Yael Barer1, Tanya Gurevich2,3,4, Gabriel Chodick1,3, Nir Giladi2,3,4, Ruth Gross5,6, Raanan Cohen5, Lars Bergmann7, Yash J Jalundhwala7, Varda Shalev3, Meital Grabarnik-John5, Avner Thaler2,3,4. 1. Maccabitech, Maccabi Institute for Research and Innovation Tel Aviv Israel. 2. Movement Disorders Unit, Department of Neurology Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center Tel Aviv Israel. 3. Sackler School of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel. 4. Sagol School of Neuroscience Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel. 5. AbbVie Inc Hod Hasharon Israel. 6. BOL Pharma Ltd. Revadim Israel. 7. AbbVie Inc North Chicago Illinois USA.
Abstract
Background: As Parkinson's disease (PD) progresses, response to oral medications decreases and motor complications appear. Timely intervention has been demonstrated as effective in reducing symptoms. However, current instruments for the identification of these patients are often complicated and inadequate. It has been suggested that anti-PD intensified therapy (IT) can serve as a proxy for increased burden of disease. Objective: To explore whether IT aligns with events reflecting advanced PD (APD) burden. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of PD beneficiaries in the second-largest healthcare provider in Israel. Patients with PD diagnosed between January 2000 and June 2018 and treated with levodopa (l-dopa) ≥5 times/day and/or ≥1000 mg l-dopa equivalent daily dose were defined as the IT cohort (n = 2037). Treated patients with PD not fulfilling this criterion were defined as the nonintensified therapy (NIT) cohort (n = 3402). Point prevalence and 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of IT were assessed. Baseline demographic and comorbidities, 1-year healthcare resource use, health costs, and time to clinical events were assessed and compared between cohorts. Results: IT was associated with significantly (P < 0.05) higher healthcare resource use compared with NIT. In turn, IT patients incurred higher healthcare costs (P < 0.001) and were at greater risk for mortality, hospitalization, disability, and device-aided therapy use (P < 0.001, for all comparisons). Conclusions: Treatment intensity can serve as an objective and robust indicator of more APD. This readily extractable marker can be easily integrated into electronic medical record alerts to actively target more advanced patients and to guide risk-appropriate care.
Background: As Parkinson's disease (PD) progresses, response to oral medications decreases and motor complications appear. Timely intervention has been demonstrated as effective in reducing symptoms. However, current instruments for the identification of these patients are often complicated and inadequate. It has been suggested that anti-PD intensified therapy (IT) can serve as a proxy for increased burden of disease. Objective: To explore whether IT aligns with events reflecting advanced PD (APD) burden. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of PD beneficiaries in the second-largest healthcare provider in Israel. Patients with PD diagnosed between January 2000 and June 2018 and treated with levodopa (l-dopa) ≥5 times/day and/or ≥1000 mg l-dopa equivalent daily dose were defined as the IT cohort (n = 2037). Treated patients with PD not fulfilling this criterion were defined as the nonintensified therapy (NIT) cohort (n = 3402). Point prevalence and 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of IT were assessed. Baseline demographic and comorbidities, 1-year healthcare resource use, health costs, and time to clinical events were assessed and compared between cohorts. Results: IT was associated with significantly (P < 0.05) higher healthcare resource use compared with NIT. In turn, IT patients incurred higher healthcare costs (P < 0.001) and were at greater risk for mortality, hospitalization, disability, and device-aided therapy use (P < 0.001, for all comparisons). Conclusions: Treatment intensity can serve as an objective and robust indicator of more APD. This readily extractable marker can be easily integrated into electronic medical record alerts to actively target more advanced patients and to guide risk-appropriate care.
Authors: Eric M Cheng; Kari Swarztrauber; Andrew D Siderowf; Mahmood S Eisa; Martin Lee; Stefanie Vassar; Erin Jacob; Barbara G Vickrey Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Katrina Gwinn; Karen K David; Christine Swanson-Fischer; Roger Albin; Coryse St Hillaire-Clarke; Beth-Anne Sieber; Codrin Lungu; F DuBois Bowman; Roy N Alcalay; Debra Babcock; Ted M Dawson; Richard B Dewey; Tatiana Foroud; Dwight German; Xuemei Huang; Vlad Petyuk; Judith A Potashkin; Rachel Saunders-Pullman; Margaret Sutherland; David R Walt; Andrew B West; Jing Zhang; Alice Chen-Plotkin; Clemens R Scherzer; David E Vaillancourt; Liana S Rosenthal Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Paolo Barone; Angelo Antonini; Carlo Colosimo; Roberto Marconi; Letterio Morgante; Tania P Avarello; Eugenio Bottacchi; Antonino Cannas; Gabriella Ceravolo; Roberto Ceravolo; Giulio Cicarelli; Roberto M Gaglio; Rosa M Giglia; Francesco Iemolo; Michela Manfredi; Giuseppe Meco; Alessandra Nicoletti; Massimo Pederzoli; Alfredo Petrone; Antonio Pisani; Francesco E Pontieri; Rocco Quatrale; Silvia Ramat; Rosanna Scala; Giuseppe Volpe; Salvatore Zappulla; Anna Rita Bentivoglio; Fabrizio Stocchi; Giorgio Trianni; Paolo Del Dotto Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Lisa M Shulman; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Karen E Anderson; Christopher G Vaughan; Stephen G Reich; Paul S Fishman; William J Weiner Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Alfonso Fasano; Victor S C Fung; Leonardo Lopiano; Bulent Elibol; Irina G Smolentseva; Klaus Seppi; Annamária Takáts; Koray Onuk; Juan Carlos Parra; Lars Bergmann; Kavita Sail; Yash Jalundhwala; Zvezdan Pirtosek Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 2.474