Search

ObjectiveTo determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.MethodsIn a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.ResultsA total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsProviding remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02038959.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type.

BackgroundDelivering specialty care remotely directly into people's homes can enhance access for and improve the healthcare of individuals with chronic conditions. However, evidence supporting this approach is limited.Materials and methodsConnect.Parkinson is a randomized comparative effectiveness study that compares usual care of individuals with Parkinson's disease in the community with usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson's disease specialist from 1 of 18 centers nationally. Individuals in the intervention arm receive four virtual visits from a Parkinson's disease specialist over 1 year via secure, Web-based videoconferencing directly into their homes. All study activities, including recruitment, enrollment, and assessments, are conducted remotely. Here we report on interest, feasibility, and barriers to enrollment in this ongoing study.ResultsDuring recruitment, 11,734 individuals visited the study's Web site, and 927 unique individuals submitted electronic interest forms. Two hundred ten individuals from 18 states enrolled in the study from March 2014 to June 2015, and 195 were randomized. Most participants were white (96%) and college educated (73%). Of the randomized participants, 73% had seen a Parkinson's disease specialist within the previous year.ConclusionsAmong individuals with Parkinson's disease, national interest in receiving remote specialty care directly into the home is high. Remote enrollment in this care model is feasible but is likely affected by differential access to the Internet.

Importance: Urate elevation, despite associations with crystallopathic, cardiovascular, and metabolic disorders, has been pursued as a potential disease-modifying strategy for Parkinson disease (PD) based on convergent biological, epidemiological, and clinical data.Objective: To determine whether sustained urate-elevating treatment with the urate precursor inosine slows early PD progression.Design, Participants, and Setting: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of oral inosine treatment in early PD. A total of 587 individuals consented, and 298 with PD not yet requiring dopaminergic medication, striatal dopamine transporter deficiency, and serum urate below the population median concentration (<5.8 mg/dL) were randomized between August 2016 and December 2017 at 58 US sites, and were followed up through June 2019.Interventions: Inosine, dosed by blinded titration to increase serum urate concentrations to 7.1-8.0 mg/dL (n = 149) or matching placebo (n = 149) for up to 2 years.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of change in the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS; parts I-III) total score (range, 0-236; higher scores indicate greater disability; minimum clinically important difference of 6.3 points) prior to dopaminergic drug therapy initiation. Secondary outcomes included serum urate to measure target engagement, adverse events to measure safety, and 29 efficacy measures of disability, quality of life, cognition, mood, autonomic function, and striatal dopamine transporter binding as a biomarker of neuronal integrity.Results: Based on a prespecified interim futility analysis, the study closed early, with 273 (92%) of the randomized participants (49% women; mean age, 63 years) completing the study. Clinical progression rates were not significantly different between participants randomized to inosine (MDS-UPDRS score, 11.1 [95% CI, 9.7-12.6] points per year) and placebo (MDS-UPDRS score, 9.9 [95% CI, 8.4-11.3] points per year; difference, 1.26 [95% CI, -0.59 to 3.11] points per year; P = .18). Sustained elevation of serum urate by 2.03 mg/dL (from a baseline level of 4.6 mg/dL; 44% increase) occurred in the inosine group vs a 0.01-mg/dL change in serum urate in the placebo group (difference, 2.02 mg/dL [95% CI, 1.85-2.19 mg/dL]; P<.001). There were no significant differences for secondary efficacy outcomes including dopamine transporter binding loss. Participants randomized to inosine, compared with placebo, experienced fewer serious adverse events (7.4 vs 13.1 per 100 patient-years) but more kidney stones (7.0 vs 1.4 stones per 100 patient-years).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients recently diagnosed as having PD, treatment with inosine, compared with placebo, did not result in a significant difference in the rate of clinical disease progression. The findings do not support the use of inosine as a treatment for early PD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02642393. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]