Clustering of dystonia in some pedigrees with autosomal dominant essential tremor suggests the existence of a distinct subtype of essential tremor

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is an ongoing debate whether essential tremor (ET) represents a monosymptomatic disorder or other neurologic symptoms are compatible with the diagnosis of ET. Many patients with clinically definite ET develop dystonia. It remains unknown whether tremor associated with dystonia represent a subtype of ET. We hypothesized that ET with dystonia represents a distinct subtype of ET.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied patients diagnosed with familial ET and dystonia. We included only those patients whose first-degree relatives met diagnostic criteria for ET or dystonia with tremor. This cohort was ascertained for the presence of focal, segmental, multifocal, hemidystonia or generalized dystonia, and ET.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We included 463 patients from 97 kindreds with autosomal dominant mode of inheritance (AD), defined by the vertical transmission of the disease. ET was the predominant phenotype in every ascertained family and each was phenotypically classified as AD ET. "Pure" ET was present in 365 individuals. Focal or segmental dystonia was present in 98 of the 463 patients; 87 of the 98 patients had ET associated with dystonia, one had dystonic tremor and ten had isolated dystonia. The age of onset and tremor severity did not differ between patients with "pure" ET and ET associated with dystonia. We did not observe a random distribution of dystonia in AD ET pedigrees and all patients with dystonia associated with ET were clustered in 28% of all included pedigrees (27/97, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results suggest that familial ET associated with dystonia may represent a distinct subtype of ET.</p

FUS in familial essential tremor – The search for common causes is still on

The genetic etiology of essential tremor remains unknown despite the significant proportion of familial cases. The search for monogenic causes has repeatedly failed until recent identification of three disease-causing mutations in FUS (fused in sarcoma), a gene previously linked to a rare forms of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with frontotemporal dementia. The genetic epidemiology of FUS in ET is unknown. Herein, we screened 104 patients from 52 pedigrees for mutations in the coding sequence of FUS. Two of the most genetically distant affected individuals from each pedigree were selected for Sanger sequencing to potentially increase the success of genetic analysis. We did not identify a single pathogenic mutation. Our data suggest that FUS mutations are a rare cause of familial ET. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

FUS in familial essential tremor - The search for common causes is still on

The genetic etiology of essential tremor remains unknown despite the significant proportion of familial cases. The search for monogenic causes has repeatedly failed until recent identification of three disease-causing mutations in FUS (fused in sarcoma), a gene previously linked to a rare forms of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with frontotemporal dementia. The genetic epidemiology of FUS in ET is unknown. Herein, we screened 104 patients from 52 pedigrees for mutations in the coding sequence of FUS. Two of the most genetically distant affected individuals from each pedigree were selected for Sanger sequencing to potentially increase the success of genetic analysis. We did not identify a single pathogenic mutation. Our data suggest that FUS mutations are a rare cause of familial ET. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

Long-Term Care Resident Awareness and Interest in Spasticity Treatments

Spasticity is common in long-term care settings (affecting up to one in three residents), yet it remains under-treated despite safe and effective, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies. One barrier to treatment may be lack of awareness of available therapies for long-term care residents living with spasticity. A standardized spasticity treatment awareness and interest interview was conducted with 18 nursing home residents and 11 veterans’ home residents in this cross-sectional study. Veterans’ home residents were also asked about potential barriers to receiving spasticity treatment. Many residents across both long-term care facilities were unaware of most of the treatment options for spasticity. Participants were most aware of physical/occupational therapy (83%, 95% CI: 65–93%) and least aware of intrathecal baclofen (21%, 95% CI: 9–39%). After learning about treatments, only 7% of participants (95% CI: 0–23%) were not interested in receiving any form of spasticity treatment. Among residents previously unaware of spasticity treatments, at least one quarter became interested in receiving treatment and at least one-fifth indicated possibly being interested in the treatment after learning about it. Potential barriers to receiving treatment included traveling to see a doctor and limited knowledge of insurance coverage of spasticity treatments. These results suggest that patient-centered approaches, including education and discerning patient preferences, may improve spasticity treatment in long-term care settings

Long-Term Care Resident Awareness and Interest in Spasticity Treatments

Spasticity is common in long-term care settings (affecting up to one in three residents), yet it remains under-treated despite safe and effective, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies. One barrier to treatment may be lack of awareness of available therapies for long-term care residents living with spasticity. A standardized spasticity treatment awareness and interest interview was conducted with 18 nursing home residents and 11 veterans’ home residents in this cross-sectional study. Veterans’ home residents were also asked about potential barriers to receiving spasticity treatment. Many residents across both long-term care facilities were unaware of most of the treatment options for spasticity. Participants were most aware of physical/occupational therapy (83%, 95% CI: 65–93%) and least aware of intrathecal baclofen (21%, 95% CI: 9–39%). After learning about treatments, only 7% of participants (95% CI: 0–23%) were not interested in receiving any form of spasticity treatment. Among residents previously unaware of spasticity treatments, at least one quarter became interested in receiving treatment and at least one-fifth indicated possibly being interested in the treatment after learning about it. Potential barriers to receiving treatment included traveling to see a doctor and limited knowledge of insurance coverage of spasticity treatments. These results suggest that patient-centered approaches, including education and discerning patient preferences, may improve spasticity treatment in long-term care settings

Methods for Surgical Targeting of the STN in Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease

Patients with Parkinson’s disease experience progressive neurological decline, and future interventional therapies are thought to show most promise in early stages of the disease. There is much interest in therapies that target the subthalamic nucleus (STN) with surgical access. While locating STN in advanced disease patients (Hoehn-Yahr III or IV) is well understood and routinely performed at many centers in the context of deep brain stimulation surgery (DBS), the ability to identify this nucleus in early stage patients has not previously been explored in a sizeable cohort. We report surgical methods used to target the STN nucleus in fifteen patients with early Parkinson’s disease (Hoehn-Yahr II), using a combination of image guided surgery, microelectrode recordings and clinical responses to macrostimulation of the region surrounding the STN. Measures of electrophysiology (firing rates, root mean squared activity) have previously been found to be lower than in later stage patients, however, the patterns of electrophysiology seen and dopamimetic macrostimulation effects are qualitatively similar to those seen in advanced stages. Our experience with surgical implantation of Parkinson’s patients with minimal motor symptoms suggest that it remains possible to accurately target the STN in early stage Parkinson’s disease using traditional methods

Neuropsychological effects of deep brain stimulation in subjects with early stage Parkinson's disease in a randomized clinical trial

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) and motor symptom complications. Recently, attention has been focused on whether offering DBS earlier in the course of PD is beneficial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of DBS on neuropsychological functioning in subjects with early stage PD. Thirty subjects with early PD (Hoehn & Yahr Stage II off medication) were randomized to optimal drug therapy (ODT) (n = 15) or bilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS+ODT (n = 15) after completing an expanded informed consent process specially designed for the study and administered by a medical ethicist and the study team. Comprehensive neuropsychological testing was completed in the treatment-withdrawn state at baseline and at 12 month and 24 month follow-ups. Two serious adverse events occurred in the DBS+ODT group. One subject experienced a stroke and another developed infected hardware that contributed to specific declines in cognitive functioning. However, compared to the ODT group, the remaining subjects in the DBS+ODT group exhibited modest reductions on a few measures of attention, executive function, and word fluency at 12 months. These differences were largely diminished at 24 months, especially when those with the adverse events were excluded. The results of this trial provide novel data regarding the effects of DBS on cognitive function in early PD. We believe that the findings and insights from this trial can help guide the safety analysis and risk-benefit evaluations in future discussions of DBS in early stage PD