Sebastian Schade1, Friederike Sixel-Döring2,3, Jens Ebentheuer2, Xenia Schulz4, Claudia Trenkwalder2,5, Brit Mollenhauer2,5. 1. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology University Medical Center Göttingen Göttingen Germany. 2. Paracelsus-Elena-Klinik Kassel Germany. 3. Department of Neurology Philipps-University Marburg Marburg Germany. 4. Department of Medical Statistics University Medical Center Göttingen Göttingen Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery University Medical Center Göttingen Göttingen Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The precise clinical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) can be difficult in the early stages. Diagnostic criteria include the response of key motor features to levodopa as a supportive prospective criterion. Data are sparse on the diagnostic value of the acute levodopa challenge test (LDCT) in patients with de novo PD. The objective of this study was to validate the LDCT as a tool in the early clinical diagnosis of PD. METHODS: We performed the standardized LDCT with 250 mg levodopa in the prospective longitudinal cohort study "DeNoPa," comprising 159 patients with de novo PD, and carried out longitudinal clinical follow-up for 24 months. Motor assessments at baseline using the motor part (part III) of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale before and 1 hr after drug administration were documented. The optimal cutoff score on the LDCT was calculated using the Youden index. RESULTS: Clinical reassessment of 144 patients who returned for follow-up confirmed the diagnosis of PD in 120 patients (83%). In 24 patients (17%), the initial diagnoses were revised and classified as other neurologic disorders. The optimal cutoff at 33% improvement of motor symptoms on the part 3 of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale during the LDCT reached a sensitivity of 70% a specificity of 71%. The positive and negative predictive values were 92% and 32%, respectively. Sensitivity (91%), specificity (79%), and positive/negative (96%/63%) predictive values improved with the addition of further clinical information (urinary incontinence, fainting, asymmetric tremor, and amount of further drug-intake). CONCLUSIONS: The LDCT is a reliable tool in the early diagnosis of PD. The accuracy of this test can be further improved by additional, easy-to-acquire clinical information provided by patients.
BACKGROUND: The precise clinical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) can be difficult in the early stages. Diagnostic criteria include the response of key motor features to levodopa as a supportive prospective criterion. Data are sparse on the diagnostic value of the acute levodopa challenge test (LDCT) in patients with de novo PD. The objective of this study was to validate the LDCT as a tool in the early clinical diagnosis of PD. METHODS: We performed the standardized LDCT with 250 mg levodopa in the prospective longitudinal cohort study "DeNoPa," comprising 159 patients with de novo PD, and carried out longitudinal clinical follow-up for 24 months. Motor assessments at baseline using the motor part (part III) of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale before and 1 hr after drug administration were documented. The optimal cutoff score on the LDCT was calculated using the Youden index. RESULTS: Clinical reassessment of 144 patients who returned for follow-up confirmed the diagnosis of PD in 120 patients (83%). In 24 patients (17%), the initial diagnoses were revised and classified as other neurologic disorders. The optimal cutoff at 33% improvement of motor symptoms on the part 3 of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale during the LDCT reached a sensitivity of 70% a specificity of 71%. The positive and negative predictive values were 92% and 32%, respectively. Sensitivity (91%), specificity (79%), and positive/negative (96%/63%) predictive values improved with the addition of further clinical information (urinary incontinence, fainting, asymmetric tremor, and amount of further drug-intake). CONCLUSIONS: The LDCT is a reliable tool in the early diagnosis of PD. The accuracy of this test can be further improved by additional, easy-to-acquire clinical information provided by patients.
Authors: Daniela Berg; Ronald B Postuma; Charles H Adler; Bastiaan R Bloem; Piu Chan; Bruno Dubois; Thomas Gasser; Christopher G Goetz; Glenda Halliday; Lawrence Joseph; Anthony E Lang; Inga Liepelt-Scarfone; Irene Litvan; Kenneth Marek; José Obeso; Wolfgang Oertel; C Warren Olanow; Werner Poewe; Matthew Stern; Günther Deuschl Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Kallol Ray Chaudhuri; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Richard G Brown; Kapil Sethi; Fabrizio Stocchi; Per Odin; William Ondo; Kazuo Abe; Graeme Macphee; Doug Macmahon; Paolo Barone; Martin Rabey; Alison Forbes; Kieran Breen; Susanne Tluk; Yogini Naidu; Warren Olanow; Adrian J Williams; Sue Thomas; David Rye; Yoshio Tsuboi; Annette Hand; Anthony H V Schapira Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-10-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: A Berardelli; G K Wenning; A Antonini; D Berg; B R Bloem; V Bonifati; D Brooks; D J Burn; C Colosimo; A Fanciulli; J Ferreira; T Gasser; F Grandas; P Kanovsky; V Kostic; J Kulisevsky; W Oertel; W Poewe; J-P Reese; M Relja; E Ruzicka; A Schrag; K Seppi; P Taba; M Vidailhet Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Sandra M S F Freitas; Paulo B de Freitas; Ali Falaki; Tyler Corson; Mechelle M Lewis; Xuemei Huang; Mark L Latash Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Yang Shen; Jun Hu; Yong Chen; Wan Liu; Yuqian Li; Lei Yan; Chunming Xie; Wenbin Zhang; Miao Yu; Weiguo Liu Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Oxana P Trifonova; Dmitri L Maslov; Elena E Balashova; Guzel R Urazgildeeva; Denis A Abaimov; Ekaterina Yu Fedotova; Vsevolod V Poleschuk; Sergey N Illarioshkin; Petr G Lokhov Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-05-25