Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index. RESULTS: People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

Addressing Comorbidities in People with Parkinson's Disease: Considerations From An Expert Panel.

In the UK, guidance exists to aid clinicians and patients deciding when treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) should be initiated and which therapies to consider. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends that before starting PD treatment clinicians should discuss the following: the patient's individual clinical circumstances; lifestyle; preferences; needs and goals; as well as the potential benefits and harms of the different drug classes. Individualization of medicines and management in PD significantly improves patients' outcomes and quality of life. This article aims to provide simple and practical guidance to help clinicians address common, but often overlooked, co-morbidities. A multi-disciplinary group of PD experts discussed areas where clinical care can be improved by addressing commonly found co-morbidities in people with Parkinson's (PwP) based on clinical experience and existing literature, in a roundtable meeting organized and funded by Bial Pharma UK Ltd. The experts identified four core areas (bone health, cardiovascular risk, anticholinergic burden, and sleep quality) that, if further standardized may improve treatment outcomes for PwP patients. Focusing on anticholinergic burden, cardiac risk, sleep, and bone health could offer a significant contribution to personalizing regimes for PwP and improving overall patient outcomes. Within this opinion-based paper, the experts offer a list of guiding factors to help practitioners in the management of PwP.

Development and validation of the e-Work Self-Efficacy Scale to assess digital competencies in remote working.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote working practices worldwide. This has focussed attention on the need to identify the competencies employers and employees should train and develop to build digital resilience, enabling the benefits of remote working to be realised while mitigating potential risks. This contribution presents a multifaceted e-Work Self-Efficacy Scale, which supports a recently developed Digital Resilience Competency Framework (DRCF), assessing e-skills, trust building, self-care, remote social skills, and remote emotional self-efficacy beliefs. Data from 670 non-managerial employees (54.0% males) from a telecommunications company based in the Czech Republic were analysed, providing support for a bi-factor model. Latent Profile Analysis identified three clusters, characterised by different profiles: the Well-adjusted (with a reasonably good balance in engagement, satisfaction, and productivity), the Unhealthily dedicated (suffering some difficulties in setting boundaries), and the Distrustful self-shielding (the most compromised) remote workers. The results reinforce the importance of focusing on digital resilience competencies to promote sustainable, productive, engaging and healthy remote working. The e-Work Self-Efficacy Scale is a practical and effective organisational tool for managers and employees to use to assess and build digital resilience and sits alongside the Digital Resilience Competency Framework.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial compared Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT® LOUD) with standard NHS speech and language therapy (SLT) and a control arm in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with self-reported problems with voice or speech. This analysis compares costs and quality of life outcomes between the trial arms, and considers the validity of the alternative outcome measures for economic evaluations. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside the PD COMM pilot trial involving three arms: LSVT® LOUD treatment (n = 30); standard NHS SLT (n = 30); and a control arm (n = 29) excluded from receiving therapy for at least 6 months after randomisation unless deemed medically necessary. For all trial arms, resource use and NHS, social care and patient costs and quality of life were collected prospectively at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Total economic costs and outcomes (EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O) were considered over the 12-month follow-up period from an NHS payer perspective. Quality of life measures for economic evaluation of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease were compared. RESULTS: Whilst there was no difference between arms in voice or quality of life outcomes at 12 months, there were indications of differences at 3 months in favour of SLT, which need to be confirmed in the main trial. The estimated mean cost of NHS care was £3288 per patient per year for the LSVT® LOUD arm, £2033 for NHS SLT, and £1788 for the control arm. EQ-5D-3L was more strongly correlated to voice impairment than ICECAP-O, and was sensitive to differences in voice impairment between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot did not identify an effect of SLT on disease-specific or economic outcomes for PwPD at 12 months; however, there appeared to be improvements at 3 months. In addition to the sample size not powered to detect difference in cost-consequence analysis, many patients in the control arm started SLT during the 12-month period used for economic analysis, in line with the study protocol. The LSVT® LOUD intervention was more intense and therefore more costly. Early indications suggest that the preferred economic outcome measure for the full trial is EQ-5D-3L; however, the ICECAP-O should still be included to capture a broader measure of wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. Registered 22 March 2012.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dopamine Agonists and Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient-rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone. METHODS: PD MED is a pragmatic, open-label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs between levodopa and levodopa-sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30; P < 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671-£4109; P < 0.01) than levodopa-sparing therapies, the difference in costs driven by the higher costs of levodopa-sparing therapies. There were no significant differences in the costs of inpatient, social care, and institutional care between arms. There was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; -0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628-£3015; P < 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists. There were no significant differences between arms for other costs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost-effective compared with levodopa-sparing therapies. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was more cost-effective, with similar quality-adjusted life-years but lower costs than dopamine agonists. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Initiation of pharmacological therapy in Parkinson's disease: when, why, and how.

Debate is ongoing regarding when, why, and how to initiate pharmacotherapy for Parkinson's disease. Early initiation of dopaminergic therapies does not convey disease-modifying effects but does reduce disability. Concerns about the development of motor complications arising from the early initiation of levodopa, which led to misconceived levodopa-sparing strategies, have been largely mitigated by the outcomes of the PD MED and Levodopa in Early Parkinson's Disease (LEAP) studies. The LEAP study also showed the potential for early improvement in quality of life, even when disability is negligible. Until more effective methods of providing stable dopamine concentrations are developed, current evidence supports the use of levodopa as initial symptomatic treatment in most patients with Parkinson's disease, starting with low doses and titrating to therapeutic threshold. Monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors and dopamine agonists can be reserved as potential adjunct treatments later in the disease course. Future research will need to establish effective disease-modifying treatments, address whether patients' quality of life is substantially improved with early initiation of treatment rather than a wait and watch strategy, and establish whether new levodopa formulations will delay onset of dyskinesia.

Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of botulinum toxin for the prevention of migraine.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of botulinum toxin for prevention of migraine in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of botulinum toxin compared with placebo, active treatment or clinically relevant different dose for adults with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without the additional diagnosis of medication overuse headache. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Cochrane methods were used to review double-blind RCTs. Twelve week post-treatment time-point data was analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials (n=4190) were included. Trial quality was mixed. Botulinum toxin treatment resulted in reduced frequency of -2.0 migraine days/month (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, n=1384) in chronic migraineurs compared with placebo. An improvement was seen in migraine severity, measured on a numerical rating scale 0 to 10 with 10 being maximal pain, of -2.70 cm (95% CI -3.31 to -2.09, n=75) and -4.9 cm (95% CI -6.56 to -3.24, n=32) for chronic and episodic migraine respectively. Botulinum toxin had a relative risk of treatment related adverse events twice that of placebo, but a reduced risk compared with active comparators (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98) and a low withdrawal rate (3%). Although individual trials reported non-inferiority to oral treatments, insufficient data were available for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin reduces migraine frequency by 2 days/month and has a favourable safety profile. Inclusion of medication overuse headache does not preclude its effectiveness. Evidence to support or refute efficacy in episodic migraine was not identified.

Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson's Disease: a comparison of trained and untrained listeners.

Intelligibility of speech is a key outcome in speech and language therapy (SLT) and research. SLT students frequently participate as raters of intelligibility but we lack information about whether they rate intelligibility in the same way as the general public. This paper aims to determine if there is a difference in the intelligibility ratings made by SLT students (trained in speech related topics) compared to individuals from the general public (untrained). The SLT students were in year 2 of a BSc programme or the first 6 months of a MSc programme. We recorded 10 speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) related speech reading aloud the words and sentences from the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. These speech recordings were rated for intelligibility by 'trained' raters and 'untrained' raters. The effort required to understand the speech was also reported. There were no significant differences in the measures of intelligibility from the trained and untrained raters for words or sentences after adjusting for speaker by including them as a covariate in the model. There was a slight increase in effort reported by the untrained raters for the sentences. This difference in reported effort was not evident with the words. SLT students can be recruited alongside individuals from the general public as naïve raters for evaluating intelligibility in people with speech disorders.

Botulinum toxins for the prevention of migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: Description of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and 'mixed group' classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot).

BACKGROUND: Speech-related problems are common in Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard speech and language therapy (SLT) or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). METHODS: The PD COMM pilot was a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of LSVT LOUD®, SLT and no intervention (1:1:1 ratio) to assess the feasibility and to inform the design of a full-scale RCT. Non-demented patients with idiopathic PD and speech problems and no SLT for speech problems in the past 2 years were eligible. LSVT LOUD® is a standardised regime (16 sessions over 4 weeks). SLT comprised individualised content per local practice (typically weekly sessions for 6-8 weeks). Outcomes included recruitment and retention, treatment adherence, and data completeness. Outcome data collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included patient-reported voice and quality of life measures, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomised with 90% in the therapy groups and 100% in the control group completing the trial. The response rate for Voice Handicap Index (VHI) in each arm was ≥ 90% at all time-points. VHI was highly correlated with the other speech-related outcome measures. There was a trend to improvement in VHI with LSVT LOUD® (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 12.5 points; 95% CI - 26.2, 1.2) and SLT (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 9.8 points; 95% CI - 23.2, 3.7) which needs to be confirmed in an adequately powered trial. CONCLUSION: Randomisation to a three-arm trial of speech therapy including a no intervention control is feasible and acceptable. Compliance with both interventions was good. VHI and other patient-reported outcomes were relevant measures and provided data to inform the sample size for a substantive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. registered 22 March 2012.

The PD COMM trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson's disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might work best and why. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists' and participants' perceptions and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists, treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two sets of data are then combined. DISCUSSION: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and what did not), how they worked well and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12421382 . Registered on 18 April 2016.

Evaluation of the interaction between LRRK2 and PARK16 loci in determining risk of Parkinson's disease: analysis of a large multicenter study.

A recent study MacLeod et al. has shown that an interaction between variants at the LRRK2 and PARK16 loci influences risk of development of Parkinson's disease (PD). Our study examines the proposed interaction between LRRK2 and PARK16 variants in modifying PD risk using a large multicenter series of PD patients (7715) and controls (8261) from sites participating in the Genetic Epidemiology of Parkinson's Disease Consortium. Our data does not support a strong direct interaction between LRRK2 and PARK16 variants; however, given the role of retromer and lysosomal pathways in PD, further studies are warranted.

A global portrait of the manganese industry-A socioeconomic perspective.

In 2013/14, Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd undertook the first global study on the socio-economic value of Manganese (Mn). Based on a top-down analysis of the key supply chains for Mn, it outlined the economic importance of Mn ore and alloys in terms of their direct and indirect economic value, as well as their effects on employment (jobs and wages). In 2013, global production of Mn ore was worth an estimated US$ 10.2-11.1 billion. Taking into account multiplier effects in the supply chain, the total economic value of Mn ore production globally in 2013 is estimated at US$ 21-23 billion. Direct employment related to Mn ore production is estimated at 44,000-78,000 people worldwide (with total wages estimated at US$ 2.7-4.6 billion per year), plus 33,000-59,000 jobs are created through indirect and induced employment effects. Meanwhile, the production of Mn alloy contributes around US$ 23 billion per year to the global economy (based on global production of around 19 million mt and 2013 market prices). In total, the value of Mn alloy production worldwide, taking into account downstream multiplier effects in the supply chain, is estimated at around US$ 146 billion per year. Direct employment related to Mn alloy production is estimated at 67,000-86,000 jobs worldwide (with total wages estimated at US$ 613-796 million per year), plus 217,000-278,000 jobs created through indirect & induced employment effects. In addition, numerous industries/sectors, products and/or applications are heavily dependent on Mn production and use. Mn is a critical raw material input and alloying element for the steel industry, for which there are no known alternatives. It can be argued that without Mn the entire steel industry (based on the current physico-chemical properties of steel) would not exist and, as a result, the value of the steel industry - an estimated US$ 964 billion to US$ 1446 billion in 2013 - is reliant on the continued supply and use of Mn. Besides its use in steel, Mn is also a critical element in the manufacture of dry cell and other batteries (notably, those used in electric vehicles) and the production of aluminium alloys (e.g. for beverage cans). Mn is also a micronutrient needed for plant growth and plays a vital role in agricultural production. It is also essential for maintaining the health and well-being of the human body and is used in food supplements and medicines. Furthermore, its use in developing applications (such as advanced steel products in automotive applications and batteries for electric vehicles) has the potential to provide socio-economic and environmental benefits in the future through enhancing vehicle safety and reducing fuel use/emissions.

Corrigendum to "Subjective Experiences of Speech and Language Therapy in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Pilot Study".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2015/839895.].

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy and occupational therapy versus no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson's disease: a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PD REHAB).

BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson's disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Large pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services (n = 381) or no therapy (n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Data from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.5; p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (-0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.002; p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62; p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03; p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI -0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI -£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% -£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: NHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson's disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

Deletions at 22q11.2 in idiopathic Parkinson's disease: a combined analysis of genome-wide association data.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease has been reported in a small number of patients with chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. In this study, we screened a series of large, independent Parkinson's disease case-control studies for deletions at 22q11.2. METHODS: We used data on deletions spanning the 22q11.2 locus from four independent case-control Parkinson's disease studies (UK Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2, Dutch Parkinson's Disease Genetics Consortium, US National Institute on Aging, and International Parkinson's Disease Genomics Consortium studies), which were independent of the original reports of chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. We did case-control association analysis to compare the proportion of 22q11.2 deletions found, using the Fisher's exact test for the independent case-control studies and the Mantel-Haenszel test for the meta-analyses. We retrieved clinical details of patients with Parkinson's disease who had 22q11.2 deletions from the medical records of these patients. FINDINGS: We included array-based copy number variation data from 9387 patients with Parkinson's disease and 13 863 controls. Eight patients with Parkinson's disease and none of the controls had 22q11.2 deletions (p=0·00082). In the 8451 patients for whom age at onset data were available, deletions at 22q11.2 were associated with Parkinson's disease age at onset (Mann-Whitney U test p=0·001). Age at onset of Parkinson's disease was lower in patients carrying a 22q11.2 deletion (median 37 years, 95% CI 32·0-55·5; mean 42·1 years [SD 11·9]) than in those who did not carry a deletion (median 61 years, 95% CI 60·5-61·0; mean 60·3 years [SD 12·8]). A 22q11.2 deletion was present in more patients with early-onset (p<0·0001) and late-onset Parkinson's disease (p=0·016) than in controls, and in more patients with early-onset than late-onset Parkinson's disease (p=0·005). INTERPRETATION: Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of 22q11.2 deletions in patients with Parkinson's disease who have early presentation or features associated with the chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, or both. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Wellcome Trust, Parkinson's UK, Patrick Berthoud Trust, National Institutes of Health, "Investissements d'Avenir" ANR-10-IAIHU-06, Dutch Parkinson Foundation (Parkinson Vereniging), Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, National Institute for Health Research, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.

Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy vs No Therapy in Mild to Moderate Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: It is unclear whether physiotherapy and occupational therapy are clinically effective and cost-effective in Parkinson disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: To perform a large pragmatic randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of individualized physiotherapy and occupational therapy in PD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The PD REHAB Trial was a multicenter, open-label, parallel group, controlled efficacy trial. A total of 762 patients with mild to moderate PD were recruited from 38 sites across the United Kingdom. Recruitment took place between October 2009 and June 2012, with 15 months of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) were randomized to physiotherapy and occupational therapy or no therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) Scale score at 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (assessed by Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 and EuroQol-5D); adverse events; and caregiver quality of life. Outcomes were assessed before trial entry and then 3, 9, and 15 months after randomization. RESULTS: Of the 762 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 70 [9.1] years), 381 received physiotherapy and occupational therapy and 381 received no therapy. At 3 months, there was no difference between groups in NEADL total score (difference, 0.5 points; 95% CI, -0.7 to 1.7; P = .41) or Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 summary index (0.007 points; 95% CI, -1.5 to 1.5; P = .99). The EuroQol-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favor of therapy (-0.03; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.002; P = .04). The median therapist contact time was 4 visits of 58 minutes over 8 weeks. Repeated-measures analysis showed no difference in NEADL total score, but Parkinson Disease Questionnaire-39 summary index (diverging 1.6 points per annum; 95% CI, 0.47 to 2.62; P = .005) and EuroQol-5D score (0.02; 95% CI, 0.00007 to 0.03; P = .04) showed small differences in favor of therapy. There was no difference in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Physiotherapy and occupational therapy were not associated with immediate or medium-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in mild to moderate PD. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centered, goal-directed physiotherapy and occupational therapy in patients in the early stages of PD. Future research should explore the development and testing of more structured and intensive physical and occupational therapy programs in patients with all stages of PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN17452402.