You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 57 No. 8, August 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Contribution
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (24)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Movement Disorders
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Clinical Subtypes of Essential Tremor

Elan D. Louis, MD, MS; Blair Ford, MD; Livia F. Barnes, MPH

Arch Neurol. 2000;57:1194-1198.

Background  There is clinical variability in essential tremor (ET), but it is not clear whether this variability is because of the existence of distinct clinical subtypes of ET (ie, forms of ET that may differ in their etiology, rate of progression, or response to treatment).

Objectives  To examine in a group of ET cases the age of onset, anatomic distribution, and rate of progression of tremor, and to look for associations between these factors.

Methods  Cases of ET were ascertained from a community (n = 60) and a tertiary referral clinic (n = 55) in northern Manhattan, New York, NY. All subjects underwent an interview and videotaped tremor examination. Rate of progression was estimated based on the tremor severity and reported disease duration at the time of evaluation.

Results  Age of onset was bimodally distributed in clinic cases. There were differences in the anatomic distribution of the tremor (arm tremor only vs head and arm tremor vs isolated head tremor). Rate of progression was distributed exponentially; there was a large cluster of subjects with slower rates of progression, and a smaller number who had faster rates. There was an association between age of onset and rate of progression (r = 0.46-0.50, P<.002); cases with older age of onset (>60 years) progressed more rapidly (P<.001). In addition, upper limb tremor progressed more slowly among those with concomitant head tremor (P = .03).

Conclusions  Essential tremor is not a homogeneous condition. There are differences in age of onset, anatomic distribution of tremor, and rate of progression. The ET in several groups of patients in this study (those with age of onset >60 years and those without head tremor) progressed more rapidly, suggesting that these ET cases may define distinct clinical subtypes. These subtypes should be further assessed for etiologic and genetic heterogeneity as well as differences in responsiveness to therapeutic agents.


From the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center (Dr Louis and Ms Barnes) and the Department of Neurology (Drs Louis and Ford), College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY.


RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Neurology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Neurol. 2000;57(8):1241-1242.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Common Misdiagnosis of a Common Neurological Disorder: How Are We Misdiagnosing Essential Tremor?
Jain et al.
Arch Neurol 2006;63:1100-1104.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Differential diagnosis of common tremor syndromes
Bhidayasiri
Postgrad. Med. J. 2005;81:756-762.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Essential Tremor
Louis
NEJM 2001;345:887-891.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.