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.
5–2-1 criteria
Advanced Parkinson’s disease
Screening performance, clinical burden
Journal
BMC neurology
ISSN: 1471-2377
Titre abrégé: BMC Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jan 2022
24 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
26
07
2021
accepted:
19
01
2022
entrez:
25
1
2022
pubmed:
26
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35073872
doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02560-1
pii: 10.1186/s12883-022-02560-1
pmc: PMC8785442
doi:
Substances chimiques
Levodopa
46627O600J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
35Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Neurosci. 2012 Jul;122(7):333-7
pubmed: 22329569
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2015 Oct;21(10):1133-44
pubmed: 26233582
Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Nov;24(11):3063-72
pubmed: 18826746
Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):558-83
pubmed: 23880230
Parkinsons Dis. 2020 Mar 24;2020:7537924
pubmed: 32269748
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Nov;16(11):877-897
pubmed: 28931491
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Sep;40(9):922-35
pubmed: 1512391
J Parkinsons Dis. 2018;8(s1):S3-S8
pubmed: 30584159
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):127-137
pubmed: 28194657
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2017;132:183-196
pubmed: 28554407
Prev Vet Med. 2000 May 30;45(1-2):23-41
pubmed: 10802332
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2021 Nov;92:59-66
pubmed: 34695657
Eur J Neurol. 2019 Oct;26(10):1281-1288
pubmed: 31021043
J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Sep;20(9):1200-3
pubmed: 23810387
Intensive Care Med. 2003 Jul;29(7):1043-51
pubmed: 12734652
Qual Life Res. 1995 Jun;4(3):241-8
pubmed: 7613534
Neurology. 1967 May;17(5):427-42
pubmed: 6067254
Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 Dec;34(12):2063-2073
pubmed: 30016901
Funct Neurol. 2017 Jan/Mar;32(1):28-34
pubmed: 28380321
Mov Disord. 2003 Jul;18(7):738-50
pubmed: 12815652
Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2020 Oct;10(5):309-323
pubmed: 32873195
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017 Jul;18(7):435-450
pubmed: 28592904
Gerontologist. 1980 Dec;20(6):649-55
pubmed: 7203086
Mov Disord. 2018 Jul;33(6):974-981
pubmed: 29603405
Parkinsons Dis. 2017;2017:4047392
pubmed: 28239501
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Curr Opin Neurol. 2014 Aug;27(4):434-41
pubmed: 24978368
NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018 Jul 2;4:20
pubmed: 29978014
Front Aging Neurosci. 2016 May 27;8:121
pubmed: 27303289
Acta Neurol Scand. 2017 Nov;136(5):378-385
pubmed: 28133726
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2017 Dec;124(12):1529-1537
pubmed: 29116411
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011;4:433-9
pubmed: 22247618
BMC Neurol. 2019 Apr 2;19(1):50
pubmed: 30940119
Mov Disord. 2014 Jan;29(1):23-32
pubmed: 24151126
Clin Park Relat Disord. 2020 Feb 26;3:100046
pubmed: 34316631
Mov Disord. 2004 Sep;19(9):1020-8
pubmed: 15372591
Transl Neurodegener. 2015 Jan 08;4(1):1
pubmed: 25671103
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
pubmed: 3287615
J Neurol. 2011 Apr;258(4):579-85
pubmed: 20972684
Mov Disord. 2010 Aug 15;25(11):1646-51
pubmed: 20629164