Abstract
Several screening tools are available to assist general neurologists in the timely identification of patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (PD) who may be eligible for referral for a device-aided therapy (DAT). However, it should be noted that not all of these clinical decision rules have been developed and validated in a thorough and consistent manner. Furthermore, only a limited number of head-to-head comparisons have been performed. Available studies suggest that D-DATS has a higher positive predictive value and higher specificity than the 5-2-1 criteria, while the sensitivity of both screening tools is similar. However, unanswered questions remain regarding the validity of the decision rules, such as whether the diagnostic performance measures from validation studies are generalizable to other populations. Ultimately, the question is whether a screening tool will effectively and efficiently improve the quality of life of patients with PD. To address this key question, an impact analysis should be performed. The authors intend to set up a multinational cluster randomised controlled trial to compare the D-DATS and 5-2-1 criteria on the downstream consequences of implementing these screening tools, with a particular focus on the impact on disability and quality of life.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder for which there is no cure (Bloem et al. 2021). The incidence and prevalence of PD are increasing, with an estimated global prevalence of 6.1 million patients in 2016 and a projected prevalence of 12.9 million patients in 2040 (Dorsey and Bloem 2018; Dorsey et al. 2018; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2024). Treatment for people with PD aims to reduce symptoms and improve functioning and quality of life (Foltynie et al. 2024). Pharmacologic treatment options for PD include oral and transdermal dopaminergic medications, with oral levodopa as the treatment of first choice (de Bie et al. 2020; Foltynie et al. 2024).
As PD progresses, the oral and transdermal treatments may become less effective and patients tend to develop motor complications, such as response fluctuations and dyskinesias (Armstrong and Okun 2020; Bloem et al. 2021). When motor complications can no longer be alleviated by optimizing the oral and transdermal treatment regimen, device-aided therapies (DAT) such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), continuous subcutaneous apomorphine injection (CSAI), levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel infusion (LCIG) or levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone intestinal gel infusion (LECIG) may be considered (Deuschl et al. 2022; Fabbri et al. 2023).
Due to the gradual and variable progression of PD, marking the stage of advanced PD and timing the initiation of DAT are not straightforward (Odin et al. 2015; Antonini et al. 2018; Pirtošek et al. 2020). In addition, there is no universal test or measure to determine if and when a patient should be referred for DAT (Auffret et al. 2023). Furthermore, patient-related factors influence the decision-making process, including age, cognition, comorbidity, type and severity of motor and non-motor symptoms, response to medication, and preferences and expectations of both the patient and their partner or other caregiver (Antonini et al. 2018; Nijhuis et al. 2019; Auffret et al. 2023). Importantly, non-patient factors may influence considerations for initiating DAT, such as local availability of care (e.g., national regulatory approval of DAT types, regional availability of DAT types, resource capacity of specialist DAT centres) as well as financial aspects (e.g., cost of DAT, reimbursement issues) (Auffret et al. 2023; Borovečki et al. 2023; Moes et al. 2023b).
Worldwide, there is evidence of both under- and over-referral of PD patients for DAT, consistent with the observed significant regional differences in the use of DAT (Richter et al. 2019; Henriksen et al. 2020; Auffret et al. 2023). Under-referral has been observed in Poland and Romania (Szasz et al. 2021; Moes et al. 2023b), and may result in missed opportunities to provide an effective treatment option to patients who may benefit from it. In contrast, over-referral is evident from observations of DBS referrals in the Netherlands, Germany, and Russia (Wächter et al. 2011; Geraedts et al. 2019; Bril et al. 2021). Similarly, the personal experience of some of our authors suggests that a significant proportion of referrals are inappropriate, e.g. PD patients who do not have motor complications or treatment-resistant tremor, or PD patients in whom the oral medication could easily be further optimised (comment based on authors’ personal experience). These observations are consistent with studies showing that general neurologists lack competence in identifying patients who may be candidates for DAT (Lange et al. 2017; Moes et al. 2023c).
For final assessment of eligibility for DAT, PD patients should be referred to a specialised clinic where movement disorder specialists carry out a comprehensive eligibility assessment (Auffret et al. 2023). Several tools and criteria have been developed to assist general neurologists in the timely referral of patients with advanced PD to these specialised centres (Moes et al. 2023b). Such screening tools for timely referral aim to prevent patients from being referred for DAT either too early or too late (Table 1). Widespread implementation of an accurate tool could potentially also help reduce regional disparities in access to DAT (Moes et al. 2023b).
Examples of available screening tools include the 5-2-1 criteria (Malaty et al. 2022), MANAGE-PD (Antonini et al. 2021), D-DATS (Moes et al. 2023a, d), and Stimulus (Moro et al. 2009, 2016) (Table 2; Fig. 1). In general, these tools include a combination of different patient and treatment characteristics, such as the duration and frequency of “off” periods and the amount of dopaminergic medication taken per day (Auffret et al. 2023; Moes et al. 2023b).
Although the available screening tools have received considerable attention in the international literature, limitations and criticisms have also been raised. For example, the MANAGE-PD was developed and validated using a suboptimal methodology (Antonini et al. 2021; Moes et al. 2022). In addition, the 5-2-1 criteria have a relatively low positive predictive value, meaning that many patients who score positive on the tool are not actually eligible for DAT referral (Moes et al. 2023b). This may lead to inappropriate referrals and an additional burden on the referral network.
Given the variety of screening tools for timely referral for DAT, there is a need to clarify which tool has the best performance in clinical practice. This position paper presents a perspective on answering this question, i.e. how to find the optimal screening tool for timely referral of PD patients for DAT while minimizing over-referral. The ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life of PD patients, not simply to increase the number of DAT users. To achieve this goal, we advocate conducting an impact analysis using a cluster randomised controlled trial.
Under-referral and over-referral
In PD patients with motor complications for whom the oral and/or transdermal medication regimen cannot be further optimised, DATs contribute to improved motor and non-motor scores and quality of life (Dafsari et al. 2018; Bloem et al. 2021; Deuschl et al. 2022). Therefore, timely identification of patients who may be eligible for DAT is deemed important. In addition, delaying referral may result in the patient having already developed contraindications to one or more types of DAT, i.e. the optimal time to initiate DAT has passed.
Nonetheless, optimisation of the oral and transdermal medication regimen with adjuvant therapies (MAO-B inhibitors, dopamine agonists, COMT inhibitors and amantadine) remains key, as these optimisation steps are less invasive and less expensive than DATs (Stowe et al. 2010; Gray et al. 2022; Hauser et al. 2022; Sako et al. 2023). This is likely to be even more important in healthcare systems that face tighter budget constraints and therefore have fewer resources to offer DAT (Auffret et al. 2023; Chaudhuri and Batzu 2023).
It should also be noted that in patients for whom the treating physician considers DAT appropriate, up to 50% refuse referral or delay initiation of DAT at the time of discussion (Dinkelbach et al. 2017; Szász et al. 2019; Fasano et al. 2019; Moes et al. 2023d). Given this patient reluctance, timely identification of patients potentially eligible for DAT using a screening tool will not necessarily result in referral of all identified patients.
In short, it is important for general neurologists treating PD patients to recognise when a patient is eligible for referral to a hospital offering DAT (Pirtošek et al. 2020). There is, of course, a trade-off between very early recognition and late referral. Too early recognition can lead to over-referral and unnecessary burden on the referral system. Late referral may delay initiation of an effective treatment option to patients who could have already benefitted from it.
In the field of PD care and DAT, four groups of stakeholders may be identified: patients, healthcare providers, health insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry. When evaluating screening tools for DAT referral, each of these four groups is likely to prefer timely referral, given that DAT can be a cost-effective treatment that leads to significant health gains in adequately selected patients (Norlin et al. 2021). However, when considering the balance of desirability between high sensitivity (i.e. more false positives, hence over-referral) and high specificity (i.e. more false negatives, hence under-referral) of such tools, the four different groups may have different preferences (Table 3).
Tools for timely referral for DAT
A review article from 2023 provides an overview of the available tools for timely referral for DAT (Moes et al., 2023b). Overall, there are tools for identifying patients with advanced PD, screening for eligibility for referral for any DAT, and screening for eligibility for DBS. A comprehensive review of the various tools is beyond the scope of this article.
In this article, we only consider the 5-2-1 criteriaFootnote 1 and D-DATSFootnote 2, because these two criteria are the simplest and apply to all subtypes of DAT. Importantly, no uniform outcome measure was used in the development of the 5-2-1 criteria and D-DATS. Whereas the 5-2-1 criteria were developed for recognizing advanced PD, the outcome measure of D-DATS is eligibility for referral for DAT (Malaty et al. 2022; Moes et al. 2023d).
The screening performance of the two tools is reported in different studies (Aldred et al. 2020; Malaty et al. 2022; Moes et al. 2023a, d). However, only few studies have directly compared the performance of these tools. A study by Moes et al., in which the D-DATS was developed, compared the D-DATS with the 5-2-1 criteria (Moes et al. 2023d). Using decision curve analysis, this study demonstrated that D-DATS outperformed the 5-2-1 criteria at every possible cutoff point. At an arbitrarily chosen cutoff point of 6.4 points on the D-DATS, this tool had a higher specificity and positive predictive value than the 5-2-1 criteria, with almost similar sensitivity (Moes et al. 2023d).
The low specificity and low positive predictive value of the 5-2-1 criteria is also evident from the validation study by Malaty et al., although these figures were not explicitly reported in this study. These were calculated based on the data retrieved from this paper (Malaty et al. 2022; Moes et al. 2023b). Despite the relatively low positive predictive value of the 5-2-1 criteria, its use is recommended by different stakeholders (Malaty et al. 2022; AbbVie Pro website for UK Healthcare Professionals 2023).
Knowledge gaps
The research on screening tools for timely referral for DAT is subject to a number of limitations.
The first and most important limitation is that D-DATS and the 5-2-1 criteria have only been compared in the Netherlands in an outpatient setting, with five Dutch experts serving as the reference test (gold standard) for determining eligibility for referral for DAT. It is unknown whether the reported diagnostic accuracy measures are also generalizable to other countries and to hospitalised patients. After all, there may be relevant international differences in the availability of resources, and the criteria for initiating DAT may also vary (Auffret et al. 2023). The latter point is supported by the OBSERVE-PD studies, which show considerable practice variation across European countries (de Oliveira et al. 2019; Takáts et al. 2020; Szasz et al. 2021; Pedrosa et al. 2022; Stefani et al. 2022; Fasano et al. 2022).
A second limitation is that current research on screening tools for DAT has been limited to reporting measures of screening performance (such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC)). No empirical data have been presented on the relative ‘cost’ of a false-positive versus a false-negative classification. Consequently, there is no direct evidence that the use of these tools leads to better patient outcomes at affordable costs. This calls for further research with longer-term follow-up and comparisons of different tools.
Third, both the 5-2-1 criteria and D-DATS have a low sensitivity for identifying patients with treatment-resistant tremor or early-onset motor complications who may be candidates for DBS (Deuschl et al. 2022). In addition, the tools do not take into account activities of daily living or quality of life, both of which may be important in assessing eligibility for DAT.
A fourth limitation is the lack of research on the implementation and usability of the tools. Issues that need to be investigated include whether the tools are used consistently (e.g., ease of use, time constraints), whether the qualification of the user affects the outcome of the tool (e.g., differences between GPs, PD nurses and neurologists), and how often users override the tool’s recommendation.
Impact analysis of clinical decision rules
The scientific literature on decision rules shows that clinical decision rules may help physicians when decisions are complex, when the stakes are high, or when there are opportunities to reduce costs without compromising patient care (McGinn et al. 2000; Reilly and Evans 2006).
Three excellent reviews on the development and evaluation of clinical decision rules have been written by Reilly & Evans, Wallace et al., and Cowley et al. ((Reilly and Evans 2006; Wallace et al. 2011; Cowley et al. 2019). These reviews and the underlying scientific literature distinguish three main phases in the development of a clinical decision rule: (1) derivation/development, (2) external validation, and (3) impact analysis to determine the impact on patient care. After the impact analysis, two additional phases can be considered: (4) cost-effectiveness analysis and (5) long-term implementation and dissemination (Fig. 2).
To maximise the accuracy and clinical utility of a clinical decision rule, it is important that it is developed, validated and evaluated in a systematic manner (Wallace et al. 2011). Reilly et al. argue that well-developed decision rules are exclusively evidence-based, their predictions empirically validated and their benefits proven in clinical trials (Reilly and Evans 2006). However, multiple review studies have demonstrated deficiencies in the methodological quality and reporting of development and validation studies, limiting the usefulness of clinical decision rules in practice (Bouwmeester et al. 2012; Collins et al. 2014; Cowley et al. 2019). To improve the quality of the development and validation of clinical decision rules, it is recommended to use the widely accepted TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guidelines (Collins et al. 2015).
The optimal study design for an impact analysis is a cluster randomised trial with centres as clusters (Wallace et al. 2011; Cowley et al. 2019). However, cluster randomised trials are associated with significant practical, logistical, and economic challenges (Cowley et al. 2019). Therefore, evaluating the impact of a decision rule has been described as ‘the next painful step’ in the development process (Lee 1990).
Intended research
Does a model that has been shown in validation studies to adequately predict eligibility for DAT referral still require an impact analysis using a large, multicentre, cluster-randomised trial? The answer to this question depends on the number of acceptable false positive and false negative predictions and their impact on patient management and outcomes (Moons et al. 2009). In the absence of empirical data, further research is required to determine which of the two screening tools is better (5-2-1 criteria or D-DATS) and whether implementation of these tools leads to a demonstrably beneficial effect (quality of life, cost-effectiveness).
To address the identified knowledge gaps, we propose to conduct three studies. The first two studies will focus on the broad external validation of the D-DATS and the 5-2-1 criteria. The third study is an impact analysis of both tools.
In order to broaden the external validation, we will start by extending the D-DATS validation study (referred to as VALIDATE) to an evaluation by European experts and possibly also international experts outside of Europe (Moes et al. 2023a). To this end, we will invite a number of international PD experts to assess a random selection of patient vignettes from VALIDATE. As in the VALIDATE-study, the initial assessment of eligibility for referral for DAT will be made individually by each expert. Once the individual assessments of the international experts have been collected, the experts will meet to discuss cases of disagreement. Ultimately, the judgment of the expert panel will be determined by group consensus. The group consensus judgment of this international panel of experts is then used to validate D-DATS and compare it with the 5-2-1 criteria.
As a second study, we plan to perform a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients referred for DAT in several international expert clinics. We will examine the ability of the tools to triage referrals, i.e. to assess the appropriateness of actual referrals. It should be noted that in a retrospective study design, sensitivity and specificity cannot be investigated, as there are no data available for the non-referred patients.
Thirdly, to examine the impact of the two clinical decision rules (D-DATS and 5-2-1 criteria), a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) needs to be conducted (Fig. 3). In this study, the primary research question is whether implementation of D-DATS improves quality of life outcomes for patients with PD. The secondary research question is whether D-DATS outperforms the 5-2-1 criteria in reducing unnecessary referrals and improving outcomes. The cluster RCT comprises three groups: a group receiving care as usual (no tool), a group in which referral is based on D-DATS, and a group in which referral is based on the 5-2-1 criteria. The primary outcome measure will be patient quality of life (e.g., PDQ-8 (Jenkinson et al. 1997), and the secondary outcome measures are disability (e.g., MDS-UPDRS part II, or the AMC Linear Disability Score (ALDS) (Weisscher et al. 2007; Odekerken et al. 2013; Rodriguez-Blazquez et al. 2013; Gonzalez-Robles et al. 2023)), the number of patients receiving DAT, the number of early referrals, and the number of medication adjustments at the expert centre.
The proposed multinational cluster RCT will be conducted in several European countries. In each participating country, there will be one expert centre that already receives a high volume of referrals for DAT from general clinics in the vicinity of the expert centre. Depending on the exact study design, two to five referral centres per expert centre will participate. Randomisation per referring clinic will be used for tool assignment (no tool [care as usual], 5-2-1 criteria, or D-DATS). In order to ensure the generalisability of the study results, a multinational design will be employed, which will facilitate the enrolment process and allow the required sample size to be reached in a timely manner.
Conclusion
Given the increasing prevalence of Parkinson’s disease (PD), the growing need to efficiently utilise healthcare resources and minimise costs, and the recommendation that eligible PD patients should be offered treatment with DAT, it is of critical importance to implement an accurate screening tool for timely referral for DAT. Although several tools are available aiming to achieve this goal, it is still unclear which tool performs best. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether widespread implementation of the optimal screening tool will result in improvements in quality of care and cost-effectiveness. To address these pressing questions, international collaboration in methodologically sound research is essential.
Notes
The 5-2-1 criteria are similar to MANAGE-PD, but MANAGE-PD is more comprehensive. MANAGE-PD and the 5-2-1 criteria are based on a Delphi study sponsored by AbbVie (Antonini et al. 2018). It is important to note that these tools have not been developed in accordance with accepted guidelines for decision rule development (e.g., TRIPOD guideline (Collins et al. 2015; Cowley et al. 2019).
The development study of D-DATS followed the recommendations of the TRIPOD guideline. In the development study by Moes et al. 2023d, the tool had not been given a specific name. However, the tool is now recognised as D-DATS, an acronym that stands for Dutch Device-Aided Therapy Screening. This acronym was first used in the review by Moes et al. 2023b. The adjective “Dutch” refers to the country in which the tool was developed and validated, but it should be noted that the tool is in fact available in English.
References
AbbVie Pro website for UK Healthcare Professionals (2023) What is 5 or 2 or 1? https://www.abbviepro.com/gb/en/neuroscience/parkinsons/products/progression-of-pd/what-is-5-or-2-or-1.html. Accessed 3 Jan 2024
Aldred J, Anca-Herschkovitsch M, Antonini A et al (2020) Application of the ‘5-2-1’ screening criteria in advanced Parkinson’s disease: interim analysis of DUOGLOBE. Neurodegener Dis Manag 10:309–323. https://doi.org/10.2217/nmt-2020-0021
Antonini A, Stoessl AJ, Kleinman LS et al (2018) Developing consensus among movement disorder specialists on clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson’s disease: a multi-country Delphi-panel approach. Curr Med Res Opin 34:2063–2073. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1502165
Antonini A, Odin P, Schmidt P et al (2021) Validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool: a clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson’s disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 92:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2021.10.009
Armstrong MJ, Okun MS (2020) Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson Disease: a review. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc 323:548–560. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.22360
Auffret M, Weiss D, Stocchi F et al (2023) Access to device-aided therapies in advanced Parkinson’s disease: navigating clinician biases, patient preference, and prognostic uncertainty. J Neural Transm 130:1411–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-023-02668-9
Ben-Shlomo Y, Darweesh S, Llibre-Guerra J et al (2024) The epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 403:283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01419-8
Bloem BR, Okun MS, Klein C (2021) Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 397:2284–2303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00218-X
Borovečki F, Perković R, Kovacs N et al (2023) Are Parkinson’s disease patients referred too late for device-aided therapies and how can better informed and earlier referrals be encouraged? J Neural Transm 130:1405–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-023-02680-z
Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S et al (2012) Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001221
Bril EV, Tomskiy АA, Poddubskaya AA et al (2021) [Analysing the reasons for rejection of neurosurgery intervention in patients with Parkinson’s disease referred to an extrapyramidal movement disorders clinic]. Ann Clin Exp Neurol 15:43–53 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.54101/ACEN.2021.3.5
Chaudhuri KR, Batzu L (2023) Can continuous levodopa delivery be achieved in the absence of Intrajejunal Levodopa Infusion? Implications for India and Underserved Countries. Mov Disord Clin Pract 11:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13915
Collins GS, De Groot JA, Dutton S et al (2014) External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-40
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD StatementThe TRIPOD Statement. Ann Intern Med 162:55–63. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697
Cowley LE, Farewell DM, Maguire S, Kemp AM (2019) Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature. Diagn Progn Res 3:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0060-y
Dafsari HS, Silverdale M, Strack M et al (2018) Nonmotor symptoms evolution during 24 months of bilateral subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 33:421–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27283
de Bie RMA, Clarke CE, Espay AJ et al (2020) Initiation of pharmacological therapy in Parkinson’s disease: when, why, and how. Lancet Neurol 19:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30036-3
de Oliveira LM, Barbosa ER, Aquino CC et al (2019) Deep brain stimulation in patients with mutations in Parkinson’s Disease-related genes: a systematic review. Mov Disord Clin Pract 6:359–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.12795
Deuschl G, Antonini A, Costa J et al (2022) European Academy of Neurology/Movement Disorder Society-European Section Guideline on the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease: I. Invasive therapies. Mov Disord 37:1360–1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29066
Dinkelbach L, Möller B, Witt K et al (2017) How to improve patient education on deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: the CARE Monitor study. BMC Neurol 17:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-017-0820-7
Dorsey ER, Bloem BR (2018) The Parkinson pandemic - A call to action. JAMA Neurol 75:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3299
Dorsey ER, Elbaz A, Nichols E et al (2018) Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson’s disease, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 17:939–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30295-3
Fabbri M, Barbosa R, Rascol O (2023) Off-time Treatment options for Parkinson’s Disease. Neurol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-022-00435-8
Fasano A, Fung VSC, Lopiano L et al (2019) Characterizing advanced Parkinson’s disease: OBSERVE-PD observational study results of 2615 patients. BMC Neurol 19:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1276-8
Fasano A, Fung VSC, Seppi K et al (2022) Intercountry comparisons of advanced Parkinson’s disease symptoms and management: analysis from the OBSERVE-PD observational study. Acta Neurol Scand 146:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13648
Foltynie T, Bruno V, Fox S et al (2024) Medical, surgical, and physical treatments for Parkinson’s disease. Lancet (London England) 403:305–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01429-0
Geraedts VJ, Kuijf ML, van Hilten JJ et al (2019) Selecting candidates for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: the role of patients’ expectations. Park Relat Disord 66:207–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.07.011
Gonzalez-Robles C, Bartlett M, Burnell M et al (2023) Embedding patient input in Outcome measures for Long-Term Disease-modifying Parkinson Disease trials. Mov Disord. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29691
Gray R, Patel S, Ives N et al (2022) Long-term effectiveness of adjuvant treatment with Catechol-O-Methyltransferase or monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with dopamine agonists among patients with Parkinson Disease uncontrolled by Levodopa Therapy: the PD MED Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol 79:131–140. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4736
Hauser RA, Goud S, Formella AE (2022) Potential utility of amantadine DR/ER in persons with Parkinson’s disease meeting 5-2-1 criteria for device aided therapy. Clin Park Relat Disord 6:100123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prdoa.2021.100123
Henriksen T, Dalhoff KP, Hansen HE et al (2020) Access and Use of device-aided therapies for Parkinson’s Disease in Denmark. Mov Disord Clin Pract 7:656–663. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.12988
Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V et al (1997) The PDQ-8: development and validation of a short-form Parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Psychol Heal 12:805–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449708406741
Lange M, Mauerer J, Schlaier J et al (2017) Underutilization of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease? A survey on possible clinical reasons. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3122-3
Lee TH (1990) Evaluating decision aids: the next painful step [Editorial]. J Gen Intern Med 5:528–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02600886
Malaty IA, Martinez-Martin P, Chaudhuri KR et al (2022) Does the 5-2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5-2-1-positive patients in 7 countries. BMC Neurol 22:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02560-1
McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC et al (2000) Users’ guides to the medical literature XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 284:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.1.79
Moes HR, Buskens E, van Laar T (2022) Letter to the editor, validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool: a clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson’s disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 97:99–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2022.03.014
Moes HR, Buskens E, Portman A et al (2023a) VALIdation of models for assessing eligibility for referral for device-aided treatment in Parkinson’s disease (VALIDATE) [abstract]. Mov Disord 38:suppl1
Moes HR, Henriksen T, Sławek J et al (2023b) Tools and criteria to select patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease for device-aided therapies: a narrative review. J Neural Transm. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-023-02656-z
Moes HR, ten Kate JM, Buskens E, van Laar T (2023c) Patient referral for device-aided therapies in Parkinson’s Disease is suboptimal; a Dutch survey. Mov Disord Clin Pract 10:1821–1823. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13913
Moes HR, ten Kate JM, Portman AT et al (2023d) Timely referral for device-aided therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Development of a screening tool. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2023.105359
Moons KGM, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. BMJ 338:1487–1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b606
Moro E, Allert N, Eleopra R et al (2009) A decision tool to support appropriate referral for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 256:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-0069-1
Moro E, Schüpbach M, Wächter T et al (2016) Referring Parkinson’s disease patients for deep brain stimulation: a RAND/UCLA appropriateness study. J Neurol 263:112–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-015-7942-x
Nijhuis FAP, van den Heuvel L, Bloem BR et al (2019) The patient’s perspective on shared decision-making in advanced parkinson’s disease: a cross-sectional survey study. Front Neurol 10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00896
Norlin JM, Willis M, Persson U et al (2021) Swedish guidelines for device-aided therapies in Parkinson’s disease —economic evaluation and implementation. Acta Neurol Scand 144:170–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13434
Odekerken VJJ, van Laar T, Staal MJ et al (2013) Subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus bilateral deep brain stimulation for advanced Parkinson’s disease (NSTAPS study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 12:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70264-8
Odin P, Ray Chaudhuri K, Slevin JT et al (2015) Collective physician perspectives on non-oral medication approaches for the management of clinically relevant unresolved issues in Parkinson’s disease: Consensus from an international survey and discussion program. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 21:1133–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.07.020
Pedrosa DJ, Gandor F, Jost WH et al (2022) Characterization of advanced Parkinson’s disease in Germany: results of the non-interventional OBSERVE-PD study. Neurol Res Pract 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-022-00176-x
Pirtošek Z, Bajenaru O, Kovács N et al (2020) Update on the management of Parkinson’s Disease for General neurologists. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9131474. Parkinsons Dis 2020:
Reilly BM, Evans AT (2006) Translating Clinical Research into Clinical Practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med 144:201–209. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00009
Richter D, Bartig D, Jost W et al (2019) Dynamics of device-based treatments for Parkinson’s disease in Germany from 2010 to 2017: application of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine, levodopa–carbidopa intestinal gel, and deep brain stimulation. J Neural Transm 126:879–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-019-02034-8
Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Rojo-Abuin JM, Alvarez-Sanchez M et al (2013) The MDS-UPDRS part II (motor experiences of daily living) resulted useful for assessment of disability in Parkinson’s disease. Park Relat Disord 19:889–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.05.017
Sako W, Kogo Y, Koebis M et al (2023) Comparative efficacy and safety of adjunctive drugs to levodopa for fluctuating Parkinson’s disease - network meta-analysis. Npj Park Dis 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-023-00589-8
Stefani A, Tessitore A, Tambasco N et al (2022) Criteria for identification of advanced Parkinson’s disease: the results of the Italian subgroup of OBSERVE-PD observational study. BMC Neurol 22:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02554-z
Stowe RL, Ives NJ, Clarke CE et al (2010) Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of adjunct treatment to levodopa therapy in Parkinson’s disease patients with motor complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007166
Szasz JA, Jianu DC, Simu MA et al (2021) Characterizing Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: Romanian subanalysis from the OBSERVE-PD study. Parkinsons Dis 2021:6635618. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6635618
Szász JA, Constantin VA, Orbán-Kis K et al (2019) Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 15:3187–3195. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S230052. Profile Of Patients With Advanced Parkinson’s disease Suitable For Device-Aided Therapies: Restrospective Data Of A Large Cohort Of Romanian Patients
Takáts A, Aschermann Z, Vécsei L et al (2020) [Advanced Parkinson’s disease characteristics in clinical practice: results from the OBSERVE-PD study and sub-analysis of the Hungarian data]. Ideggyogy Sz 73:261–268. https://doi.org/10.18071/isz.73.0261
Wächter T, Mínguez-Castellanos A, Valldeoriola F et al (2011) A tool to improve pre-selection for deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 258:641–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-010-5814-y
Wallace E, Smith SM, Perera-Salazar R et al (2011) Framework for the impact analysis and implementation of clinical prediction rules (CPRs). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-62. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 11:
Weisscher N, Post B, De Haan RJ et al (2007) The AMC Linear Disability Score in patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease. Neurology 69:2155–2161. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000295666.30948.9d
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions for improving this manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the University Medical Center Groningen, Junior Scientific Masterclass [grant number GR-AGIKO 18-02]. The funding source was not involved in the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
‒ HRM received a PhD research grant from the University Medical Center Groningen, Junior Scientific Masterclass [grant number GR-AGIKO 18-02]. This PhD project includes the development and validation of the Dutch DAT Screening tool (D-DATS). HRM has received a speaker fee from Centrafarm.
‒ HSD was funded by the EU Joint Program ‒ Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND), the Prof. Klaus Thiemann Foundation in the German Society of Neurology, the Felgenhauer Foundation, the Koeln Fortune program of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne and has received honoraria by Everpharma, Kyowa Kirin, Bial, Oruen, and Stadapharm.
‒ WHJ has received speaker and consultant for AbbVie, Bial, Britannia/Stada, and Zambon.
‒ NK has no disclosures.
‒ ZP has received honoraria from AbbVie and Britannia.
‒ TH has received honoraria for talks for AbbVie, Britannia, Convatec, Nordic Infucare, and NeuroDerm. She is PI at studies funded by AbbVie and Britannia. She is also a DMC member at a study sponsored by Lundbeck.
‒ CFP has received royalties from Elsevier, Springer Verlag, honoraria from Abbvie, Zentiva, International Parkinson Disease and Movement Disorders Society, all outside of the present work.
‒ MM has received honoraria from Abbvie, Stada, Medis, Ipsen, and Glenmark.
‒ EB has no disclosures to report regarding this contribution.
‒ TvL has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Britannia Pharm., Eurocept, and Clexio, and research grants from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Dutch Brain Foundation, and the University Medical Center Groningen.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Moes, H.R., Dafsari, H.S., Jost, W.H. et al. Grasping the big picture: impact analysis of screening tools for timely referral for device-aided therapies. J Neural Transm (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-024-02783-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-024-02783-1