Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundLevodopa (LD) is the most effective drug to treat Parkinson's disease (PD). The recently concluded multinational Parkinson's Real-World Impact Assessment (PRISM) trial revealed highly variable prescription patterns of LD monotherapy across six European countries. The reasons remain unclear.MethodsIn this post hoc analysis of PRISM trial data, we used multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify socio-economic factors affecting prescription practice. We applied receiver-operated characteristics and split sample validation to test model accuracy to predict treatment class (LD monotherapy vs. all other treatments).ResultsSubject age, disease duration, and country of residence were significant predictors of treatment class. The chance of receiving LD monotherapy increased by 6.9% per year of age. In contrast, longer disease duration reduced the likelihood of receiving LD monotherapy by 9.7% per year. Compared to the other countries, PD patients in Germany were 67.1% less likely and their counterparts in the UK 86.8% more likely to receive an LD monotherapy. The model classification accuracy of treatment class assignment was 80.1%. The area under the curve to predict treatment condition was 0.758 (95% CI [0.715, 0.802]). Split sample validation revealed poor sensitivity (36.6%), but excellent specificity (92.7%) to predict treatment class.ConclusionThe relative lack of socio-economic variables affecting prescription practice in the study sample and limited model accuracy to predict treatment class suggest the presence of additional, country-specific factors affecting prescription patterns that were not assessed in the PRISM trial. Our findings indicate that physicians still avoid prescribing LD monotherapy to younger PD patients.
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.