Analysis of tapping test results in a test battery for advanced PD patients

Objective: To compare results from various tapping tests with diary responses in advanced PD. Background: A home environment test battery for assessing patient state in advanced PD, consisting of diary assessments and motor tests was constructed for a hand computer with touch screen and mobile communication. The diary questions: 1. walking, 2. time in off , on and dyskinetic states, 3. off at worst, 4. dyskinetic at worst, 5. cramps, and 6. satisfied with function, relate to the recent past. Question 7, self-assessment, allows seven steps from -3 ( very off ) to +3 ( very dyskinetic ) and relate to right now. Tapping tests outline: 8. Alternately tapping two fields (un-cued) with right hand 9. Same as 8 but using left hand 10. Tapping an active field (out of two) following a system-generated rhythm (increasing speed) with the dominant hand 11. Tapping an active field (out of four) that randomly changes location when tapped using the dominant hand Methods: 65 patients (currently on Duodopa, or candidates for this treatment) entered diary responses and performed tapping tests four times per day during one to six periods of seven days length. In total there were 224 test periods and 6039 test occasions. Speed for tapping test 10 was discardedand tests 8 and 9 were combined by taking means. Descriptive statistics were used to present the variation of the test variables in relation to self assessment (question 7). Pearson correlation coefficients between speed and accuracy (percent correct) in tapping tests and diary responses were calculated. Results: Mean compliance (percentage completed test occasions per test period) was 83% and the median was 93%. There were large differences in both mean tapping speed and accuracy between the different self-assessed states. Correlations between diary responses and tapping results were small (-0.2 to 0.3, negative values for off-time and dyskinetic-time that had opposite scale directions). Correlations between tapping results were all positive (0.1 to 0.6). Conclusions: The diary responses and tapping results provided different information. The low correlations can partly be explained by the fact that questions related to the past and by random variability, which could be reduced by taking means over test periods. Both tapping speed and accuracy reflect the motor function of the patient to a large extent.

12-month results from a novel test battery used in a duodenal levodopa infusion trial

A novel test battery consisting of self-assessments and motor tests (tapping and spiral drawing) for patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) was developed for a hand computer with touch screen in a telemedicine setting. Tests are performed four times per day in the home environment during weeklong test periods. Results are processed into scores for different dimensions of the symptom state and an ‘overall score’ reflecting the global condition of a patient during a test period. The test battery was validated in a separate study recently submitted to Mov Disord. This test battery is currently being used in an open longitudinal trial (DAPHNE, EudraCT No. 2005- 002654-21) by sixty-five patients with advanced PD at nine clinics around Sweden. On inclusion, the patients were either receiving treatment with duodenal levodopa/carbidopa infusion (Duodopa®) (n=36), or they were candidates for receiving this treatment (n=29). We now present interim results for the first twelve months. Test periods were performed in three-month intervals. During most of the periods, UPDRS ratings were performed in afternoons at the start of the week. In twenty of the patients, scores were available during individually optimized oral polypharamacy, before receiving infusion and at least one test period after having started infusion treatment. Usability and compliance with performing tests, this far are good, both with patients and clinical staff. Correlations between test periods 2 and 3 during infusion treatment (three months apart) are stronger for overall test score than for total UPDRS, indicating good reliability. The correlation between overall test score and UPDRS for all test periods is adequate (r=-0.6). In an exact Wilcoxon signed rank test, where the endpoint is the change from the first to the twelve month test period (n=25), there was no change in test results in any of the test battery dimensions for the patients already receiving infusion when included. However, in the patients entering the study before receiving infusion, there was a significant change (improvement) from the baseline to the twelve month test period in dimensions; ‘off’, ‘dyskinesia’ and ‘satisfied’ and in the ‘overall score’ (n=15). The mean improvement in overall score after infusion was 29% (p=0.015). We conclude that the test battery is able to measure a functional improvement with infusion that is sustained over at least twelve months.