Online first
Research Paper
Published online: 2024-07-05

open access

Page views 175
Article views/downloads 114
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Are 5-2-1 Delphi criteria and MANAGE-PD useful screening tools for general neurologists for qualification to device-aided therapies in advanced Parkinson’s Disease?

Krzysztof Duda1, Tomasz Chmiela12, Aleksandra Cieśla-Fuławka1, Justyna Gawryluk12, Joanna Siuda12

Abstract

Aim of study. We sought to compare MANAGE-PD and 5-2-1 Delphi criteria which are two commonly used and approved screening tools in Parkinson’s Disease, in order to highlight their strengths and limitations.

Clinical rationale for study. Timely intervention with device-aided therapies is vital as it enables improving motor symptoms, lowering the dosage and side-effects of dopaminergic treatment, and improving patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life. Various screening tools have been created to help clinicians find the best candidates for device-aided therapies (DAT) for advanced Parkinson’s Disease. In this study, we aimed to compare the 5-2-1 Delphi criteria to MANAGE-PD to determine how they could be used specifically to maximise their potential.

Material and methods. All of the patients (260) included in this study were DAT-naive, > 18 years of age, diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease, and had been referred to the Department of Neurology for qualification for advanced therapies over a 4-year period (2019-2022). They were subjected to both 5-2-1 Delphi criteria and MANAGE-PD tools and divided into subgroups based on the results of the screening. The data of patients was then statistically analysed.

Results. In the study group, 51 patients (19.5%) met all three of the 5-2-1 criteria, and 123 (47.1%) patients were categorised as ‘3’ in MANAGE-PD, meaning that they may benefit from DAT. Finally, at the local centre level, 64 (24.5%) patients were qualified for DAT. 22 (34.4%) patients who were qualified for DAT by a clinician did not meet the 5-2-1 criteria. Conclusions. The 5-2-1 scheme based on the data from this study was characterised by a 92.5% specificity level and 65.1% sensitivity level compared to 69.5% specificity and 98.4% sensitivity level of MANAGE-PD.

Clinical implications. We found that MANAGE-PD has a better screening potential of DAT admission than 5-2-1 criteria. While both tools are reliable and valuable in daily practice, our study suggests that some patients may be omitted when using only less complicated tools such as 5-2-1 during the assessment.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Balestrino R, Schapira AHV. Parkinson disease. Eur J Neurol. 2020; 27(1): 27–42.
  2. Zhao Na, Yang Y, Zhang L, et al. Quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2021; 27(3): 270–279.
  3. Malaty IA, Martinez-Martin P, Chaudhuri KR, et al. Does the 5-2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5-2-1-positive patients in 7 countries. BMC Neurol. 2022; 22(1): 35.
  4. Santos-García D, de Deus Fonticoba T, Suárez Castro E, et al. 5-2-1 Criteria: A Simple Screening Tool for Identifying Advanced PD Patients Who Need an Optimization of Parkinson's Treatment. Parkinsons Dis. 2020; 2020: 7537924.
  5. Antonini A, Stoessl AJ, Kleinman LS, et al. Developing consensus among movement disorder specialists on clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson's disease: a multi-country Delphi-panel approach. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018; 34(12): 2063–2073.
  6. Chen H, Zhao EJ, Zhang W, et al. Meta-analyses on prevalence of selected Parkinson's nonmotor symptoms before and after diagnosis. Transl Neurodegener. 2015; 4(1): 1.
  7. Chaudhuri KR, Kovács N, Pontieri FE, et al. Application of the '5-2-1' screening criteria in advanced Parkinson's disease: interim analysis of DUOGLOBE. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2020; 10(5): 309–323.
  8. Aldred J, Anca-Herschkovitsch M, Antonini A, et al. Application of the ‘5-2-1’ Screening Criteria in Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: Interim Analysis of DUOGLOBE. Neurodegenerative Disease Management. 2020; 10(5): 309–323.
  9. Antonini A, Odin P, Schmidt P, et al. Validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool: A clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson's disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2021; 92: 59–66.
  10. Validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool: A clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson's disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications. 18.06.2024 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353802021003643).
  11. Antonini A, Pahwa R, Odin P, et al. Psychometric Properties of Clinical Indicators for Identification and Management of Advanced Parkinson's Disease: Real-World Evidence From G7 Countries. Neurol Ther. 2022; 11(1): 303–318.
  12. Verber D, Novak D, Borovič M, et al. EQUIDopa: A responsive web application for the levodopa equivalent dose calculator. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2020; 196: 105633.
  13. Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O, et al. Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson's Disease. Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations. Mov Disord. 2004; 19(9): 1020–1028.
  14. Véronneau-Veilleux F, Ursino M, Robaey P, et al. Nonlinear pharmacodynamics of levodopa through Parkinson's disease progression. Chaos. 2020; 30(9): 093146.
  15. Cilia R, Cereda E, Akpalu A, et al. Natural history of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease and the long-duration response to levodopa. Brain. 2020; 143(8): 2490–2501.
  16. Antonini A, Moro E, Godeiro C, et al. Medical and surgical management of advanced Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2018; 33(6): 900–908.
  17. Juhász A, Aschermann Z, Ács P, et al. Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel can improve both motor and non-motor experiences of daily living in Parkinson's disease: An open-label study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2017; 37: 79–86.
  18. Malek N. Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease. Neurol India. 2019; 67(4): 968–978.
  19. Carbone F, Djamshidian A, Seppi K, et al. Apomorphine for Parkinson's Disease: Efficacy and Safety of Current and New Formulations. CNS Drugs. 2019; 33(9): 905–918.
  20. Moes HR, Ten Kate JM, Portman AT, et al. Timely referral for device-aided therapy in Parkinson's disease. Development of a screening tool. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2023; 109: 105359.
  21. Levin J, Kurz A, Arzberger T, et al. The Differential Diagnosis and Treatment of Atypical Parkinsonism. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016; 113(5): 61–69.
  22. Moes HR, Buskens E, van Laar T. Letter to the editor, "Validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool: A clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson's disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications". Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2022; 97: 99–100.
  23. Moes H, Buskens E, Laar Tv. Letter to the editor, “Validation and clinical value of the MANAGE-PD tool: A clinician-reported tool to identify Parkinson's disease patients inadequately controlled on oral medications”. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders. 2022; 97: 99–100.
  24. Martinez-Martin P, Radicati FG, Rodriguez Blazquez C, et al. PDCS European Study Group. Extensive validation study of the Parkinson's Disease Composite Scale. Eur J Neurol. 2019; 26(10): 1281–1288.
  25. Martinez-Martin P, Kulisevsky J, Mir P, et al. Validation of a simple screening tool for early diagnosis of advanced Parkinson's disease in daily practice: the CDEPA questionnaire. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018; 4: 20.
  26. Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, et al. Movement Disorder Society UPDRS Revision Task Force. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord. 2008; 23(15): 2129–2170.
  27. Freire-Alvarez E, Kurča E, Lopez Manzanares L, et al. Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel Reduces Dyskinesia in Parkinson's Disease in a Randomized Trial. Mov Disord. 2021; 36(11): 2615–2623.
  28. Fabbri M, Coelho M, Abreu D, et al. Do patients with late-stage Parkinson's disease still respond to levodopa? Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016; 26: 10–16.
  29. Skorvanek M, Martinez-Martin P, Kovacs N, et al. Relationship between the MDS-UPDRS and Quality of Life: A large multicenter study of 3206 patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2018; 52: 83–89.
  30. Martínez-Martín P, Rodríguez-Blázquez C, Forjaz MJ, et al. Relationship between the MDS-UPDRS domains and the health-related quality of life of Parkinson's disease patients. Eur J Neurol. 2014; 21(3): 519–524.
  31. Hauser RA, Friedlander J, Zesiewicz TA, et al. A home diary to assess functional status in patients with Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2000; 23(2): 75–81.