SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Characterizing advanced Parkinson's disease: OBSERVE-PD observational study results of 2615 patients.

BMC Neurol · 2019-04-02

DOI: 10.1186/s12883-019-1276-8PMID: 30940119

Open accessresearch-article; Multicenter Study; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundThere are currently no standard diagnostic criteria for characterizing advanced Parkinson's disease (APD) in clinical practice, a critical component in determining ongoing clinical care and therapeutic strategies, including transitioning to device-aided treatment. The goal of this analysis was to determine the proportion of APD vs. non-advanced PD (non-APD) patients attending specialist PD clinics and to demonstrate the clinical burden of APD.MethodsOBSERVE-PD, a cross-sectional, international, observational study, was conducted with 2615 PD patients at 128 movement disorder centers in 18 countries. Motor and non-motor symptoms, activities of daily living, and quality-of-life end points were assessed. The correlation between physician's global assessment of advanced PD and the advanced PD criteria from a consensus of an international group of experts (Delphi criteria for APD) were evaluated.ResultsAccording to physician's judgment, 51% of patients were considered to have APD. There was a moderate correlation between physician's judgment and Delphi criteria for APD (K = 0.430; 95% CI 0.406-0.473). Activities of daily living, motor symptom severity, dyskinesia duration/disability, "Off" time duration, non-motor symptoms, and quality-of-life scores were worse among APD vs. non-APD patients (p ConclusionsThese findings aid in identifying standard APD classification parameters for use in practicing physicians. Improvements in identification of APD patients may be particularly relevant for optimizing treatment strategies including transitioning to device-aided treatment.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.