| 3. |
- Malaty, Irene A., et al.
(författare)
-
Does the 5–2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5–2-1-positive patients in 7 countries
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMC Neurology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2377. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The burden of Parkinson’s disease (PD) worsens with disease progression. However, the lack of objective and uniform disease classification challenges our understanding of the incremental burden in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (APD) and suboptimal medication control. The 5–2-1 criteria was proposed by clinical consensus to identify patients with advancing PD. Our objective was to evaluate the screening accuracy and incremental clinical burden, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and humanistic burden in PD patients meeting the 5–2-1 screening criteria. Methods: Data were drawn from the Adelphi Parkinson’s Disease Specific Program (DSP™), a multi-country point-in-time survey (2017–2020). People with PD who were naive to device-aided therapy and on oral PD therapy were included. Patients meeting the 5–2-1 screening criteria had one or more of the three clinical indicators of APD: (i) ≥5 doses of oral levodopa/day, OR (ii) “off” symptoms for ≥2 h of waking day, OR (iii) ≥1 h of troublesome dyskinesia. Clinician assessment of PD stage was used as the reference in this study. Clinical screening accuracy of the 5–2-1 criteria was assessed using area under the curve and multivariable logistic regression models. Incremental clinical, HCRU, and humanistic burden were assessed by known-group comparisons between 5 and 2-1-positive and negative patients. Results: From the analytic sample (n = 4714), 33% of patients met the 5–2-1 screening criteria. Among physician-classified APD patients, 78.6% were 5–2-1 positive. Concordance between clinician judgment and 5–2-1 screening criteria was > 75%. 5–2-1-positive patients were nearly 7-times more likely to be classified as APD by physician judgment. Compared with the 5–2-1-negative group, 5–2-1-positive patients had significantly higher clinical, HCRU, and humanistic burden across all measures. In particular, 5–2-1-positive patients had 3.8-times more falls, 3.6-times higher annual hospitalization rate, and 3.4-times greater dissatisfaction with PD treatment. 5–2-1-positive patients also had significantly lower quality of life and worse caregiver burden. Conclusions: 5–2-1 criteria demonstrated potential as a screening tool for identifying people with APD with considerable clinical, humanistic, and HCRU burden. The 5–2-1 screening criteria is an objective and reliable tool that may aid the timely identification and treatment optimization of patients inadequately controlled on oral PD medications.
|
|
| 4. |
- Antonini, Angelo, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool : A clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson's disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Parkinsonism and Related Disorders. - : Elsevier BV. - 1353-8020. ; 92, s. 59-66
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Making Informed Decisions to Aid Timely Management of Parkinson's Disease (MANAGE-PD) is a clinician-reported tool designed to facilitate timely identification and management of patients with advancing Parkinson's disease (PD) with suboptimal symptom control while on standard therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and clinical value of the tool. Methods: Driven by structured inputs from a steering committee and panel of PD experts, the tool was developed to classify patients into 3 categories. Validity and clinical value were elucidated using a two-pronged approach: (i) hypothetical patient vignettes (n = 10) developed based on the MANAGE-PD tool and rated by 17 PD specialists and 400 general neurologists (GN) and (ii) patients with PD (n = 2546) managed in real-world clinical settings. Vignette validity was based on concordance between PD experts’ clinical judgement and MANAGE-PD vignette categorization. Patient-level data was used for known-group comparisons (validity) and discordant pair analysis (clinical value). Results: The tool demonstrated strong validity and clinical value among PD specialists (intraclass coefficient [ICC] 0.843; Fleiss weighted kappa [ƙweighted] 0.79) and GN (ICC 0.690; ƙweighted 0.65) using patient vignettes. MANAGE-PD also demonstrated real-world validity and clinical value based on ability to identify patients with incrementally higher clinical, economic, and humanistic PD burden across categories of the tool (p < 0.01). Conclusions: MANAGE-PD demonstrated robust validity and clinical value in identifying patients with suboptimal PD symptom control. Clinical use of MANAGE-PD may complement treatment decision-making and facilitate timely and comprehensive management of patients with advancing PD.
|
|
