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

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

Pilot Study Assessing the Feasibility of Applying Bilateral Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Very Early Stage Parkinson's Disease: Study design and rationale

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation provides significant symptomatic benefit for people with advanced Parkinson's disease whose symptoms are no longer adequately controlled with medication. Preliminary evidence suggests that subthalamic nucleus stimulation may also be efficacious in early Parkinson's disease, and results of animal studies suggest that it may spare dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. OBJECTIVE: We report the methodology and design of a novel Phase I clinical trial testing the safety and tolerability of deep brain stimulation in early Parkinson's disease and discuss previous failed attempts at neuroprotection. METHODS: We recently conducted a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, single-blind pilot clinical trial of deep brain stimulation in early Parkinson's disease. Subjects were randomized to receive either optimal drug therapy or deep brain stimulation plus optimal drug therapy. Follow-up visits occurred every six months for a period of two years and included week-long therapy washouts. RESULTS: Thirty subjects with Hoehn & Yahr Stage II idiopathic Parkinson's disease were enrolled over a period of 32 months. Twenty-nine subjects completed all follow-up visits; one patient in the optimal drug therapy group withdrew from the study after baseline. Baseline characteristics for all thirty patients were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that it is possible to recruit and retain subjects in a clinical trial testing deep brain stimulation in early Parkinson's disease. The results of this trial will be used to support the design of a Phase III, multicenter trial investigating the efficacy of deep brain stimulation in early Parkinson's disease

Effects of deep brain stimulation on rest tremor progression in early stage Parkinson disease

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the progression of individual motor features was influenced by early deep brain stimulation (DBS), a post hoc analysis of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-III (UPDRS-III) score (after a 7-day washout) was conducted from the 2-year DBS in early Parkinson disease (PD) pilot trial dataset.MethodsThe prospective pilot trial enrolled patients with PD aged 50-75 years, treated with PD medications for 6 months-4 years, and no history of dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations, who were randomized to receive optimal drug therapy (ODT) or DBS plus ODT (DBS + ODT). At baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, all patients stopped all PD therapy for 1 week (medication and stimulation, if applicable). UPDRS-III "off" item scores were compared between the ODT and DBS + ODT groups (n = 28); items with significant between-group differences were analyzed further.ResultsUPDRS-III "off" rest tremor score change from baseline to 24 months was worse in patients receiving ODT vs DBS + ODT (p = 0.002). Rest tremor slopes from baseline to 24 months favored DBS + ODT both "off" and "on" therapy (p &lt; 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). More ODT patients developed new rest tremor in previously unaffected limbs than those receiving DBS + ODT (p = 0.001).ConclusionsThese results suggest the possibility that DBS in early PD may slow rest tremor progression. Future investigation in a larger cohort is needed, and these findings will be tested in the Food and Drug Administration-approved, phase III, pivotal, multicenter clinical trial evaluating DBS in early PD.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with early PD, DBS may slow the progression of rest tremor