COVID-19 in Parkinson's disease: what holds the key?

INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's disease (PD) is more frequent in the elderly and increases the risk of respiratory infections. Previous data on PD and SARS-CoV-2 are scarce, suggesting a poor prognosis in advanced disease and second-line therapies. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study comparing patients with PD and COVID-19 and patients with PD without COVID-19 was conducted during the pandemic period in Spain (March 1st-July 31st 2020) in a tertiary university hospital. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (COVID-19 +) and 172 (COVID-19-) PD patients were included. Fifty-nine percent were males in both groups, with similar age (75.9 ± 9.0 COVID-19 + , 73.9 ± 10.0 COVID-19-), disease duration (8.9 ± 6.2 COVID-19 + , 8.5 ± 5.6 COVID-19-) and PD treatments. COVID-19 was mild in 10 (26%), required admission in 21 (54%) and caused death in 8 (21%) patients. Dementia was the only comorbidity more frequent in COVID-19 + patients (36% vs. 14%, p = 0.0013). However, in a multivariate analysis, institutionalization was the only variable associated with COVID-19 + (OR 17.0, 95% CI 5.0-60.0, p < 0.001). When considering severe COVID-19 (admission or death) vs. mild or absent COVID-19, institutionalization, neoplasm, dementia and a lower frequency of dopamine agonists were associated with severe COVID-19. In multivariate analysis, only institutionalization [OR 5.17, 95% CI 1.57-17, p = 0.004] and neoplasm [OR 8.0, 95%CI 1.27-49.8, p = 0.027] remained significantly associated. CONCLUSION: In our experience, institutionalization and oncologic comorbidity, rather than PD-related variables, increased the risk of developing COVID-19, and impacted on its severity. These findings suggest that epidemiologic factors and frailty are key factors for COVID-19 morbidity/mortality in PD. Appropriate preventive strategies should be implemented in institutionalized patients to prevent infection and improve prognosis.

El correo electrónico en la consulta de Parkinson: ¿soluciones a un clic? / Use of e-mail for Parkinson's disease consultations: Are answers just a clic away?

Introducción: La problemática de los trastornos del movimiento (TM) es compleja y la duración y frecuencia de las consultas presenciales puede estar limitada por problemas de espacio y tiempo. Analizamos el funcionamiento de un servicio de atención por correo electrónico institucional para médicos de Atención Primaria (MAP) y pacientes en la Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento (UTM). Métodos: Se revisaron retrospectivamente los correos electrónicos enviados y recibidos en un periodo de 4 meses, un año tras su implantación. La dirección se proporcionaba en consulta y mediante sesiones informativas a los MAP del área. Se analizaron datos clínicos y demográficos de los pacientes, tipo de interlocutor, número de consultas, motivo y actuaciones derivadas de ellas. Resultados: Del 1 de enero al 30 de abril de 2015 se recibieron 137 correos de 63 pacientes (43% varones; edad 71 ± 10,5 años) diagnosticados de enfermedad de Parkinson (76%), parkinsonismos atípicos (10%) y otros (14%), y se enviaron 116 respuestas. En 20 casos (32%) fueron redactados por el paciente, en 38 (60%) por sus familiares y en 5 (8%) por MAP. Los motivos de consulta fueron clínicos en 50 casos (80%): deterioro clínico (16; 32%), nuevos síntomas (14; 28%), efectos secundarios o dudas sobre medicación (20; 40%). Como consecuencia, se adelantó una cita programada en 9 casos (14%), mientras que el resto se solucionaron por correo electrónico. En 13 (20%), el motivo de consulta fue burocrático: relacionado con citas (11, 85%) y solicitud de informe (2, 15%). La satisfacción fue generalizada, sin constituir una sobrecarga asistencial excesiva para los facultativos responsables. Conclusiones: La implantación de una consulta por correo electrónico es factible en UTM, facilita la comunicación médico-paciente y la continuidad asistencial con Atención Primaria (AU)

Introduction: The clinical problems of patients with movement disorders (MD) are complex, and the duration and frequency of face-to-face consultations may be insufficient to meet their needs. We analysed the implementation of an e-mail-based query service for our MD unit's patients and their primary care physicians (PCPs). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive emails sent and received over a period of 4 months, one year after implementation of the e-mail inquiry system. All patients received the during consultations, and PCPs, during scheduled informative meetings. We recorded and later analysed the profile of the questioner, patients' demographic and clinical data, number of queries, reason for consultation, and actions taken. Results: From 1 January 2015 to 30 April 2015, the service received 137 emails from 63 patients (43% male, mean age 71 ± 10.5) diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (76%), atypical parkinsonism (10%), and others (14%); 116 responses were sent. Twenty (32%) emails were written by patients, 38 (60%) by their caregivers, and 5 (8%) by their PCPs. The reasons for consultation were clinical in 50 cases (80%): 16 (32%) described clinical deterioration, 14 (28%) onset of new symptoms, and 20 (40%) side effects or concerns about medications. In 13 cases (20%), the query was bureaucratic: 11 were related to appointments (85%) and 2 were requests for clinical reports (15%). In response, new appointments were scheduled in 9 cases (14%), while the rest of the questions were answered by email. Patients were satisfied overall and the additional care burden on specialists was not excessive. Conclusions: Implementing an e-mail-based consultation system is feasible in MD units. It facilitates both communication between neurologists and patients and continued care in the primary care setting (AU)

Use of e-mail for Parkinson's disease consultations: Are answers just a clic away? / El correo electrónico en la consulta de Parkinson: ¿soluciones a un clic?

INTRODUCTION: The clinical problems of patients with movement disorders (MD) are complex, and the duration and frequency of face-to-face consultations may be insufficient to meet their needs. We analysed the implementation of an e-mail-based query service for our MD unit's patients and their primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive emails sent and received over a period of 4 months, one year after implementation of the e-mail inquiry system. All patients received the during consultations, and PCPs, during scheduled informative meetings. We recorded and later analysed the profile of the questioner, patients' demographic and clinical data, number of queries, reason for consultation, and actions taken. RESULTS: From 1 January 2015 to 30 April 2015, the service received 137 emails from 63 patients (43% male, mean age 71±10.5) diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (76%), atypical parkinsonism (10%), and others (14%); 116 responses were sent. Twenty (32%) emails were written by patients, 38 (60%) by their caregivers, and 5 (8%) by their PCPs. The reasons for consultation were clinical in 50 cases (80%): 16 (32%) described clinical deterioration, 14 (28%) onset of new symptoms, and 20 (40%) side effects or concerns about medications. In 13 cases (20%), the query was bureaucratic: 11 were related to appointments (85%) and 2 were requests for clinical reports (15%). In response, new appointments were scheduled in 9 cases (14%), while the rest of the questions were answered by email. Patients were satisfied overall and the additional care burden on specialists was not excessive. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an e-mail-based consultation system is feasible in MD units. It facilitates both communication between neurologists and patients and continued care in the primary care setting.