No abstract

Sialorrhoea is a frequent symptom of neurological diseases (e.g. Parkinson’s disease, motor neuron disease, cerebral palsy, and stroke) and is defined as excessive saliva accumulation leading to unintentional loss of saliva from the mouth. Sialorrhoea increases the overall burden on the patient and their caregivers, the impact of which can be both physical and psychosocial. Treatments for sialorrhoea range from lifestyle and behavioural guidance, to medications, surgery or radiation. Nonpharmacological interventions include advice on posture, swallowing control, cough management, dietary changes, eating and drinking techniques, and behavioural modification; however, these conservative measures may be ineffective for people with progressive neurological conditions. The pharmacological treatment of sialorrhoea is challenging because medications licensed for this purpose are limited, but treatments can include anticholinergic drugs and botulinum toxins. Surgical treatment of sialorrhoea is typically reserved as a last resort for patients. IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) is the first botulinum toxin type A to receive US and UK marketing authorization for the symptomatic treatment of chronic sialorrhoea due to neurological disorders in adults. In this review, we discuss and compare the frequency and method of administration, location of treatment delivery, approximate annual costs and main side effects of botulinum toxin and different anticholinergic drugs. Management of patients with chronic neurological conditions requires input from multiple specialist teams and thus a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is considered fundamental to ensure that care is consistent and tailored to patients’ needs. To ensure that adult patients with neurological conditions receive the best care and sialorrhoea is well managed, we suggest a potential clinical care pathway for sialorrhoea with a MDT approach, which healthcare professionals could aspire to.

In the past 4 years, two adjunctive treatment options to levodopa have been licensed for use in the UK in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and motor fluctuations: opicapone, a third-generation catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor, and safinamide, a monoamine oxidase B inhibitor. This clinical consensus outlines the practical considerations relating to motor fluctuations and managing wearing-off in patients with PD, and provides a clinical insight to adjunctive treatment options, including opicapone and safinamide. Practice-based opinion was provided from a multidisciplinary steering Group of eight UK-based movement disorder and PD specialists, including neurologists, geriatricians and a nurse specialist, from England, Scotland and Wales.

BackgroundTo develop an effective, patient-centred and sustainable service, we set up a virtual clinic (VC) for patients with Parkinson’s disease, combining phone consultations and reports from wearable technology. The Parkinson’s Kinetigraph (PKG) is a wrist-worn device providing objective motor assessment, generating a report used by clinicians to optimise medication regimens.InterventionsA pilot study of VC was designed using quality improvement methodology. For a VC appointment, patients were phoned by a clinician. After discussing symptoms and reviewing the PKG report, the clinician could decide on any medication changes or other interventions and relay this to the patient’s general practitioner in a clinic letter. Patient feedback was gathered via questionnaires and data collected on the outcomes and timings of the consultations.ResultsOver 12 clinics, 61 patients had VC appointments. Of questionnaire respondents, 89% were satisfied with VC (n=41). At VC, the clinician was able to make a treatment decision comparable to a face-to-face clinic in 79% of cases (n=48). Reasons appointments were deemed unsuccessful included issues with the PKG, speech or hearing problems and complex phase of disease. VC appointments, including administration time, last on average 22 min. This compares to 20 min face-to-face appointments but these do not include administration time.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated a safe and effective VC template. Most VC appointments are equivalent to face-to-face clinic in terms of treatment outcome. Success could be further improved by appropriate patient selection. Using VC is time saving and can result in releasing face-to-face appointment slots for those in urgent need or newly referred patients. Further cost analysis is required; the cost of the PKG alone is more expensive than a face-to-face appointment, but this does not take into account other value added, such as patient convenience and satisfaction, and reduced need for ambulance transport.

Introduction A timely diagnosis of dementia is crucial for initiating and maintaining support for people living with dementia. The coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic temporarily halted Memory Clinics, where this is organised, and rate of dementia diagnosis has fallen. Despite increasing use of alternatives to face-to-face (F2F) consultations in other departments, it is unclear whether this is feasible within the traditional Memory Clinic model. Aims The main aim of this service improvement project performed during the pandemic was to explore feasibility of telephone (TC) and videoconference (VC) Memory Clinic consultations. Methods Consecutive patients on the Memory Clinic waiting list were telephoned and offered an initial appointment by VC or TC. Data extracted included: age, internet-enabled device ownership, reason for and choice of Memory Clinic assessment. We noted Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (TC) and Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (VC via Attend Anywhere) scores, and feasibility of consultation. Results Out of 100 patients, 12 had a home assessment, moved away, been hospitalised, or died. 45, 21 and 6 preferred F2F, VC and TC assessments respectively. 16 were not contactable and offered a F2F appointment. The main reason for preferring F2F was non-ownership, or inability to use an internet-enabled device (80%). VC and TC preference reasons were unwillingness to come to hospital (59%), and convenience (41%). Attendance rate was 100% for VC and TC, but 77% for F2F. Feasibility (successful consultations) was seen in 90% (VC) and 67% (TC) patients. Conclusion For able and willing patients, remote Memory Consultations can be both feasible and beneficial. This has implications for future planning in dementia services.