Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to describe treatment patterns in patients newly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD) in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used the US IBM MarketScan database (2012-2017) and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) (2004-2015) database to describe treatment patterns in incident PD cases. Patients fulfilling the case definition of PD, ≥30 years, with a 2-year baseline period prior to the index date (date of PD diagnosis), and ≥90 days of follow-up were included in the study. Treatment was classified as monotherapy (one PD medication for ≥60 continuous days), polytherapy (at least two PD medications concurrently for ≥60 days), or untreated (no PD medication prescription). Treatment patterns described included type of medication, duration and outcome of treatment.ResultsThere were 11,280 patients in IBM MarketScan and 7775 patients in CPRD who fulfilled the study criteria. The proportion of treated patients was 62.4% (US) and 78.6% (UK). The majority of patients were prescribed monotherapy as first-line treatment (US: 85.2%, UK: 68.5%). Levodopa was the most frequently prescribed first-line medication (US: 70.1%, UK: 29.0%). There were 57.9% in the US and 23.8% in the UK who remained on the first monotherapy treatment till the end of the study.ConclusionThe study has highlighted the current treatment practices in the US and UK, and underscored differences in the two regions impacted by treatment policies and guidelines.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.