The most severe parkinsonian patients are most improved with duodenal levodopa infusion

Objectives:To find variables correlated to improvement with intraduodenal levodopa/carbidopa infusion (Duodopa) in order to identify potential candidates for this treatment. Two clinical studies comparing Duodopa with oral treatments in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease have shown significant improvement in percent on-time on a global treatment response scale (TRS) based on hourly and half-hourly clinical ratings and in median UPDRS scores.Methods:Data from study 1 comparing infusion with Sinemet CR (12 patients, Nyholm et al, Clin Neuropharmacol 2003; 26(3): 156-163) and study 2 comparing infusion with individually optimised conventional combination therapies (18 patients, Nyholm et al, Neurology, in press) were used. Measures of severity were defined as total UPDRS score and scores for sections II and III, percent functional on-time and mean squared error of ratings on the TRS and as mean of diary questions about mobility and satisfaction (only study 2). Absolute improvement was defined as difference in severity, and relative improvement was defined as percent absolute improvement/severity on oral treatment. Pearson correlation coefficients between measures of improvement and other variables were calculated.Results:Correlations (r2>0.28, p<0.05) between severity during oral treatment and absolute improvement on infusion were found for: Total UPDRS, UPDRS III and TRS ratings (studies 1 and 2) and for diary question 1 (mobility) and UPDRS II (study 2). Correlation to relative improvement was found for total UPDRS (study 2, r2=0.47). Figure 1 illustrates absolute improvement in total UPDRS vs. total UPDRS during oral treatment (study 2).Conclusion:Correlating different measures of severity and improvement revealed that patients with more severe symptoms were most improved and that the relation between severity and improvement was linear within the studied groups. The result, which was reproducible between two clinical studies, could be useful when deciding candidates for the treatment.

Spiral drawing during self-rated dyskinesia is more impaired than during self-rated off

Background: A mobile device test battery, consisting of a patient diary collection section with disease-related questions and a fine motor test section (including spiral drawing tasks), was used by 65 patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD)(treated with intraduodenal levodopa/carbidopa gel infusion, Duodopa®, or candidates for this treatment) on 10439 test occasions in their home environments. On each occasion, patients traced three pre-drawn Archimedes spirals using an ergonomic stylus and self-assessed their motor function on a global Treatment Response Scale (TRS) ranging from -3 = very 'off' to 0 = 'on' to +3 = very dyskinetic. The spirals were processed by a computer-based method that generates a "spiral score" representing the PD-related drawing impairment. The scale for the score was based on a modified Bain & Findley rating scale in the range from 0 = no impairment to 5 = moderate impairment to 10 = extremely severe impairment. Objective: To analyze the test battery data for the purpose to find differences in spiral drawing performance of PD patients in relation to their self-assessments of motor function. Methods: Three motor states were used in the analysis; OFF state (including moderate and very 'off'), ON state ('on') and a dyskinetic (DYS) state (moderate and very dyskinetic). In order to avoid the problem of multiple test occasions per patient, 200 random samples of single test occasions per patient were drawn. One-way analysis of variance, ANOVA, test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test was used to test if mean values of spiral test parameters, i.e. the spiral score and drawing completion times (in seconds), were different among the three motor states. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. To investigate changes in the spiral score over the time-of-day test sessions for the three motor states, plots of statistical summaries were inspected. Results: The mean spiral score differed significantly across the three self-assessed motor states (p<0.001, ANOVA test). Tukey post-hoc comparisons indicate that the mean spiral score (mean ± SD; [95% CI for mean]) in DYS state (5.2 ± 1.8; [5.12, 5.28]) was higher than the mean spiral score in OFF (4.3 ± 1.7; [4.22, 4.37]) and ON (4.2 ± 1.7; [4.17, 4.29]) states. The mean spiral score was also significantly different among individual TRS values of slightly 'off' (4.02 ± 1.63), 'on' (4.07 ± 1.65) and slightly dyskinetic (4.6 ± 1.71), (p<0.001). There were no differences in drawing completion times among the three motor states (p=0.509). In the OFF and ON states, patients drew slightly more impaired spirals in the afternoon whereas in the DYS state the spiral drawing performance was more impaired in the morning. Conclusion: It was found that when patients considered themselves as being dyskinetic spiral drawing was more impaired (nearly one unit change in a 0-10 scale) compared to when they considered themselves as being 'off' and 'on'. The spiral drawing at patients that self-assessed their motor state as dyskinetic was slightly more impaired in the morning hours, between 8 and 12 o'clock, a situation possibly caused by the morning dose effect.

Response process and test-retest reliability of the Context Assessment for Community Health tool in Vietnam

BACKGROUND: The recently developed Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool aims to measure aspects of the local healthcare context perceived to influence knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries. The tool measures eight dimensions (organizational resources, community engagement, monitoring services for action, sources of knowledge, commitment to work, work culture, leadership, and informal payment) through 49 items. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to explore the understanding and stability of the COACH tool among health providers in Vietnam. DESIGNS: To investigate the response process, think-aloud interviews were undertaken with five community health workers, six nurses and midwives, and five physicians. Identified problems were classified according to Conrad and Blair's taxonomy and grouped according to an estimation of the magnitude of the problem's effect on the response data. Further, the stability of the tool was examined using a test-retest survey among 77 respondents. The reliability was analyzed for items (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and percent agreement) and dimensions (ICC and Bland-Altman plots). RESULTS: In general, the think-aloud interviews revealed that the COACH tool was perceived as clear, well organized, and easy to answer. Most items were understood as intended. However, seven prominent problems in the items were identified and the content of three dimensions was perceived to be of a sensitive nature. In the test-retest survey, two-thirds of the items and seven of eight dimensions were found to have an ICC agreement ranging from moderate to substantial (0.5-0.7), demonstrating that the instrument has an acceptable level of stability. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the Vietnamese translation of the COACH tool is generally perceived to be clear and easy to understand and has acceptable stability. There is, however, a need to rephrase and add generic examples to clarify some items and to further review items with low ICC.