[The majority of patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease are treated at specialized movement disorder centers. Currently, there is no clear consensus on how to define the stages of Parkinson’s disease; the proportion of Parkinson’s patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, the referral process, and the clinical features used to characterize advanced Parkinson’s disease are not well delineated. The primary objective of this observational study was to evaluate the proportion of Parkinson’s patients identified as advanced patients according to physician’s judgment in all participating movement disorder centers across the study. Here we evaluate the Hungarian subset of the participating patients. The study was conducted in a cross-sectional, non-interventional, multi-country, multi-center format in 18 countries. Data were collected during a single patient visit. Current Parkinson’s disease status was assessed with Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts II, III, IV, and V (modified Hoehn and Yahr staging). Non-motor symptoms were assessed using the PD Non-motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS); quality of life was assessed with the PD 8-item Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (PDQ-8). Parkinson’s disease was classified as advanced versus non-advanced based on physician assessment and on questions developed by the Delphi method. Overall, 2627 patients with Parkinson’s disease from 126 sites were documented. In Hungary, 100 patients with Parkinson’s disease were documented in four movement disorder centers, and, according to the physician assessment, 50% of these patients had advanced Parkinson’s disease. Their mean scores showed significantly higher impairment in those with, versus without advanced Parkinson’s disease: UPDRS II (14.1 vs. 9.2), UPDRS IV Q32 (1.1 vs. 0.0) and Q39 (1.1 vs. 0.5), UPDRS V (2.8 vs. 2.0) and PDQ-8 (29.1 vs. 18.9). Physicians in Hungarian movement disorder centers assessed that half of the Parkinson’s patients had advanced disease, with worse motor and non-motor symptom severity and worse QoL than those without advanced Parkinson’s disease. Despite being classified as eligible for invasive/device-aided treatment, that treatment had not been initiated in 25% of these patients.]

Aim - The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency and characteristics of attacks in patients with migraine, to determine the effects of anxiety or depressive symptoms, and to evaluate the marital relationships of patients with migraine. Method - Thirty patients who were admitted to the neurology outpatient clinic of our hospital between July 2018 and October 2018 and were diagnosed with migraine according to the 2013 International Headache Society (IHS) diagnostic criteria were included in this cross-sectional study. Age, sex, headache frequency and severity, depressive traits, marital satisfaction and anxiety status were examined. We used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (MMQ) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for measuring relevant parameters. Results - The mean severity of migraine pain according to VAS scale was 6.93 ± 1.41 and the mean number of migraine attacks was 4.50 ± 4.24. The mean BDI score of the patients was 12.66 ± 8.98, the mean MMQ-M score was 19.80 ± 12.52, the mean MMQ-S score was 13.20 ± 9.53, the mean STAI-state score was 39.93 ± 10.87 and the mean STAI-trait score was 45.73 ± 8.96. No significant correlation was found between age, number of migraine attacks, migraine duration, migraine headache intensity, and BDI, STAI and MMQ scores (p>0.05). But there was a positive correlation between MMQ-S and scores obtained from the BDI and STAI-state scales (p<0.05). Conclusion - In this study more than half of the migraine patients had mild, moderate or severe depression. A positive correlation was found between sexual dissatisfaction and scale scores of depression and anxiety.

[Background – Based on the literature and his long-term clinical practice the author stresses the main collisions of evidence and experience based medicine in the care of people with epilepsy. Purpose – To see, what are the professional decisions of high responsibility in the epilepsy-care, in whose the relevant clinical research is still lacking or does not give a satisfactory basis. Methods – Following the structure of the Hungarian Guideline the author points the critical situations and decisions. He explains also the causes of the dilemmas: the lack or uncertainty of evidences or the difficulty of scientific investigation of the situation. Results – There are some priorities of experience based medicine in the following areas: definition of epilepsy, classification of seizures, etiology – including genetic background –, role of precipitating and provoking factors. These are able to influence the complex diagnosis. In the pharmacotherapy the choice of the first drug and the optimal algorithm as well as the tasks during the care are also depends on personal experiences sometimes contradictory to the official recommendations. Same can occur in the choice of the non-pharmacological treatments and rehabilitation. Discussion and conclusion – Personal professional experiences (and interests of patients) must be obligatory accessories of evidence based attitude, but for achieving the optimal results, in some situations they replace the official recommendations. Therefore it is very important that the problematic patients do meet experts having necessary experiences and also professional responsibility to help in these decisions. ]