Movement irregularities in atypical parkinsonian syndromes

Exploring bedside clinical features of parkinsonism: A focus on differential diagnosis

The proper diagnosis of parkinsonian disorders usually involves three steps: identifying core features of parkinsonism; excluding other causes; and collating supportive evidence based on clinical signs or investigations. While the recognition of cardinal parkinsonian features is usually straightforward, the appreciation of clinical features suggestive of specific parkinsonian disorders can be challenging, and often requires greater experience and skills. In this review, we outline the clinical features that are relevant to the differential diagnosis of common neurodegenerative parkinsonian disorders, including Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, progressive supranuclear palsy, and corticobasal degeneration. We aim to make this process relatable to clinicians-in-practice, therefore, have categorised the list of clinical features into groups according to the typical sequence on how clinicians would elicit them during the examination, starting with observation of facial expression and clinical signs of the face, spotting eye movement abnormalities, examination of tremors and jerky limb movements, and finally, examination of posture and gait dysfunction. This review is not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, we have focused on the most common clinical signs that are potentially key to making the correct diagnosis and those that do not require special skills or training for interpretation. Evidence is also provided, where available, such as diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, clinicopathological studies or large multi-centre registries. Pitfalls are also discussed when relevant to the diagnosis. While no clinical signs are pathognomonic for certain parkinsonian disorders, certain clinical clues may assist in narrowing a differential diagnosis and tailoring focused investigations for the individual patient.

Red flags phenotyping: A systematic review on clinical features in atypical parkinsonian disorders

To establish a clinical diagnosis of a parkinsonian disorder, physicians rely on their ability to identify relevant red flags, in addition to cardinal features, to support or refute their working diagnosis in an individual patient. The term 'red flag', was originally coined in 1989 to define the presence of non-cardinal features that may raise a suspicion of multiple system atrophy (MSA), or at least suggest alternative diagnosis to Parkinson's disease (PD). Since then, the term 'red flag', has been consistently used in the literature to denote the clinical history or signs that may signal to physicians the possibility of an atypical parkinsonian disorder (APD). While most red flags were originally based on expert opinion, many have gained acceptance and are now included in validated clinical diagnostic criteria of PD and APDs. The clinical appreciation of red flags, in conjunction with standard criteria, may result in a more accurate and earlier diagnosis compared to standard criteria alone. However, red flags can be clinical signs that are non-neurological, making the systematic assessment for them a real challenge in clinical practice. Here, we have conducted a systematic review to identify red flags and their clinical evidence in the differential diagnosis of common degenerative parkinsonism, including PD, MSA, progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), and dementia with Lewy body (DLB). Increasing awareness and appropriate use of red flags in clinical practice may benefit physicians in the diagnosis and management of their patients with parkinsonism.

Comparing three screening tools for drug-induced parkinsonism in patients with advanced schizophrenia: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP) is seen in one third of patients exposed to antipsychotic drugs and may lead to complications related to dysphagia and falls. Aside from skilled neurological examination, no tool has been validated to facilitate detection and follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

In this pilot study, three validated screening instruments were tested in an age-biased cohort of schizophrenia patients, including four items of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side-Effects Rating Scale (LUNSERS) and two brief questionnaires designed for community survey of parkinsonism.

METHOD

Fifty-six subjects living with chronic schizophrenia between 50 and 75 years of age underwent a motor evaluation along the original Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-section III and answered questions along the selected screening instruments, and results compared to those of 16 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and 15 neurologically unimpaired volunteers. Odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals, were calculated.

RESULTS

All three screening instruments correctly identified the PD state and distinguished PD from healthy participants. Eighteen (32%) schizophrenic patients displayed objective motor signs of parkinsonism. A single item of the LUNSERS (shakiness) significantly distinguished DIP from DIP-free patients, with a sensitivity of 61.1% and a specificity of 83.3%. The positive predictive value was 63.5% and the negative predictive value was 81.9%. The two other screening methods showed insufficient predictive value.

CONCLUSION

Apart from a single query on shakiness, none of the tools examined were adequate to screen for DIP in patients treated for schizophrenia. A different instrument is necessary to monitor this important adverse effect in schizophrenia.