Brain and Systemic Inflammation in De Novo Parkinson's Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of brain and systemic inflammation in subjects newly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD). BACKGROUND: Evidence for a pathophysiologic role of inflammation in PD is growing. However, several key gaps remain as to the role of inflammation in PD, including the extent of immune activation at early stages, potential effects of PD treatments on inflammation and whether pro-inflammatory signals are associated with clinical features and/or predict more rapid progression. METHODS: We enrolled subjects with de novo PD (n = 58) and age-matched controls (n = 62). Subjects underwent clinical assessments, including the Movement Disorder Society-United Parkinson's Disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS). Comprehensive cognitive assessment meeting MDS Level II criteria for mild cognitive impairment testing was performed. Blood was obtained for flow cytometry and cytokine/chemokine analyses. Subjects underwent imaging with 18 F-DPA-714, a translocator protein 18kd ligand, and lumbar puncture if eligible and consented. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and medical history were comparable between groups. PD subjects showed significant differences in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living, Scales for Outcomes in PD autonomic dysfunction, and MDS-UPDRS scores. Cognitive testing demonstrated significant differences in cognitive composite, executive function, and visuospatial domain scores at baseline. Positron emission tomography imaging showed increased 18 F-DPA-714 signal in PD subjects. 18 F-DPA-714 signal correlated with several cognitive measures and some chemokines. CONCLUSIONS: 18 F-DPA-714 imaging demonstrated increased central inflammation in de novo PD subjects compared to controls. Longitudinal follow-up will be important to determine whether the presence of inflammation predicts cognitive decline. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

A comparison of one-year treatment utilization for shoulder osteoarthritis patients initiating care with non-orthopaedic physicians and orthopaedic specialists.

BACKGROUND: In this paper we investigate patients seeking care for a new diagnosis of shoulder osteoarthritis (OA) and the association between a patient's initial physician specialty choice and one-year surgical and conservative treatment utilization. METHODS: Using retrospective data from a single large regional healthcare system, we identified 572 individuals with a new diagnosis of shoulder OA and identified the specialty of the physician which was listed as the performing physician on the index shoulder visit. We assessed treatment utilization in the year following the index shoulder visit for patients initiating care with a non-orthopaedic physician (NOP) or an orthopaedic specialist (OS). Descriptive statistics were calculated for each group and subsequent one-year surgical and conservative treatment utilization was compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 572 patients included in the study, 474 (83%) received care from an OS on the date of their index shoulder visit, while 98 (17%) received care from a NOP. There were no differences in baseline patient age, gender, BMI or pain scores between groups. OS patients reported longer symptom duration and a higher rate of comorbid shoulder diagnoses. Patients initiating care with an OS on average received their first treatment much faster than patients initiating care with NOP (16.3 days [95% CI, 12.8, 19.7] vs. 32.3 days [95% CI, 21.0, 43.6], Z = 4.9, p < 0.01). Additionally, patients initiating care with an OS had higher odds of receiving surgery (OR = 2.65, 95% CI: 1.42, 4.95) in the year following their index shoulder visit. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating care with an OS received treatment much faster and were treated with more invasive services over the year following their index shoulder visit. Future work should compare patient-reported outcomes across patient groups to assess whether more expensive and invasive treatments yield better outcomes for patients with shoulder OA.