Estimates of the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in North America have varied widely and many estimates are based on small numbers of cases and from small regional subpopulations. We sought to estimate the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in North America by combining data from a multi-study sampling strategy in diverse geographic regions and/or data sources. Five separate cohort studies in California (2), Minnesota (1), Hawaii USA (1), and Ontario, Canada (1) estimated the prevalence of PD from health-care records (3), active ascertainment through facilities, large group, and neurology practices (1), and longitudinal follow-up of a population cohort (1). US Medicare program data provided complementary estimates for the corresponding regions. Using our age- and sex-specific meta-estimates from California, Minnesota, and Ontario and the US population structure from 2010, we estimate the overall prevalence of PD among those aged ≥45 years to be 572 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval 537–614) that there were 680,000 individuals in the US aged ≥45 years with PD in 2010 and that that number will rise to approximately 930,000 in 2020 and 1,238,000 in 2030 based on the US Census Bureau population projections. Regional variations in prevalence were also observed in both the project results and the Medicare-based calculations with which they were compared. The estimates generated by the Hawaiian study were lower across age categories. These estimates can guide health-care planning but should be considered minimum estimates. Some heterogeneity exists that remains to be understood.

Women and minorities with PD obtain specialist care less often than white men. Neurologist care of patients with PD may be associated with improved selected clinical outcomes and greater survival.

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.

Background: Parkinson disease is a common neurodegenerative disease. The racial, sex, age, and geographic distributions of Parkinson disease in the US are unknown. Methods: We performed a serial cross-sectional study of US Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older from the years 1995, and 2000–2005. Using over 450,000 Parkinson disease cases per year, we calculated Parkinson disease prevalence and annual incidence by race, age, sex, and county. Spatial analysis investigated the geographic distribution of Parkinson disease. Results: Age-standardized Parkinson disease prevalence (per 100,000) was 2,168.18 (±95.64) in White men, but 1,036.41 (±86.01) in Blacks, and 1,138.56 (±46.47) in Asians. The incidence ratio in Blacks as compared to Whites (0.74; 95% CI = 0.732–0.748) was higher than the prevalence ratio (0.58; 95% CI = 0.575–0.581), whereas the incidence ratio for Asians (0.69; 95% CI = 0.657–0.723) was similar to the prevalence ratio (0.62; 95% CI = 0.617–0.631). Bayesian mapping of Parkinson disease revealed a concentration in the Midwest and Northeast regions. Mean county incidence by quartile ranged from 279 to 3,111, and prevalence from 1,175 to 13,800 (per 100,000). Prevalence and incidence in urban counties were greater than in rural ones (p < 0.01). Cluster analysis supported a nonrandom distribution of both incident and prevalent Parkinson disease cases (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Parkinson disease is substantially more common in Whites, and is nonrandomly distributed in the Midwest and Northeastern US.

No abstract