Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundPharyngeal dysphagia is a common symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) leading to severe complications. PD-related pharyngeal dysphagia (PDrPD) may significantly improve in up to half of patients following acute oral levodopa challenge.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) on PDrPD.MethodsForty-five PD patients under LCIG treatment were available for retrospective analysis. In all patients with PDrPD who underwent flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in the clinical "on-state" both before and after implementation of LCIG treatment, FEES videos were systematically reassessed. PDrPD was characterized using a PD-specific FEES score evaluating premature bolus spillage, penetration/aspiration, and pharyngeal residue. Further, the duration of white-out was assessed, as a parameter for pharyngeal bradykinesia.ResultsEleven patients with PDrPD (mean age 74.6 ± 4.4 years; mean Hoehn and Yahr stage 3.8 ± 0.6) received FEES both before and after the onset of LCIG treatment. The mean swallowing score improved from 14.9 ± 7.3 to 13.0 ± 6.9 after implementation of LCIG; however, this difference was not significant (p=0.312). Premature bolus spillage decreased significantly (p=0.312). Premature bolus spillage decreased significantly (p=0.312). Premature bolus spillage decreased significantly (.ConclusionsLCIG may affect PDrPD and reduce premature bolus spillage and pharyngeal bradykinesia. Future studies with larger sample sizes are required to follow-up on these pilot results and identify which factors predict a good response of PDrPD to LCIG treatment.
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.