Management of essential tremor

Differential Free Intracellular Calcium Release by Class II Antiarrhythmics in Cancer Cell Lines

Class II antiarrhythmics or β-blockers are antisympathetic nervous system agents that act by blocking β-adrenoceptors. Despite their common clinical use, little is known about the effects of β-blockers on free intracellular calcium (Ca²⁺ _i), an important cytosolic second messenger and a key regulator of cell function. We investigated the role of four chemical analogs, commonly prescribed β-blockers (atenolol, metoprolol, propranolol, and sotalol), on Ca²⁺ _i release and whole-cell currents in mammalian cancer cells (PC3 prostate cancer and MCF7 breast cancer cell lines). We discovered that only propranolol activated free Ca²⁺ _i release with distinct kinetics, whereas atenolol, metoprolol, and sotalol did not. The propranolol-induced Ca²⁺ _i release was significantly inhibited by the chelation of extracellular calcium with ethylene glycol tetraacetic acid (EGTA) and by dantrolene, an inhibitor of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) ryanodine receptor channels, and it was completely abolished by 2-aminoethoxydiphenyl borate, an inhibitor of the ER inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP₃) receptor channels. Exhaustion of ER stores with 4-chloro-m-cresol, a ryanodine receptor activator, or thapsigargin, a sarco/ER Ca²⁺ ATPase inhibitor, precluded the propranolol-induced Ca²⁺ _i release. Finally, preincubation of cells with sotalol or timolol, nonselective blockers of β-adrenoceptors, also reduced the Ca²⁺ _i release activated by propranolol. Our results show that different β-blockers have differential effects on whole-cell currents and free Ca²⁺ _i release and that propranolol activates store-operated Ca²⁺ _i release via a mechanism that involves calcium-induced calcium release and putative downstream transducers such as IP₃ The differential action of class II antiarrhythmics on Ca²⁺ _i release may have implications on the pharmacology of these drugs.

MRI-guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy for Patients with Medically-refractory Essential Tremor

Essential tremor (ET) is the most common type of tremor in adults. While ET does not result in decreased life expectancy, the disabilities associated with ET can have a significant impact on quality of life, mood, functional activities, and socialization. Patients suffering from ET not sufficiently treated with first line medications may be eligible for alternative strategies such as deep brain stimulation, radiofrequency ablation, and MRI guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS). High-intensity MRgFUS is an emerging modality to treat ET, its attraction for patients being that it is noninvasive and associated with short recovery time, as patients are home the day after treatment. While MRgFUS centers are still limited, it will become important for clinicians to consider MRgFUS as a treatment alternative, particularly in the case of a patient for whom open surgery is contraindicated. This article outlines the steps of patient selection, equipment setup, sonication, and post-treatment follow-up, as well as critical steps to be aware of when performing a MRgFUS procedure.

Zonisamide for essential tremor

BACKGROUND

Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are well established treatments in clinical practice, they can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients, and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it may be worthwhile evaluating the treatment alternatives for ET. Zonisamide has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect on functional abilities and the safety profile of zonisamide in adults with essential tremor (ET).

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out a systematic search, without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to January 2017. We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of zonisamide versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence.We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and obtained risk differences to compare treatment groups. We used Review Manager 5 software for data management and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We only considered one study eligible for this review (20 participants). Assessments of risk of bias for most domains were unclear or low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of treatment group assignment. We are uncertain as to the effects of zonisamide on motor tasks (mean difference (MD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.51 to 1.51, very low-quality evidence) and functional disabilities (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Three participants in the zonisamide group (30%) and two participants in the placebo group (20%) discontinued the treatment and withdrew from the study for any reason (very low-quality evidence), however the increased risk of withdrawal in the zonisamide group was statistically non-significant (risk difference (RD) 0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48). Six participants in the zonisamide group (60%) and none of the participants in the placebo group (0%) developed adverse events (AEs), with a RD of 0.60 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; very low quality evidence). The most common AEs, experienced with zonisamide treatment, were headache, nausea, fatigue, sleepiness, and diarrhoea. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of zonisamide treatment for ET.

Topiramate for essential tremor

BACKGROUND

Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The management is primarily based on pharmacological agents and in clinical practice propranolol and primidone are considered the first-line therapy. However, these treatments can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of people and are frequently associated with serious adverse events (AEs). For these reasons, it is worthwhile evaluating other treatments for ET. Topiramate has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate in the treatment of ET.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2017), Embase (January 1988 to January 2017), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (1999 to January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (1997 to January 2017) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 2004 to January 2017). We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topiramate versus placebo/open control or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in people presenting with secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis for data synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included three trials comparing topiramate to placebo (309 participants). They were all at high overall risk of bias. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. Compared to placebo, participants treated with topiramate showed a significant improvement in functional disability and an increased risk of withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.60). There were more AEs for topiramate-treated participants, particularly paraesthesia, weight loss, appetite decrease and memory difficulty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlighted the presence of limited data and very low to low quality evidence to support the apparent efficacy and the occurrence of treatment-limiting AEs in people with ET treated with topiramate. Further research to assess topiramate efficacy and safety on ET is needed.

Pregabalin for essential tremor

BACKGROUND

Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they may be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it is worth evaluating the treatment alternatives for essential tremor. Some specialists have suggested that pregabalin could be a potentially useful agent, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pregabalin versus placebo or other treatment for essential tremor in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials up to December 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin versus placebo or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias of the body of evidence, and we used inverse variance methods to analyse continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared the mean difference between treatment groups, and we combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and risk differences We used Review Manager software for data management and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We only found one study eligible for this review (22 participants). We assessed the risk of bias for most domains as unclear. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared to placebo, patients treated with pregabalin showed no significant improvement of motor tasks on the 36-point subscale of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) (MD -2.15 points; 95% CI -9.16 to 4.86) or on the 32-point functional abilities subscale of the TRS (MD -0.66 points; 95% CI -2.90 to 1.58).The limited evidence showed no difference in study withdrawal (Mantel-Haenszel RD -0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.30) and presentation of adverse events between pregabalin and placebo (Mantel-Haenszel RD 0.18; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pregabalin for treating essential tremor are uncertain because the quality of the evidence is very low. One small study did not highlight any effect of this treatment; however, the high risk of bias and the lack of other studies on this topic limit further conclusion.

Alprazolam for essential tremor

BACKGROUND

Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment is based primarily on pharmacological agents. On this basis, although primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they could be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events (AEs) in a large percentage of individuals. For these reasons, evaluating treatment alternatives for ET may be a worthwhile pursuit. Alprazolam has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for treatment of individuals with ET, but its efficacy and safety are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

PrimaryTo assess the efficacy and safety of alprazolam in the treatment of individuals with ET. SecondaryTo examine effects of alprazolam treatment on the quality of life of people with ET.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2015), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2015), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (1999 to September 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (1997 to September 2015) and the World Health Organiza tion (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2004 to September 2015). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of alprazolam versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which ET was diagnosed according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies that included patients presenting with secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters for the pur p ose of assessing outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed risk of bias and the body of evidence. We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We used Review Manager software for management and analysis of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review one trial that compared alprazolam versus placebo (24 participants). It was judged to have high overall risk of bias. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared with those given placebo, participants treated with alprazolam showed a significant reduction in tremor severity (mean difference (MD) -0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.83 to -0.67). Nine alprazolam-treated participants (75%) developed AEs, mainly represented by sedation (50%), constipation (17%) and dry mouth (9%). No participants in the alprazolam group and no p articipants in the placebo group discontinued treatment and dropped out of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available data reveal evidence insufficient for assessment of the efficacy and safety of alprazolam treatment for individuals with ET.

Differences in Regional Glucose Metabolism of the Brain Measured with F-18-FDG-PET in Patients with Essential Tremor According to Their Response to Beta-Blockers

OBJECTIVE

In this study, there was an investigation as to whether there is a functional difference in essential tremor (ET), according to responses to beta-blockers, by evaluating regional changes in cerebral glucose metabolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen male patients with ET were recruited and categorized into two groups: 8 that responded to medical therapy (group A); and 9 that did not respond to medical therapy (group B). Eleven age-sex matched healthy control male subjects were also included in this study. All subjects underwent F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, and evaluated for their severity of tremor symptoms, which were measured as a score on the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor rating scale (FTM). The FDG-PET images were analyzed using a statistical parametric mapping program.

RESULTS

The mean FTM score 6 months after the initiation of propranolol therapy was significantly lower in group A (18.13 > 8.13), compared with group B (14.67 = 14.67). The glucose metabolism in group A in the left basal ganglia was seen to be decreased, compared with group B. The ET showed a more significantly decreased glucose metabolism in both the fronto-temporo-occipital lobes, precuneus of right parietal lobe, and both cerebellums compared with the healthy controls.

CONCLUSION

Essential tremor is caused by electrophysiological disturbances within the cortical-cerebellar networks and degenerative process of the cerebellum. Furthermore, ET may have different pathophysiologies in terms of the origin of disease according to the response to first-line therapy.

Treatment of Essential Tremor: Are there Issues We are Overlooking?

Background: Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common neurological diseases. Although a large number of medications have been tested, there are only two first-line medications, primidone and propranolol, which is a situation that has not changed in approximately 30 years. Several recent reviews have summarized the current pharmacotherapeutic options for ET and the approach to the management of ET patients. Yet there remain a number of important issues, both scientific and clinical, that have not been broached in the literature and that have therapeutic implications. Objectives: To introduce several clinical and scientific issues that have not formally entered the published literature on the treatment of ET. Methods: In September 2011, materials for this article were gathered during a literature search of PubMed using the following terms: ET, clinical, clinical trial, treatment, medications, therapeutics. English-language articles were selected for further review. Results: The paper focuses on several topics that have received scant or no discussion in the published literature on ET therapeutics. These topics are as follows: the nature of the underlying disease pathophysiology, the presence of pathological heterogeneity, the complexity of cellular and neurochemical changes which may be underlying this disorder, the presence of clinical heterogeneity, the selection of treatment endpoints, the effects of diagnostic uncertainty, the presence of cognitive and psychiatric features in ET, the identification of possible modifiable risk factors, and the absence of any neuroprotective therapies. Conclusion: The author has identified several topics that have received scant or no discussion in the published literature on ET therapeutics. Further discussion of the issues raised here may lead to improvements in clinical trial methodologies as well as facilitate the development of fresh approaches to pharmacotherapy.

What is the functional significance of nondominant arm tremor in essential tremor?

Tremor in the dominant arm is often the focus of clinical attention in essential tremor (ET) yet many daily activities require both arms. The functional relevance of nondominant arm tremor has rarely been studied. In 181 right-handed patients with ET, action tremor in each arm was rated using a clinical rating scale. Tremor disability was self-reported and a performance-based test of function was administered. Independently of tremor on the right, greater tremor severity on the left was associated with greater self-reported disability (P = 0.02) and greater performance-based dysfunction (P < 0.001). In 5.0% of patients, tremor was largely restricted to the nondominant arm. Nondominant arm tremor, independent of dominant arm tremor, had a significant functional correlate, contributing to both greater perceived and greater observable functional difficulty. In 5% of patients, tremor in the nondominant arm was the likely motivator for seeking care, which is another indication of its functional significance. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.