The impact of COVID-19 on community-based exercise classes for people with Parkinson disease

OBJECTIVE: he purpose of the study was to determine the impact of novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions on community-based exercise classes for people with Parkinson disease (PD) and their instructors. METHODS: Data were collected via custom-designed electronic surveys for people with PD and class instructors who reported attending or teaching PD-specific exercise class ≥1 time/week for ≥3 months prior to pandemic restrictions (March 2020). The PD group also completed the Godin Leisure-Time Questionnaire, Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale, Schwab-England scale, and Parkinson\u27s Disease Questionnaire 8. RESULTS: Eighty-seven people with PD (mean = 70 [7.3] years old) and 43 instructors (51 [12.1] years old) from the United States completed surveys (October 2020 to February 2021). Mean Schwab-England (84 [16]) and Parkinson\u27s Disease Questionnaire 8 (21 [15]) scores indicated low-to-moderate disability in the PD group. Ninety-five percent of the PD group had COVID-19 exposure concerns, and 54% reported leaving home ≤1 time/week. Although 77% of the PD group scored active on the Godin Leisure-Time Questionnaire, the mean Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale score (55 [24]) indicated only moderate exercise self-efficacy, and \u3e50% reported decreased exercise quantity/intensity compared with pre-COVID. There was decreased in-person and increased virtual class participation for both groups. The top in-person class barrier for the PD (63%) and instructor (51%) groups was fear of participant COVID-19 exposure. The top virtual class barriers were lack of socialization (20% of PD group) and technology problems (74% of instructor group). CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, there has been less in-person and more virtual exercise class participation in people with PD and decreased exercise quantity and intensity. Virtual classes may not fully meet the needs of people with PD, and primary barriers include technology and lack of socialization. IMPACT: As COVID-19 restrictions wane, it is imperative to help people with PD increase exercise and activity. The barriers, needs, and facilitators identified in this study might help inform approaches to increase participation in exercise and activity for people with PD. LAY SUMMARY: During COVID-19, there has been less in-person and more virtual exercise class participation in people with PD and a decrease in exercise quantity and intensity. If you have PD, virtual classes might not fully meet your needs. Primary barriers may include technology problems and lack of social interaction

Scheduled versus Pro Re Nata Dosing in the VIEW Trials

PURPOSE To analyze visual acuity (VA) outcomes before and after preplanned treatment regimen change in the VIEW studies at week 52 (W52). DESIGN Multiple post hoc analyses for retrospectively defined subgroups in 2 multicenter, multinational, double-masked trials. PARTICIPANTS Two thousand four hundred fifty-seven neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients. METHODS Patients were randomized to treatment with 0.5 mg ranibizumab given monthly, a 0.5-mg or 2-mg intravitreal aflibercept injection given monthly, or 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept given every other month, after 3 initial monthly doses, up to W52. From W52 through W96, patients received their original dosing assignment using a capped pro re nata (PRN) regimen, with defined retreatment criteria based on VA and morphologic signs of disease activity and mandatory dosing at least every 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Best-corrected VA (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography assessments were mandatory at all visits from baseline to W96. Outcomes were changes in BCVA and central retinal thickness. Outcomes were evaluated in all patients who completed 2 years of the VIEW studies using the last observation carried forward method for missing data at interim visits. RESULTS After W52, approximately 20% of patients lost 5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters or more across all treatment arms with PRN treatment. Patients who met the retreatment criterion of loss of 5 ETDRS letters or more in the first quarter of the PRN dosing phase did not recover; mean final VA loss across the 4 study arms was -4.4 to -5.8 letters. Outcomes of these patients up to W52 were indistinguishable from those of the overall population. There were no differences between groups in serious ocular adverse events or Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events through W96. CONCLUSIONS These analyses suggest that there are subgroups of patients for whom VA outcomes in the second year of the VIEW studies were less stable than in the first year and for whom W52 seems to be an important inflection point. Although alternate reasons specific to the nature of the underlying AMD cannot be fully excluded, the switch in treatment regimen at W52 is a plausible explanation

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy