Background and Objectives: Dementia affects more than 55 million patients worldwide, with a significant societal, economic, and psychological impact. However, many patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other related dementias have limited access to effective and individualized treatment. Care provision for dementia is often unequal, fragmented, and inefficient. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telemedicine use, which holds promising potential for addressing this important gap. In this narrative review, we aim to analyze and discuss how telemedicine can improve the quality of healthcare for AD and related dementias in a structured manner, based on the seven dimensions of healthcare quality defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), 2018: effectiveness, safety, people-centeredness, timeliness, equitability, integrated care, and efficiency. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles investigating the role of telemedicine in the quality of care for patients with dementia. A narrative synthesis was based on the seven WHO dimensions. Results: Most studies indicate that telemedicine is a valuable tool for AD and related dementias: it can improve effectiveness (better access to specialized care, accurate diagnosis, evidence-based treatment, avoidance of preventable hospitalizations), timeliness (reduction of waiting times and unnecessary transportation), patient-centeredness (personalized care for needs and values), safety (appropriate treatment, reduction of infection risk),integrated care (interdisciplinary approach through several dementia-related services), efficiency (mainly cost-effectiveness) and equitability (overcoming geographical barriers, cultural diversities). However, digital illiteracy, legal and organizational issues, as well as limited awareness, are significant potential barriers. Conclusions: Telemedicine may significantly improve all aspects of the quality of care for patients with dementia. However, future longitudinal studies with control groups including participants of a wide educational level spectrum will aid in our deeper understanding of the real impact of telemedicine in quality care for this population.

Depression represents one of the most common non-motor disorders in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and it has been related to worse life quality, higher levels of disability, and cognitive impairment, thereby majorly affecting not only the patients but also their caregivers. Available pharmacological therapeutic options for depression in PD mainly include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants; meanwhile, agents acting on dopaminergic pathways used for motor symptoms, such as levodopa, dopaminergic agonists, and monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors, may also provide beneficial antidepressant effects. Recently, there is a growing interest in non-pharmacological interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy; physical exercise, including dance and mind–body exercises, such as yoga, tai chi, and qigong; acupuncture; therapeutic massage; music therapy; active therapy; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS); and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for refractory cases. However, the optimal treatment approach for PD depression is uncertain, its management may be challenging, and definite guidelines are also lacking. It is still unclear which of these interventions is the most appropriate and for which PD stage under which circumstances. Herein, we aim to provide an updated comprehensive review of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for depression in PD, focusing on recent clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Finally, we discuss the pharmacological agents that are currently under investigation at a clinical level, as well as future approaches based on the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the onset of depression in PD.

Neuroaxonal damage underlies permanent disability in various neurological conditions, both neuroautoimmune and neurodegenerative. It is crucial to accurately quantify and monitor axonal injury using biomarkers to evaluate disease progression and treatment effectiveness and offer prognostic insights. Neurofilaments (NFs), and especially neurofilament light chain (NfL), show promise for this purpose, as their levels increase with neuroaxonal damage in both cerebrospinal fluid and blood, independent of specific causal pathways. Recent advances in ultrasensitive immunoassays enable the reliable detection of NFs in blood, transforming them from research tools into clinically applicable measures. In multiple sclerosis (MS), serum NfL correlates with disease activity, treatment response, and long-term disability, and may complement MRI in monitoring subclinical progression. In MS, NfL is primarily emerging as a marker of disease activity and treatment response; in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), it has progressed further, being integrated into clinical trials as a pharmacodynamic endpoint and considered by regulatory agencies as a drug development tool. Additionally, NFs are increasingly being investigated in Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia, and other neurodegenerative disorders, though their disease specificity is limited. Ongoing challenges include older and novel assay harmonization, normative range interpretation, biological and analytical variability, and integration with other molecular and imaging biomarkers. This critical narrative review synthesizes the existing literature on NFs as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers and discusses their role in therapeutic development and precision medicine in neuroautoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is considered to be the second most prominent neurodegenerative disease and has a global prevalence. Glucocerebrosidase (GBA1) gene mutations represent a significant hereditary risk factor for the development of PD and have a profound impact on the motor and cognitive progression of the disease. The aim of this review is to summarize the literature data on the prevalence, type, and peculiarities of GBA1 mutations in populations of different ethnic backgrounds. We reviewed articles spanning the 2000–2024 period. GBA1-related PD has a worldwide distribution. It has long been recognized that pathogenic GBA1 mutations are particularly common in certain ethnic populations, including PD patients of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Moreover, a considerable number of studies focused on European ancestry patients from Europe and North America have revealed a high proportion (up to 15%) of carriers among the PD population. GBA1 mutations also appear to play an important role in patient groups with an East Asian background, although the frequency of specific variants may differ as compared to those of European ancestry. Notably, the assessment of underrepresented populations in other parts of Asia (including India) and Latin America is in the spotlight of current research, while a variant with a newly described pathogenic mechanism has been reported in Sub-Saharan Africans. Given the importance of GBA1 mutations for PD genetics and clinical phenotype, a focused assessment of the prevalence and type of GBA1 variants in distinct ethnic populations will possibly inform ongoing PD-related clinical studies and facilitate upcoming therapeutic trials.