Browsing by Author "Chaudhuri, K. Ray"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- 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 countriesPublication . Malaty, Irene A.; Martinez-Martin, Pablo; Chaudhuri, K. Ray; Odin, Per; Skorvanek, Matej; Jimenez-Shahed, Joohi; Soileau, Michael J.; Lindvall, Susanna; Domingos, Josefa; Jones, Sarah; Alobaidi, Ali; Jalundhwala, Yash J.; Kandukuri, Prasanna L.; Onuk, Koray; Bergmann, Lars; Femia, Samira; Lee, Michelle Y.; Wright, Jack; Antonini, AngeloBackground: 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.
- Psychometric properties of clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson’s disease : real-world evidence from G7 countriesPublication . Antonini, Angelo; Pahwa, Rajesh; Odin, Per; Henriksen, Tove; Soileau, Michael J.; Rodriguez-Cruz, Ramon; Isaacson, Stuart H.; Merola, Aristide; Lindvall, Susanna; Domingos, Josefa; Alobaidi, Ali; Jalundhwala, Yash J.; Kandukuri, Prasanna L.; Parra, Juan Carlos; Kukreja, Pavnit K.; Onuk, Koray; Bergmann, Lars; Pike, James; Chaudhuri, K. RayIntroduction: Standardized and validated criteria to define advanced Parkinson’s disease (PD) or identify patient eligibility for device-aided therapy are needed. This study assessed the psychometric properties of clinical indicators of advanced PD and eligibility for device-aided therapy in a large population. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the Adelphi Parkinson’s Disease Specific Programme collected data from device-aided therapy-naïve people with PD in G7 countries. We assessed the presence of 15 clinical indicators of advancing PD and seven indicators of eligibility for device-aided therapy in patients classified with advanced PD or as eligible for device-aided therapy by the treating physician. Accuracy was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) and multivariable logistic regression models. Construct validity was examined via known-group comparisons of disease severity and burden among patients with and without each clinical indicator. Results: Of 4714 PD patients, 14.9% were classified with advanced PD and 17.5% as eligible for device-aided therapy by physician judgment. The presence of each clinical indicator was 1.9- to 7.3-fold more likely in patients classified with advanced PD. Similarly, the presence of device-aided therapy eligibility indicators was 1.8- to 5.5-fold more likely in patients considered eligible for device-aided therapy. All indicators demonstrated high clinical screening accuracy for identifying advanced PD (AUC range 0.84–0.89) and patients eligible for device-aided therapy (AUC range 0.73–0.80). The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score, cognitive function, quality of life, and caregiver burden were significantly worse in indicator-positive patients. Conclusion: Specific clinical indicators of advanced PD and eligibility for device-aided therapy demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in a large sample, and thus may provide an objective and reliable approach for patient identification and treatment optimization.