Caloric vestibular stimulation for the management of motor and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease

Introduction: A recent case study showed that repeated sessions of caloric vestibular stimulation (CVS) relieved motor and non-motor symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Here we sought to confirm these results in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo treatment-controlled study. Methods: 33 PD subjects receiving stable anti-Parkinsonian therapy completed an active (n = 16) or placebo (n = 17) treatment period. Subjects self-administered CVS at home twice-daily via a portable, pre-programmed, solid-state ThermoNeuroModulation (TNMTM) device, which delivered continually-varying thermal waveforms through aluminum ear-probes mounted on a wearable headset. Subjects were followed over a 4-week baseline period, 8 weeks of treatment and then at 5- and 24-weeks post-treatment. At each study visit, standardized clinical assessments were conducted during ON-medication states to evaluate changes in motor and non-motor symptoms, activities of daily living, and quality of life ratings. Results: Change scores between baseline and the end of treatment showed that active-arm subjects demonstrated clinically-relevant reductions in motor and non-motor symptoms that were significantly greater than placebo- arm subjects. Active treatment was also associated with improved scores on activities of daily living assessments. Therapeutic gains were still evident 5 weeks after the end of active treatment but had started to recede at 24 weeks follow-up. No serious adverse events were associated with device use, and there was high participant satisfaction and tolerability of treatment. Conclusion: The results provide evidence that repeated CVS can provide safe and enduring adjuvant relief for motor and non-motor symptoms associated with PD

Caloric Vestibular Stimulation for the Management of Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms in Parkinson\u27s Disease

INTRODUCTION: A recent case study showed that repeated sessions of caloric vestibular stimulation (CVS) relieved motor and non-motor symptoms associated with Parkinson\u27s disease (PD). Here we sought to confirm these results in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo treatment-controlled study. METHODS: 33 PD subjects receiving stable anti-Parkinsonian therapy completed an active (n = 16) or placebo (n = 17) treatment period. Subjects self-administered CVS at home twice-daily via a portable, pre-programmed, solid-state ThermoNeuroModulation (TNM™) device, which delivered continually-varying thermal waveforms through aluminum ear-probes mounted on a wearable headset. Subjects were followed over a 4-week baseline period, 8 weeks of treatment and then at 5- and 24-weeks post-treatment. At each study visit, standardized clinical assessments were conducted during ON-medication states to evaluate changes in motor and non-motor symptoms, activities of daily living, and quality of life ratings. RESULTS: Change scores between baseline and the end of treatment showed that active-arm subjects demonstrated clinically-relevant reductions in motor and non-motor symptoms that were significantly greater than placebo-arm subjects. Active treatment was also associated with improved scores on activities of daily living assessments. Therapeutic gains were still evident 5 weeks after the end of active treatment but had started to recede at 24 weeks follow-up. No serious adverse events were associated with device use, and there was high participant satisfaction and tolerability of treatment. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that repeated CVS can provide safe and enduring adjuvant relief for motor and non-motor symptoms associated with PD

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face and electronic brief interventions versus screening alone to reduce alcohol consumption among high-risk adolescents presenting to emergency departments: three-arm pragmatic randomized trial (SIPS Junior high risk trial)

Background and aims: Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents. Design, Setting and Participants: Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white. Interventions: Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA. Measures: The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHS&PSS) and society. Findings: At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.38–3.70] standard units for the SA group, 3.56 (95% CI = 2.90, 4.32) for PFBA and 3.18 (95% CI = 2.50, 3.97) for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 (−0.36, 1.70) units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 (−0.71, 1.30) more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHS&PSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (−£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold. Conclusions: In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face and electronic brief interventions versus screening alone to reduce alcohol consumption among high-risk adolescents presenting to emergency departments: three-arm pragmatic randomized trial (SIPS Junior high risk trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1 years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8 g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHS&PSS) and society. FINDINGS: At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 standard units for the SA group, 3.56 for PFBA and 3.18 for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHS&PSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (-£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents