Parkinson's Disease and Driving Fitness: A Systematic Review of the Existing Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Motor/nonmotor symptomatology and antiparkinsonian drugs deteriorate the driving ability of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. OBJECTIVES: Treating neurologists are frequently asked to evaluate driving fitness of their patients and provide evidence-based consultation. Although several guidelines have been published, the exact procedure along with the neurologist's role in this procedure remains obscure. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the existing guidelines, regarding driving fitness evaluation of PD patients. We searched MEDLINE and Google Scholar and identified 109 articles. After specified inclusion criteria were applied, 15 articles were included (nine national guidelines, five recommendation papers, and one consensus statement). RESULTS: The treating physician is proposed as the initial evaluator in 8 of 15 articles (neurologist in 2 articles) and may refer patients for a second-line evaluation. The evaluation should include motor, cognitive, and visual assessment (proposed in 15, 13, and 8 articles, respectively). Specific motor tests are proposed in eight articles (cutoff values in four), whereas specific neuropsychological and visual tests are proposed in seven articles each (cutoff values in four and three articles, respectively). Conditional licenses are proposed in 11 of 15 articles, to facilitate driving for PD patients. We summarized our findings on a graphic of the procedure for driving fitness evaluation of PD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Neurological aspects of driving fitness evaluation of PD patients are recognized in most of the guidelines. Motor, neuropsychological, visual, and sleep assessment and medication review are key components. Clear-cut instructions regarding motor, neuropsychological, and visual tests and relative cutoff values are lacking. Conditional licenses and periodical reevaluation of driving fitness are important safety measures.

Evolving Causes of Rapidly Progressive Dementia: A 5-Year Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rapidly progressive dementia (RPD) is a clinical syndrome developing in <1 to 2 years. Recent progress in RPD evaluation is significant, so RPD's prevalence may change over time. The aim of our new case series was to estimate the relative frequency of RPDs' causative entities, considering the recent advances in RPDs' diagnosis, and compare the results with those of our previous report. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 47 patients who were referred to Attikon University Hospital during a 5-year period for a suspected RPD. RESULTS: Neurodegenerative diseases were the most frequent causes (38%), followed by prion disease (19%) and autoimmune encephalopathy (AE, 17%). AE cases were by far more common than in our previous report, while other than AE secondary causes were significantly decreased. Mean time to dementia was 9 months in neurodegenerative diseases and 5 months in non-neurodegenerative. Main clinical findings across all patients were memory impairment (66%) and behavioral-emotional disturbances (48%). CONCLUSIONS: Neurodegenerative diseases are common causes of RPD and have a slower evolution than non-neurodegenerative. Diagnostic novelties enabled the recognition of AE, whereas more common secondary causes are probably now diagnosed in primary settings since the recognition of RPD as distinct clinical entity is continually increasing.

Driving and Alzheimer's dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review of the existing guidelines emphasizing on the neurologist's role.

BACKGROUND: Driving is a complex task requiring the integrity and the cooperation of cognition, motor, and somatosensory skills, all of which are impacted by neurological diseases. OBJECTIVE: Identification of neurologist's role when assessing fitness to drive of cognitively impaired individuals. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the guidelines/recommendations (G/Rs) regarding the evaluation of driving fitness of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or dementia. Emphasis was put on the neurological and neuropsychological aspects of the evaluation. RESULTS: Eighteen G/Rs were included in the review (9 national guidelines, 5 recommendation papers, 3 consensus statements, and 1 position paper). All G/Rs referred to drivers with dementia and 9/18 referred to drivers with MCI. A common approach among G/Rs is the initial trichotomization of patients in safe to drive, unsafe to drive, and undetermined cases, which are referred to a second-line evaluator. First-line evaluators are general practitioners in 10/18 G/Rs; second-line evaluators are neurologists in 7/18 G/Rs. Specific neuropsychological tests are proposed in 11/18 G/Rs and relative cut-off values in 7/18. The most commonly used tests are the MMSE, TMT, and CDT. A thorough neurological examination is proposed in only 1/18 G/R. CONCLUSION: Although extensive multi-disciplinary research has provided useful information for driving behavior of cognitively impaired individuals, we are still far from a widely accepted approach of driving ability evaluation in this increasing population. A comprehensive assessment from a multi-disciplinary team in which the neurologist plays a critical role seems to be required, although this has not yet been implemented in any G/Rs.