setting and therefore left untreated. This study aimed to test the ability of a three-question flowchart used at the bedside by primary care providers in the long-term care setting to identify residents in need of referral to a specialist for spasticity consultation. METHODS: All residents of a single long-term care facility were approached for participation in this cross-sectional, observational study. Spasticity diagnostic evaluations by a movement disorders specialist neurologist (reference standard) were compared with referral determinations made by two primary care providers [a primary care physician (PCP) and a nurse practitioner (NP)] using the simple flowchart. RESULTS: The analysis included 49 residents (80% male, age 78.2±9.0 years) who were evaluated by the reference standard neurologist and at least one primary care provider. The bedside referral tool demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity when used by the PCP (92% and 78%, respectively; AUC=0.84) and NP (80% and 53%, respectively; AUC=0.67). CONCLUSION: This simple tool may be useful for primary care providers to identify residents to be referred to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of spasticity. These results warrant further investigation of the potential utility of this screening tool across multiple long-term care facilities and various types of care providers.