Objective: Studies outlining the genetic architecture of Parkinson’s disease in India are sparse, and juvenile parkinsonism is underrepresented in the literature. The objective was to study the clinical, therapeutic, and genetic profiles of patients with juvenile parkinsonism and to correlate their phenotypic–genotypic characteristics. Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted in patients with suspected genetically mediated juvenile parkinsonism (onset ≤21 years) who underwent genetic testing at a tertiary care center in India from 2015–2024. The available phenotypic–genotypic characteristics were evaluated and compared between Gene (+) and Gene (-) patients. Results: Forty patients (22 males, 55.0%) with juvenile parkinsonism were included, with mean ages at onset and presentation of 15.85±4.96 years and 26.37±10.11 years, respectively. The mean duration of illness was 10.43±10.49 years. A positive family history was present in 40.0% of the participants, and consanguinity was present in 45%. Bradykinesia was the most common motor symptom (95.0%), and cognitive impairment was the most common nonmotor symptom (17.5%). Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 27 patients (67.5%), with variants in PRKN being the most common (n=8 patients), followed by those in PLA2G6 (n=7 patients). Gene (+) patients had significantly more severe disease with a better levodopa response and more frequent familial consanguinity, oculomotor abnormalities, motor fluctuations, and dyskinesia. Compared with PARK-PRKN patients, PARK-PLA2G6 patients had significantly more dystonia, gaze restriction, and pyramidal signs and more severe disease at presentation, with a lower levodopa equivalent daily dose and fewer motor fluctuations. Conclusion More than two-thirds (67.5%) of the juvenile parkinsonism patients in our cohort had an underlying monogenic cause. PARK-PRKN, PARK-PLA2G6, and PARK-SYNJ1 are the common causes of genetically mediated juvenile parkinsonism in India.

Objective: To explore sleep patterns in individuals with essential tremor (ET) and essential tremor plus (ET-Plus) compared with healthy controls and assess differences between ET and ET-Plus, given the lack of established polysomnography (PSG) data on these groups and the potential for sleep disturbances to serve as clinical markers. Methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study at National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, from November 2021 to August 2023 on 45 patients (26 ET, 19 ET-Plus) and 45 controls. Tremor severity was assessed using The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS) and Fahn‐Tolosa‐Marin Clinical Rating Scale (FTMRS). Sleep symptoms were assessed via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Mayo Sleep Questionnaire, restless legs syndrome questionnaire, Berlin questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 7, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. All patients and controls underwent overnight video PSG. Sleep scoring was manually performed by a trained sleep research technician and the first author following the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2017) guidelines, with data analyzed using R studio. Results: Compared with ET-Plus patients, ET patients had a younger onset age (46.8±11.1 years versus 30.8±16.7 years, respectively). Compared with ET patients, ET-Plus patients had higher TETRAS and FTMRS scores (p<0.005). Compared with controls, both ET patients and ET-Plus patients presented poorer sleep quality, excessive daytime sleepiness, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder, and restless legs syndrome symptoms. PSG findings supported these clinical observations, showing an elevated apnea‒hypopnea index, reduced total sleep time, prolonged REM latency, decreased sleep efficiency, increased N1 stage duration, and reduced N2/N3 durations and percentages in patients versus controls. Conclusion The study highlights significant sleep architecture abnormalities in both ET and ET-Plus patients compared with healthy controls, with no differences between the ET groups.

Objective: To explore sleep patterns in individuals with essential tremor (ET) and essential tremor plus (ET-Plus) compared with healthy controls and assess differences between ET and ET-Plus, given the lack of established polysomnography (PSG) data on these groups and the potential for sleep disturbances to serve as clinical markers. Methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study at National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, from November 2021 to August 2023 on 45 patients (26 ET, 19 ET-Plus) and 45 controls. Tremor severity was assessed using The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS) and Fahn‐Tolosa‐Marin Clinical Rating Scale (FTMRS). Sleep symptoms were assessed via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Mayo Sleep Questionnaire, restless legs syndrome questionnaire, Berlin questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 7, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. All patients and controls underwent overnight video PSG. Sleep scoring was manually performed by a trained sleep research technician and the first author following the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2017) guidelines, with data analyzed using R studio. Results: Compared with ET-Plus patients, ET patients had a younger onset age (46.8±11.1 years versus 30.8±16.7 years, respectively). Compared with ET patients, ET-Plus patients had higher TETRAS and FTMRS scores (p<0.005). Compared with controls, both ET patients and ET-Plus patients presented poorer sleep quality, excessive daytime sleepiness, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder, and restless legs syndrome symptoms. PSG findings supported these clinical observations, showing an elevated apnea‒hypopnea index, reduced total sleep time, prolonged REM latency, decreased sleep efficiency, increased N1 stage duration, and reduced N2/N3 durations and percentages in patients versus controls. Conclusion The study highlights significant sleep architecture abnormalities in both ET and ET-Plus patients compared with healthy controls, with no differences between the ET groups.

Objective: To explore sleep patterns in individuals with essential tremor (ET) and essential tremor plus (ET-Plus) compared with healthy controls and assess differences between ET and ET-Plus, given the lack of established polysomnography (PSG) data on these groups and the potential for sleep disturbances to serve as clinical markers. Methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study at National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, from November 2021 to August 2023 on 45 patients (26 ET, 19 ET-Plus) and 45 controls. Tremor severity was assessed using The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS) and Fahn‐Tolosa‐Marin Clinical Rating Scale (FTMRS). Sleep symptoms were assessed via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Mayo Sleep Questionnaire, restless legs syndrome questionnaire, Berlin questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 7, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. All patients and controls underwent overnight video PSG. Sleep scoring was manually performed by a trained sleep research technician and the first author following the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (2017) guidelines, with data analyzed using R studio. Results: Compared with ET-Plus patients, ET patients had a younger onset age (46.8±11.1 years versus 30.8±16.7 years, respectively). Compared with ET patients, ET-Plus patients had higher TETRAS and FTMRS scores (p<0.005). Compared with controls, both ET patients and ET-Plus patients presented poorer sleep quality, excessive daytime sleepiness, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder, and restless legs syndrome symptoms. PSG findings supported these clinical observations, showing an elevated apnea‒hypopnea index, reduced total sleep time, prolonged REM latency, decreased sleep efficiency, increased N1 stage duration, and reduced N2/N3 durations and percentages in patients versus controls. Conclusion The study highlights significant sleep architecture abnormalities in both ET and ET-Plus patients compared with healthy controls, with no differences between the ET groups.