Search

Introduction: A significant paucity of literature exists relating to the impact on children of parental neurological disorder, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The wider literature in this field (parental cancer, depression, alcoholism, HIV/AIDS) exhibits the many potential challenges young people might experience during serious parental illness. Given this, a literature review of parental neurological disorder is long overdue. Methods: This review is structured around the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification of neurological disorders. The WHO identifies ten common neurological disorders; dementia, epilepsy, headache, multiple sclerosis, neuroinfections, neurological disorders associated with malnutrition, pain associated with neurological disorders, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE database was performed using key terms for each of the ten conditions. Results for each condition were divided in to ‘negative’, ‘positive and/or neutral’ and ‘other’ child responses. Results: The search yielded a total of 6247 titles, of which 184 underwent a full-text assessment. Sixty-five met all eligibility criteria and were thus included in the review. A number of negative issues emerged across parental conditions including the prevalence of child mood disorders, parent-child role reversal, children’s need for information on the parental condition, the importance of family cohesion, the negative effect of parental psychopathology and differences between male and female children. A limited number of positive outcomes were evident in a minority of parental conditions. Outcomes measured and methodologies employed were highly heterogeneous. Conclusion: Children generally respond negatively to parental neurological disorder. Responses varied between neurological disorders, suggesting the need for parental disease-specific guidance and clinical management where required.

Importance: Many people with Parkinson disease (PD) develop motor complications that are uncontrolled by levodopa dose adjustment. Among these patients, it is uncertain which drug class is more effective as adjuvant therapy. Objective: To compare the long-term effects on patient-rated quality of life of adding a dopamine agonist vs a dopamine reuptake inhibitor (DRI), either a monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) inhibitor or a catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor, to levodopa therapy for the treatment of patients with motor complications of PD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic semifactorial (2 × 1) randomized clinical trial recruited from 64 neurology and geriatric clinics (62 in the United Kingdom, 1 in the Czech Republic, and 1 in Russia) between February 23, 2001, and December 15, 2009. A total of 500 patients with idiopathic PD who developed uncontrolled motor complications and did not have dementia were randomly assigned on a 1:1:1 basis using a computerized minimization program. Data were analyzed between 2017 and 2020. Interventions: Open-label dopamine agonist, MAO-B inhibitor, or COMT inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were scores on the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) mobility domain and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were assessed before study entry, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Repeated-measures and log rank analyses were used in an intention-to-treat approach. Results: Among 500 participants, the mean (SD) age was 73.0 (8.2) years; 314 participants (62.8%) were men. Over a median of 4.5 years (range, 0-13.3 years) of follow-up, the participants in the dopamine agonist group had a mean PDQ-39 mobility score that was 2.4 points (95% CI, -1.3 to 6.0 points) better than that of the combined MAO-B and COMT groups; however, this difference was not significant (P=.20). With regard to DRIs, participants in the MAO-B group had mean PDQ-39 mobility scores that were 4.2 points (95% CI, 0.4-7.9 points; P=.03) better than those of the COMT group and EuroQol 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) utility scores that were 0.05 points (95% CI, 0.003-0.09 points; P=.04) better than the COMT group. Nonsignificant improvements were found in the PDQ-39 summary index (mean difference, 2.2 points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.5 points; P=.07) along with nonsignificant reductions in dementia (rate ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.03; P =.07) and mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03; P=.07). When dopamine agonists were compared with MAO-B inhibitors only, the outcomes were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient-rated quality of life was inferior when COMT inhibitors were used as adjuvant treatment compared with MAO-B inhibitors or dopamine agonists among people with PD who experienced motor complications that were uncontrolled by levodopa therapy. The MAO-B inhibitors produced equivalent disease control, suggesting that these agents may be underused as adjuvant therapy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN69812316; EU Clinical Trials Register Identifier: 2005-001813-16.

Additional file 1. Carers’ Experience of Assistive Technology use in dementia - Participant Information Sheet.

Additional file 3. Carers’ Experience of Assistive Technology use in dementia – Explanatory interviews: Interview topic guide.

Additional file 2. Carers’ Experience of Assistive Technology use in dementia - Participant Consent Form.

Background: \ud The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient‐rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa‐sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD).\ud \ud Objectives: \ud The objective was to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of levodopa‐sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone.\ud \ud Methods: \ud PD MED is a pragmatic, open‐label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa‐sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality‐adjusted life‐years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality‐adjusted life‐years and costs between levodopa and levodopa‐sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression.\ud \ud Results: \ud Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality‐adjusted life‐years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05–0.30; P