Search

Contains fulltext : 293771.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Postural abnormalities involving the trunk are referred to as axial postural abnormalities and can be observed in over 20% of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and in atypical parkinsonism. These symptoms are highly disabling and frequently associated with back pain and a worse quality of life in PD. Despite their frequency, little is known about the pathophysiology of these symptoms and scant data are reported about their clinical predictors, making it difficult to prompt prevention strategies. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a scoping literature review of clinical predictors and pathophysiology of axial postural abnormalities in patients with parkinsonism to identify key concepts, theories and evidence on this topic. METHODS: We applied a systematic approach to identify studies, appraise quality of evidence, summarize main findings, and highlight knowledge gaps. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles were reviewed: 25% reported on clinical predictors and 75% on pathophysiology. Most studies identified advanced disease stage and greater motor symptoms severity as independent clinical predictors in both PD and multiple system atrophy. Discrepant pathophysiology data suggested different potential central and peripheral pathogenic mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of clinical predictors and pathophysiology of axial postural abnormalities in parkinsonism is far from being elucidated due to literature bias, encompassing different inclusion criteria and measurement tools and heterogeneity of patient samples. Most studies identified advanced disease stage and higher burden of motor symptoms as possible clinical predictors. Pathophysiology data point toward many different (possibly non-mutually exclusive) mechanisms, including dystonia, rigidity, proprioceptive and vestibular impairment, and higher cognitive deficits., 01 november 2023

Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans. Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject's age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be “safe” where they

Contains fulltext : 282537.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: There is no consensus with regard to the nosology and cut-off values for postural abnormalities in parkinsonism. OBJECTIVE: To reach a consensus regarding the nosology and cut-off values. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi panel method, multiple rounds of questionnaires were conducted by movement disorder experts to define nosology and cut-offs of postural abnormalities. RESULTS: After separating axial from appendicular postural deformities, a full agreement was found for the following terms and cut-offs: camptocormia, with thoracic fulcrum (>45°) or lumbar fulcrum (>30°), Pisa syndrome (>10°), and antecollis (>45°). "Anterior trunk flexion," with thoracic (≥25° to ≤45°) or lumbar fulcrum (>15° to ≤30°), "lateral trunk flexion" (≥5° to ≤10°), and "anterior neck flexion" (>35° to ≤45°) were chosen for milder postural abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: For axial postural abnormalities, we recommend the use of proposed cut-offs and six unique terms, namely camptocormia, Pisa syndrome, antecollis, anterior trunk flexion, lateral trunk flexion, anterior neck flexion, to harmonize clinical practice and future research.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been widely used in both clinical and research practice. However, TMS might induce unintended sensations and undesired effects as well as serious adverse effects. To date, no shared forms are available to report such unintended effects. This study aimed at developing a questionnaire enabling reporting of TMS unintended effects. A Delphi procedure was applied which allowed consensus among TMS experts. A steering committee nominated a number of experts to be involved in the Delphi procedure. Three rounds were conducted before reaching a consensus. Afterwards, the questionnaire was publicized on the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology website to collect further suggestions by the wider scientific community. A last Delphi round was then conducted to obtain consensus on the suggestions collected during the publicization and integrate them in the questionnaire. The procedure resulted in a questionnaire, that is the TMSens_Q, applicable in clinical and research settings. Routine use of the structured TMS questionnaire and standard reporting of unintended TMS effects will help to monitor the safety of TMS, particularly when applying new protocols. It will also improve the quality of data collection as well as the interpretation of experimental findings.

As the field of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) expands, there is a growing need for comprehensive guidelines on training practitioners in the safe and effective administration of NIBS techniques in their various research and clinical applications. This article provides recommendations on the structure and content of this training. Three different types of practitioners are considered (Technicians, Clinicians, and Scientists), to attempt to cover the range of education and responsibilities of practitioners in NIBS from the laboratory to the clinic. Basic or core competencies and more advanced knowledge and skills are discussed, and recommendations offered regarding didactic and practical curricular components. We encourage individual licensing and governing bodies to implement these guidelines.

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1-2mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity 'conventional' TES defined as <4mA, up to 60min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3-13A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by t