Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAdherence to the 2011 Japanese guidelines for treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) in real-life practice is unknown.MethodsIn this retrospective longitudinal observational study, we examined patterns and trends in anti-PD drug prescriptions in 20,936 patients (≥30 years of age with newly diagnosed PD [International Classification of Diseases-Tenth code G20 or PD Hoehn and Yahr scale 1-5] and one or more prescriptions) using nationwide registry data between 2008 and 2016. Data are presented as descriptive statistics.ResultsHalf (49.6%) of the patients received levodopa (L-dopa) monotherapy, followed by non-ergot dopamine agonists (DA) prescribed as monotherapy (8.3%) or with L-dopa (8.1%). Consistent with the guidelines, 75% of patients were prescribed within 13 days of initial diagnosis; L-dopa monotherapy was the most prescribed drug in patients ≥70 years of age, whereas non-ergot DA monotherapy was more likely to be prescribed than L-dopa in patients between 30 and 50 years of age. Inconsistent with the guidelines, L-dopa monotherapy was the most prescribed drug in patients between 51 and 69 years of age. Over the course of 4 years of treatment, the prescription rate of L-dopa monotherapy and non-ergot DA monotherapy decreased by 63.7% and 44.1%, respectively, whereas that of L-dopa and non-ergot DA combination therapy increased by 103.7%. Combination therapy with L-dopa, non-ergot DA, and monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors was gradually increased at a later stage.ConclusionThese results highlight that the state of PD treatment in Japan adheres to most of the recommendations in the 2011 national guidelines, but also precedes the 2018 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.