Neurodegenerative Disease Parkinson’s Disease
study recruits. It is possible that such patients would have very slowly progressing disease, making it difficult to apply the study results to patients found in normal clinical practice.68
In addition, those patients
who receive placebo during Phase 1 are more likely to drop out of the trial as a result of a lack of efficacy, which may cause a divergence in baseline characteristics and invalidate randomization.69
mentioned, in ADAGIO patients receiving placebo were allowed proceed to Phase 2 instead of discontinuing treatment.52
As previously Another
It is, however, not known whether PD progresses in a linear fashion, particularly in early disease when there is a rapid loss of dopaminergic cells.
New Developments in Parkinson’s Disease Assessment Scales
The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) has recently revised the UPDRS to include more non-motor measures and to make it less biased toward certain cultural practices.22
The revised scale, the MDS-UPDRS,
has four sections: •
• • •
section I: non-motor experiences of daily living; section II: motor experiences of daily living; section III: motor examination; and section IV: motor complications.66
1. Treves TA, Chandra V, Korczyn AD, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases: epidemiological comparison. 1. Descriptive aspects, Neuroepidemiology, 1993;12:336–44.
2. Ahlskog JE, Uitti RJ, Rasagiline, Parkinson neuroprotection, and delayed-start trials: still no satisfaction?, Neurology, 2010;74:1143–8.
3. Louis ED, Bennett DA, Mild Parkinsonian signs: An overview of an emerging concept, Mov Disord, 2007;22:1681–8.
4. Olanow CW, Watts RL, Koller WC, An algorithm (decision tree) for the management of Parkinson's disease (2001): treatment guidelines, Neurology, 2001;56(11 Suppl. 5):S1–S88.
5. Stephenson R, Siderowf A, Stern MB, Premotor Parkinson's disease: clinical features and detection strategies, Mov Disord, 2009;24(Suppl. 2):S665–70.
6. Fearnly JM, Lees AJ, Ageing and Parkinson’s disease: substantia nigra regional selectivity, Brain, 1991;114:2283–301.
7. Cheng HC, Ulane CM, Burke RE, Clinical progression in Parkinson disease and the neurobiology of axons, Ann Neurol, 2010;67:715–25.
8. Ahlskog JE, Parkinson's disease: medical and surgical treatment, Neurol Clin, 2001;19:579–605, vi.
9. Ahlskog JE, Muenter MD, Frequency of levodopa-related dyskinesias and motor fluctuations as estimated from the cumulative literature, Mov Disord, 2001;16:448–58.
10. Rascol O, Payoux P, Ferreira J, Brefel-Courbon C, The management of patients with early Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 2002;9:61–7.
11. Rascol O, Goetz C, Koller W, et al., Treatment interventions for Parkinson's disease: an evidence based assessment, Lancet, 2002;359:1589–98.
12. Hauser RA, Zesiewicz TA, Advances in the pharmacologic management of early Parkinson disease, Neurologist, 2007;13:126–32.
13. Henchcliffe C, Severt WL, Disease modification in Parkinson's disease, Drugs Aging, 2011;28:605–15.
14. Cubo E, Goetz CG, Methods of patient assessment in surgical therapy for movement disorders. In: Rating Scales for Patient Assessment in Surgical Therapy for Movement Disorders, 2002.
15. Hamilton M, Rating depressive patients, J Clin Psychiatry, 1980;41:21–4.
16. Hoehn MM, Yahr MD, Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality, Neurology, 1967;17:427–42.
17. Webster DD, Critical analysis of the disability in Parkinson's disease, Mod Treat, 1968;5:257–82.
18. Kennard C, Munro AJ, Park DM, The reliability of clinical assessment of Parkinson's disease, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 1984;47:322–3.
19. Ginanneschi A, Degl'Innocenti F, Magnolfi S, et al., Evaluation of Parkinson's disease: reliability of three rating scales,
98 Neuroepidemiology, 1988;7:38–41.
20. Mauduit N, Schück S, Allain H, Chaperon J, [Rating scales and questionnaires in Parkinson's disease], Rev Neurol (Paris), 2000;156(Suppl. 2 Pt 2):63–9.
21. Fahn S, Elton RL, Committee. MftUD, The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. In: Recent Developments in Parkinson's Disease, Macmillan Healthcare Information, 1987.
22. Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson's Disease, The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS): status and recommendations, Mov Disord, 2003;18:738–50.
23. Ramaker C, Marinus J, Stiggelbout AM, Van Hilten BJ, Systematic evaluation of rating scales for impairment and disability in Parkinson's disease, Mov Disord, 2002;17:867–76.
24. Richards M, Marder K, Cote L, Mayeux R, Interrater reliability of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor examination, Mov Disord, 1994;9:89–91.
25. Goetz CG, LeWitt PA, Weidenman M, Standardized training tools for the UPDRS activities of daily living scale: newly available teaching program, Mov Disord, 2003;18:1455–8.
26. Riggeal BD, Crucian GP, Seignourel P, et al., Cognitive decline tracks motor progression and not disease duration in Parkinson patients, Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 2007;3:955–8.
27. Martínez-Martín P, Gil-Nagel A, Gracia LM, et al., Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale characteristics and structure. The Cooperative Multicentric Group, Mov Disord, 1994;9:76–83.
28. Geminiani G, Cesana BM, Tamma F, et al., Interobserver reliability between neurologists in training of Parkinson's disease rating scales. A multicenter study, Mov Disord, 1991;6:330–5.
29. Schrag A, Spottke A, Quinn NP, Dodel R, Comparative responsiveness of Parkinson's disease scales to change over time, Mov Disord, 2009;24:813–8.
30. Harrison MB, Wylie SA, Frysinger RC, et al., UPDRS activity of daily living score as a marker of Parkinson's disease progression, Mov Disord, 2009;24:224–30.
31. Rascol O, Fitzer-Attas CJ, Hauser R, et al., A double-blind, delayed-start trial of rasagiline in Parkinson's disease (the ADAGIO study): prespecified and post-hoc analyses of the need for additional therapies, changes in UPDRS scores, and non-motor outcomes, Lancet Neurol, 2011;10:415–23.
32. Goetz CG, Leurgans S, Raman R, Parkinson Study Group, Placebo-associated improvements in motor function: comparison of subjective and objective sections of the UPDRS in early Parkinson's disease, Mov Disord, 2002;17:283–8.
33. Olin JT, Aarsland D, Meng X, Rivastigmine in the treatment of dementia associated with Parkinson's disease: effects on activities of daily living, Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2010;29:510–5.
34. Yousefi B, Tadibi V, Khoei AF, Montazeri A, Exercise therapy, quality of life, and activities of daily living in patients with
potential concern is that, by using slope estimates for measuring changes in UPDRS score, the data have been assumed to fit into a linear model.69
The UPDRS-ADL subscale is well known and commonly used to assess disease progression in PD. Moreover, it is quick for patients to self-complete. The ADAGIO trial provided an opportunity to assess the rate of change in UPDRS scores in a large sample of patients with early and untreated PD. Rasagiline treatment showed a potential disease-modifying effect, which supports its early use31,52
ADAGIO trial, rasagiline treatment also delayed the need for additional antiparkinsonian drugs and reduced the non-motor symptom fatigue. Disease progression may be more accurately assessed using the UPDRS-ADL subscale than the UPDRS motor subscale, because the former includes both motor and non-motor components. If the non-motor symptoms in PD can be identified, and subsequently decreased through appropriate treatment, this may also slow the clinical progression of the disease.30,56
Future studies separating the assessment of motor and non-motor symptoms will help determine treatment success and how these symptoms modulate as the disease progresses. n
Parkinson disease: a small scale quasi-randomised trial, Trials, 2009;10:67.
35. Hobson JP, Edwards NI, Meara RJ, The Parkinson's Disease Activities of Daily Living Scale: a new simple and brief subjective measure of disability in Parkinson's disease, Clin Rehabil, 2001;15:241–6.
36. Hauser RA, Schapira AH, Rascol O, et al., Randomized, double-blind, multicenter evaluation of pramipexole extended release once daily in early Parkinson's disease, Mov Disord, 2010;25:2542–9.
37. Schapira AH, Disease modification in Parkinson's disease, Lancet Neurol, 2004;3:362–8.
38. Leber P, Observations and suggestions on antidementia drug development, Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord, 1996;10(Suppl. 1):31–5.
39. Olanow CW, Hauser RA, Jankovic J, et al., A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, delayed start study to assess rasagiline as a disease modifying therapy in Parkinson's disease (the ADAGIO study): rationale, design, and baseline characteristics, Mov Disord, 2008;23:2194–201.
40. Parkinson Study Group, A controlled trial of rasagiline in early Parkinson disease: the TEMPO Study, Arch Neurol, 2002;59:1937–43.
41. Rascol O, Brooks DJ, Melamed E, et al., LARGO study group, Rasagiline as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations (LARGO, Lasting effect in Adjunct therapy with Rasagiline Given Once daily, study): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, Lancet, 2005;365:947–54.
42. Parkinson Study Group, A randomized placebo-controlled trial of rasagiline in levodopa-treated patients with Parkinson disease and motor fluctuations: the PRESTO study, Arch Neurol, 2005;62:241–8.
43. Finberg JP, Lamensdorf I, Weinstock M, et al., Pharmacology of rasagiline (N-propargyl-1R-aminoindan), Adv Neurol, 1999;80:495–9.
44. Maruyama W, Yamamoto T, Kitani K, et al., Mechanism underlying anti-apoptotic activity of a (-)deprenyl-related propargylamine, rasagiline, Mech Ageing Dev, 2000;116:181-91.
45. Maruyama W, Akao Y, Youdim MB, Naoi M, Neurotoxins induce apoptosis in dopamine neurons: protection by N- propargylamine-1(R)- and (S)-aminoindan, rasagiline and TV1022, J Neural Transm Suppl, 2000;171–86.
46. Maruyama W, Takahashi T, Youdim M, Naoi M, The anti-Parkinson drug, rasagiline, prevents apoptotic DNA damage induced by peroxynitrite in human dopaminergic neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells, J Neural Transm, 2002;109:467–81.
47. Maruyama W, Akao Y, Youdim MB, et al., Transfection-enforced Bcl-2 overexpression and an anti-Parkinson drug, rasagiline, prevent nuclear accumulation of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase induced by an endogenous dopaminergic
This scale has been validated for non-motor symptom assessment and correlation with the original UPDRS.70,71
In the MDS-UPDRS, motor and
non-motor ADL have been separated, so future trials using this scale will improve our understanding of the respective contribution of these parameters. Future rasagiline trials should help us understand how the assessment and subsequent treatment of non-motor symptoms might help improve the quality of life of patients with PD.
| Page 2
| Page 3
| Page 4
| Page 5
| Page 6
| Page 7
| Page 8
| Page 9
| Page 10
| Page 11
| Page 12
| Page 13
| Page 14
| Page 15
| Page 16
| Page 17
| Page 18
| Page 19
| Page 20
| Page 21
| Page 22
| Page 23
| Page 24
| Page 25
| Page 26
| Page 27
| Page 28
| Page 29
| Page 30
| Page 31
| Page 32
| Page 33
| Page 34
| Page 35
| Page 36
| Page 37
| Page 38
| Page 39
| Page 40
| Page 41
| Page 42
| Page 43
| Page 44
| Page 45
| Page 46
| Page 47
| Page 48
| Page 49
| Page 50
| Page 51
| Page 52
| Page 53
| Page 54
| Page 55
| Page 56
| Page 57
| Page 58
| Page 59
| Page 60
| Page 61
| Page 62
| Page 63
| Page 64
| Page 65
| Page 66
| Page 67
| Page 68
| Page 69
| Page 70
| Page 71
| Page 72
| Page 73
| Page 74
| Page 75
| Page 76
| Page 77
| Page 78
| Page 79
| Page 80
| Page 81
| Page 82
| Page 83
| Page 84
| Page 85
| Page 86
| Page 87
| Page 88
| Page 89
| Page 90
| Page 91
| Page 92
| Page 93
| Page 94
| Page 95
| Page 96
| Page 97
| Page 98
| Page 99
| Page 100
| Page 101
| Page 102
| Page 103
| Page 104
| Page 105
| Page 106
| Page 107
| Page 108