Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) is common in patients with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple system atrophy, pure autonomic failure, dementia with Lewy bodies, and peripheral neuropathies including amyloid or diabetic neuropathy. Due to the frequency of nOH in the aging population, clinicians need to be well informed about its diagnosis and management. To date, studies of nOH have used different outcome measures and various methods of diagnosis, thereby preventing the generation of evidence-based guidelines to direct clinicians towards ‘best practices’ when treating patients with nOH and associated supine hypertension. To address these issues, the American Autonomic Society and the National Parkinson Foundation initiated a project to develop a statement of recommendations beginning with a consensus panel meeting in Boston on November 7, 2015, with continued communications and contributions to the recommendations through October of 2016. This paper summarizes the panel members’ discussions held during the initial meeting along with continued deliberations among the panel members and provides essential recommendations based upon best available evidence as well as expert opinion for the (1) screening, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment of nOH, and (4) diagnosis and treatment of associated supine hypertension.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00415-016-8375-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Objective: To determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.Methods: In a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.Results: A total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized.Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.0 to 2.7 points; p 5 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p , 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p , 0.0001).Conclusions: Providing remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02038959.

Satisfaction with and effectiveness of remote care will likely increase as common technical problems are resolved.

No abstract