Search

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.644593.].

We estimate that 208,000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices have been implanted to address neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. DBS Think Tank presenters pooled data and determined that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 providing a space where clinicians, engineers, researchers from industry and academia discuss current and emerging DBS technologies and logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The emphasis is on cutting edge research and collaboration aimed to advance the DBS field. The Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank was held virtually on September 1 and 2, 2020 (Zoom Video Communications) due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting focused on advances in: (1) optogenetics as a tool for comprehending neurobiology of diseases and on optogenetically-inspired DBS, (2) cutting edge of emerging DBS technologies, (3) ethical issues affecting DBS research and access to care, (4) neuromodulatory approaches for depression, (5) advancing novel hardware, software and imaging methodologies, (6) use of neurophysiological signals in adaptive neurostimulation, and (7) use of more advanced technologies to improve DBS clinical outcomes. There were 178 attendees who participated in a DBS Think Tank survey, which revealed the expansion of DBS into several indications such as obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and Alzheimer's disease. This proceedings summarizes the advances discussed at the Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank.

Objective: To reveal clinical characteristics of suboptimal responses to deep brain stimulation (DBS) in a multi-country DYT1 dystonia cohort. Methods: In this multi-country multi-center retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical data of DYT1 patients who experienced suboptimal responses to DBS defined as 30% postoperatively; however, secondary worsening of dystonia commenced between 6 months and 3 years following DBS. The improvement at the last follow-up was less than 30% despite optimally-placed leads, a trial of multiple programming settings, and additional DBS surgeries in all patients. The on-/off-stimulation comparison at the long-term follow-up demonstrated beneficial effects of DBS despite missing the threshold of 30% improvement over baseline. Conclusion: Approximately 8% of patients represent a more aggressive phenotype of DYT1 dystonia characterized by younger age at onset, faster disease progression, and cranial involvement, which seems to be associated with long-term suboptimal responses to DBS (e.g., secondary worsening). This information could be useful for both clinicians and patients in clinical decision making and patient counseling before and following DBS implantations. Patients with this phenotype may have different neuroplasticity, neurogenetics, or possibly distinct neurophysiology.

BackgroundPrevious small-scale studies have demonstrated the feasibility of providing remote specialty care via virtual visits. We assessed the feasibility and benefits of a one-time consultation between a remote Parkinson Disease (PD) specialist and an individual with PD at home on a larger scale.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter noncontrolled cohort of virtual visits administered over videoconferencing between remote PD specialists and individuals with PD in their home. Specialists performed a patient history and a PD-specific physical examination and provided recommendations to patients and their local physicians. The primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion of visits completed as scheduled, and the 6-month change in quality of life, as measured by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39. Additional outcomes included satisfaction with visits and interest in future virtual visits.ResultsA total of 277 participants from 5 states enrolled, 258 participants completed virtual visits with 14 different physicians, and 91% of visits were completed as scheduled. No improvement in quality of life was observed at 6 months (0.4-point improvement; 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.6; p = 0.39). Overall satisfaction with virtual visits was high among physicians (94% satisfied or very satisfied) and patients (94% satisfied or very satisfied), and 74% of participants were interested in receiving future care via virtual visits.ConclusionsProviding specialty care remotely into the homes of individuals with PD is feasible, but a one-time visit did not improve quality of life. Satisfaction with the visits was high among physicians and patients, who were interested in receiving such care in the future.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with PD, remote specialty care is feasible but does not improve quality of life.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02144220.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have reported repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy as an effective treatment for the control of motor symptoms in Parkinson disease. The objective of the study is to quantify the overall efficacy of this treatment. TYPES: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LITERATURE SURVEY: We reviewed the literature on clinical rTMS trials in Parkinson disease since the technique was introduced in 1980. We used the following databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Patients with Parkinson disease who were participating in prospective clinical trials that included an active arm and a control arm and change in motor scores on Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale as the primary outcome. We pooled data from 21 studies that met these criteria. We then analyzed separately the effects of low- and high-frequency rTMS on clinical motor improvements. SYNTHESIS: The overall pooled mean difference between treatment and control groups in the Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale motor score was significant (4.0 points, 95% confidence interval, 1.5, 6.7; P = .005). rTMS therapy was effective when low-frequency stimulation (≤ 1 Hz) was used with a pooled mean difference of 3.3 points (95% confidence interval 1.6, 5.0; P = .005). There was a trend for significance when high-frequency stimulation (≥ 5 Hz) studies were evaluated with a pooled mean difference of 3.9 points (95% confidence interval, -0.7, 8.5; P = .08). rTMS therapy demonstrated benefits at short-term follow-up (immediately after a treatment protocol) with a pooled mean difference of 3.4 points (95% confidence interval, 0.3, 6.6; P = .03) as well as at long-term follow-up (average follow-up 6 weeks) with mean difference of 4.1 points (95% confidence interval, -0.15, 8.4; P = .05). There were insufficient data to statistically analyze the effects of rTMS when we specifically examined bradykinesia, gait, and levodopa-induced dyskinesia using quantitative methods. CONCLUSION: rTMS therapy in patients with Parkinson disease results in mild-to-moderate motor improvements and has the potential to be used as an adjunct therapy for the treatment of Parkinson disease. Future large, sample studies should be designed to isolate the specific clinical features of Parkinson disease that respond well to rTMS therapy.

This paper provides an overview of current progress in the technological advances and the use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders, as presented by participants of the Fourth Annual DBS Think Tank, which was convened in March 2016 in conjunction with the Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration at the University of Florida, Gainesveille FL, USA. The Think Tank discussions first focused on policy and advocacy in DBS research and clinical practice, formation of registries, and issues involving the use of DBS in the treatment of Tourette Syndrome. Next, advances in the use of neuroimaging and electrochemical markers to enhance DBS specificity were addressed. Updates on ongoing use and developments of DBS for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, Alzheimer's disease, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, obesity, addiction were presented, and progress toward innovation(s) in closed-loop applications were discussed. Each section of these proceedings provides updates and highlights of new information as presented at this year's international Think Tank, with a view toward current and near future advancement of the field.

Background: Early features of multiple system atrophy (MSA) are similar to those in Parkinson's disease (PD), which can challenge differential diagnosis. Identifying clinical markers that help distinguish MSA from forms of parkinsonism is essential to promptly implement the most appropriate management plan. In the context of a thorough neurological evaluation, the presence of a vocal flutter might be considered a potential feature of MSA‐parkinsonian type (MSA‐P). Cases: This case series describes clinical histories of 3 individuals with MSA‐P. In each case, vocal flutter was detected during neurological and motor speech evaluations. It seemed to be a concomitant feature with the constellation of other signs and symptoms that led to the clinical diagnosis. Literature review: The vocal flutter may be described as pitch and loudness fluctuations during phonation. Different from a vocal tremor, the flutter phenomenon has higher oscillation frequencies. The neuropathological underpinnings of vocal flutter may be related to generalized laryngeal dysfunction that is commonly described in MSA‐P. Conclusion: Vocal flutter may be a unique speech feature in some individuals who have MSA‐P. Future studies using perceptual and acoustic measures of speech are warranted to quantify these observations and directly compare to other MSA variants, PD, and a control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]