Eduardo Tolosa

Clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease

Dementia has been increasingly more recognized to be a common feature in patients with Parkinsons disease (PD), especially in old age. Specific criteria for the clinical diagnosis of dementia associated with PD (PD‐D), however, have been lacking. A Task Force, organized by the Movement Disorder Study, was charged with the development of clinical diagnostic criteria for PD‐D. The Task Force members were assigned to sub‐committees and performed a systematic review of the literature, based on pre‐defined selection criteria, in order to identify the epidemiological, clinical, auxillary, and pathological features of PD‐D. Clinical diagnostic criteria were then developed based on these findings and group consensus. The incidence of dementia in PD is increased up to six times, point‐prevelance is close to 30%, older age and akinetic‐rigid form are associated with higher risk. PD‐D is characterized by impairment in attention, memory, executive and visuo‐spatial functions, behavioral symptoms such as affective changes, hallucinations, and apathy are frequent. There are no specific ancillary investigations for the diagnosis; the main pathological correlate is Lewy body‐type degeneration in cerebral cortex and limbic structures. Based on the characteristic features associated with this condition, clinical diagnostic criteria for probable and possible PD‐D are proposed.

Phenotype, genotype, and worldwide genetic penetrance of LRRK2-associated Parkinson's disease: a case-control study

Summary Background Mutations in LRRK2, the gene that encodes leucine-rich repeat kinase 2, are a cause of Parkinsons disease (PD). The International LRRK2 Consortium was established to answer three key clinical questions: can LRRK2-associated PD be distinguished from idiopathic PD; which mutations in LRRK2 are pathogenic; and what is the age-specific cumulative risk of PD for individuals who inherit or are at risk of inheriting a deleterious mutation in LRRK2? Methods Researchers from 21 centres across the world collaborated on this study. The frequency of the common LRRK2 Gly2019Ser mutation was estimated on the basis of data from 24 populations worldwide, and the penetrance of the mutation was defined in 1045 people with mutations in LRRK2 from 133 families. The LRRK2 phenotype was defined on the basis of 59 motor and non-motor symptoms in 356 patients with LRRK2-associated PD and compared with the symptoms of 543 patients with pathologically proven idiopathic PD. Findings Six mutations met the consortiums criteria for being proven pathogenic. The frequency of the common LRRK2 Gly2019Ser mutation was 1% of patients with sporadic PD and 4% of patients with hereditary PD; the frequency was highest in the middle east and higher in southern Europe than in northern Europe. The risk of PD for a person who inherits the LRRK2 Gly2019Ser mutation was 28% at age 59 years, 51% at 69 years, and 74% at 79 years. The motor symptoms (eg, disease severity, rate of progression, occurrence of falls, and dyskinesia) and non-motor symptoms (eg, cognition and olfaction) of LRRK2-associated PD were more benign than those of idiopathic PD. Interpretation Mutations in LRRK2 are a clinically relevant cause of PD that merit testing in patients with hereditary PD and in subgroups of patients with PD. However, this knowledge should be applied with caution in the diagnosis and counselling of patients. Funding UK Medical Research Council; UK Parkinsons Disease Society; UK Brain Research Trust; Internationaal Parkinson Fonds; Volkswagen Foundation; National Institutes of Health: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institute of Aging; Udall Parkinsons Disease Centre of Excellence; Pacific Alzheimer Research Foundation Centre; Italian Telethon Foundation; Fondazione Grigioni per il Morbo di Parkinson; Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinsons Research; Safra Global Genetics Consortium; US Department of Veterans Affairs; French Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

Diagnostic Procedures for Parkinson's Disease Dementia : Recommendations from the Movement Disorder Society Task Force

A preceding article described the clinical features of Parkinsons disease dementia (PD‐D) and proposed clinical diagnostic criteria for “probable” and “possible” PD‐D. The main focus of this article is to operationalize the diagnosis of PD‐D and to propose pratical guidelines based on a two level process depending upon the clinical scenario and the expertise of the evaluator involved in the assessment. Level I is aimed primarily at the clinician with no particular expertise in neuropsychological methods, but who requires a simple, pragmatic set of tests that are not excessively time‐consuming. Level I can be used alone or in concert with Level II, which is more suitable when there is the need to specify the pattern and the severity on the dementia of PD‐D for clinical monitoring, research studies or pharmacological trials. Level II tests can also be proposed when the diagnosis of PD‐D remains uncertain or equivocal at the end of a Level I evaluation. Given the lack of evidence‐based standards for some tests when applied in this clinical context, we have tried to make practical and unambiguous recommendations, based upon the available literature and the collective experience of the Task Force. We accept, however, that further validation of certain tests and modifications in the recommended cut off values will be required through future studies.

A double-blind, delayed-start trial of rasagiline in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND A therapy that slows disease progression is the major unmet need in Parkinsons disease. METHODS In this double-blind trial, we examined the possibility that rasagiline has disease-modifying effects in Parkinsons disease. A total of 1176 subjects with untreated Parkinsons disease were randomly assigned to receive rasagiline (at a dose of either 1 mg or 2 mg per day) for 72 weeks (the early-start group) or placebo for 36 weeks followed by rasagiline (at a dose of either 1 mg or 2 mg per day) for 36 weeks (the delayed-start group). To determine a positive result with either dose, the early-start treatment group had to meet each of three hierarchical end points of the primary analysis based on the Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS, a 176-point scale, with higher numbers indicating more severe disease): superiority to placebo in the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36, superiority to delayed-start treatment in the change in the score between baseline and week 72, and noninferiority to delayed-start treatment in the rate of change in the score between weeks 48 and 72. RESULTS Early-start treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 1 mg per day met all end points in the primary analysis: a smaller mean (+/-SE) increase (rate of worsening) in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36 (0.09+/-0.02 points per week in the early-start group vs. 0.14+/-0.01 points per week in the placebo group, P=0.01), less worsening in the score between baseline and week 72 (2.82+/-0.53 points in the early-start group vs. 4.52+/-0.56 points in the delayed-start group, P=0.02), and noninferiority between the two groups with respect to the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 48 and 72 (0.085+/-0.02 points per week in the early-start group vs. 0.085+/-0.02 points per week in the delayed-start group, P<0.001). All three end points were not met with rasagiline at a dose of 2 mg per day, since the change in the UPDRS score between baseline and week 72 was not significantly different in the two groups (3.47+/-0.50 points in the early-start group and 3.11+/-0.50 points in the delayed-start group, P=0.60). CONCLUSIONS Early treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 1 mg per day provided benefits that were consistent with a possible disease-modifying effect, but early treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 2 mg per day did not. Because the two doses were associated with different outcomes, the study results must be interpreted with caution. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256204.)

Criteria for the diagnosis of corticobasal degeneration.

Current criteria for the clinical diagnosis of pathologically confirmed corticobasal degeneration (CBD) no longer reflect the expanding understanding of this disease and its clinicopathologic correlations. An international consortium of behavioral neurology, neuropsychology, and movement disorders specialists developed new criteria based on consensus and a systematic literature review. Clinical diagnoses (early or late) were identified for 267 nonoverlapping pathologically confirmed CBD cases from published reports and brain banks. Combined with consensus, 4 CBD phenotypes emerged: corticobasal syndrome (CBS), frontal behavioral-spatial syndrome (FBS), nonfluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia (naPPA), and progressive supranuclear palsy syndrome (PSPS). Clinical features of CBD cases were extracted from descriptions of 209 brain bank and published patients, providing a comprehensive description of CBD and correcting common misconceptions. Clinical CBD phenotypes and features were combined to create 2 sets of criteria: more specific clinical research criteria for probable CBD and broader criteria for possible CBD that are more inclusive but have a higher chance to detect other tau-based pathologies. Probable CBD criteria require insidious onset and gradual progression for at least 1 year, age at onset ≥50 years, no similar family history or known tau mutations, and a clinical phenotype of probable CBS or either FBS or naPPA with at least 1 CBS feature. The possible CBD category uses similar criteria but has no restrictions on age or family history, allows tau mutations, permits less rigorous phenotype fulfillment, and includes a PSPS phenotype. Future validation and refinement of the proposed criteria are needed.

The diagnosis of Parkinson's disease

The correct diagnosis of Parkinsons disease is important for prognostic and therapeutic reasons and is essential for clinical research. Investigations of the diagnostic accuracy for the disease and other forms of parkinsonism in community-based samples of patients taking antiparkinsonian medication confirmed a diagnosis of parkinsonism in only 74% of patients and clinically probable Parkinsons disease in 53% of patients. Clinicopathological studies based on brain bank material from the UK and Canada have shown that clinicians diagnose the disease incorrectly in about 25% of patients. In these studies, the most common reasons for misdiagnosis were presence of essential tremor, vascular parkinsonism, and atypical parkinsonian syndromes. Infrequent diagnostic errors included Alzheimers disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and drug-induced parkinsonism. Increasing knowledge of the heterogeneous clinical presentation of the various parkinsonisms has resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy of the various parkinsonian syndromes in specialised movement-disorder units. Also genetic testing and various other ancillary tests, such as olfactory testing, MRI, and dopamine-transporter single-photon-emission computed-tomography imaging, help with clinical diagnostic decisions.

Pramipexole for the treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Depression is common in patients with Parkinsons disease, but evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants in this population is lacking. Because depression in patients with Parkinsons disease might be related to dopaminergic dysfunction, we aimed to assess the efficacy of the dopamine agonist pramipexole for treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinsons disease. METHODS We did a 12-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled (1:1 ratio) trial of pramipexole (0.125-1.0 mg three times per day) compared with placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinsons disease. Patients from 76 centres in 12 European countries and South Africa were included if they were on stable antiparkinsonian therapy without motor fluctuations and had depressive symptoms (15-item geriatric depression scale score > or =5 and unified Parkinsons disease rating scale [UPDRS] part 1 depression item score > or =2). Patients were randomly assigned by centre in blocks of four by use of a randomisation number generating system. Clinical monitors, the principal investigator, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change in Beck depression inventory (BDI) score and all treated patients who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment were included in the primary analysis. We also did a pre-specified path analysis with regression models to assess the relation between BDI and UPDRS part 3 (motor score) changes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297778, and EudraCT, number 2005-003788-22. FINDINGS Between March, 2006, and February, 2008, we enrolled 323 patients. Of 296 patients randomly assigned to pramipexole or placebo, 287 were included in the primary analysis: 139 in the pramipexole group and 148 in the placebo group. BDI scores decreased by an adjusted mean 5.9 (SE 0.5) points in the pramipexole group and 4.0 (0.5) points in the placebo group (difference 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-3.4; p=0.01, ANCOVA). The UPDRS motor score decreased by an adjusted mean 4.4 (0.6) points in the pramipexole group and 2.2 (0.5) points in the placebo group (difference 2.2, 95% CI 0.7-3.7; p=0.003, ANCOVA). Path analysis showed the direct effect of pramipexole on depressive symptoms accounted for 80% of total treatment effect (p=0.04). Adverse events were reported in 105 of 144 patients in the pramipexole group and 101 of 152 in the placebo group. Adverse events in the pramipexole group were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug. INTERPRETATION Pramipexole improved depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinsons disease, mainly through a direct antidepressant effect. This effect should be considered in the clinical management of patients with Parkinsons disease.

Rotigotine Effects on Early Morning Motor Function and Sleep in Parkinson's Disease: A Double-Blind, Randomized, pLacebo-Controlled Study (RECOVER)

In a multinational, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial (NCT00474058), 287 subjects with Parkinsons disease (PD) and unsatisfactory early‐morning motor symptom control were randomized 2:1 to receive rotigotine (2–16 mg/24 hr [n = 190]) or placebo (n = 97). Treatment was titrated to optimal dose over 1–8 weeks with subsequent dose maintenance for 4 weeks. Early‐morning motor function and nocturnal sleep disturbance were assessed as coprimary efficacy endpoints using the Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III (Motor Examination) measured in the early morning prior to any medication intake and the modified Parkinsons Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS‐2) (mean change from baseline to end of maintenance [EOM], last observation carried forward). At EOM, mean UPDRS Part III score had decreased by −7.0 points with rotigotine (from a baseline of 29.6 [standard deviation (SD) 12.3] and by −3.9 points with placebo (baseline 32.0 [13.3]). Mean PDSS‐2 total score had decreased by −5.9 points with rotigotine (from a baseline of 19.3 [SD 9.3]) and by −1.9 points with placebo (baseline 20.5 [10.4]). This represented a significantly greater improvement with rotigotine compared with placebo on both the UPDRS Part III (treatment difference: −3.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) −5.37, −1.73]; P = 0.0002) and PDSS‐2 (treatment difference: −4.26 [95% CI −6.08, −2.45]; P < 0.0001). The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (placebo, 9%; rotigotine, 21%), application site reactions (placebo, 4%; rotigotine, 15%), and dizziness (placebo, 6%; rotigotine 10%). Twenty‐four‐hour transdermal delivery of rotigotine to PD patients with early‐morning motor dysfunction resulted in significant benefits in control of both motor function and nocturnal sleep disturbances.

Memantine for patients with Parkinson's disease dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Previous studies have suggested that patients with Lewy-body-related dementias might benefit from treatment with the N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine, but further data are needed. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of memantine were investigated in patients with mild to moderate Parkinsons disease dementia (PDD) or dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). METHODS Patients (≥50 years of age) with mild to moderate PDD or DLB were recruited from 30 specialist centres in Austria, France, Germany, the UK, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey. They were randomly assigned to placebo or memantine (20 mg per day) according to a computer-generated list. Patients and all physicians who had contact with them were masked to treatment assignment. No primary endpoint was defined. Safety analyses were done for all patients who took at least one dose of memantine or placebo, and efficacy analyses were done for all patients who had at least one valid postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00855686. FINDINGS Of the 199 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 34 with DLB and 62 with PDD were given memantine, and 41 with DLB and 58 with PDD were given placebo. 159 (80%) patients completed the study: 80 in the memantine group and 79 in the placebo group. 93 patients treated with memantine and 97 patients treated with placebo were included in the efficacy analysis. At week 24, patients with DLB who received memantine showed greater improvement according to Alzheimers disease cooperative study (ADCS)-clinical global impression of change scores than did those who received placebo (mean change from baseline 3·3 vs 3·9, respectively, difference -0·6 [95% CI -1·2 to -0·1]; p=0·023). No significant differences were noted between the two treatments in patients with PDD (3·6 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·1 [-0·6 to 0·3]; p=0·576) or in the total population (3·5 with memantine vs 3·8 with placebo, -0·3 [-0·7 to 0·1]; p=0·120). Neuropsychiatric-inventory scores showed significantly greater improvement in the memantine group than in the placebo group (-4·3 vs 1·7, respectively, -5·9 [-11·6 to -0·2]; p=0·041) in patients with DLB, but not in those with PDD (-1·6 vs -0·1, respectively, -1·4 [-5·9 to 3·0]; p=0·522) or in the total patient population (-2·6 vs 0·4, respectively, -2·9 [-6·3 to 0·5]; p=0·092). In most of the cognitive test scores, ADCS-activities of daily living, and Zarit caregiver burden scores, there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in any of the study populations. The incidence of adverse events and number of discontinuations due to adverse events were similar in the two groups. The most common serious adverse events were stroke (n=3 in memantine group), falls (n=2 in memantine group; n=1 in placebo group), and worsening of dementia (n=2 in memantine group). INTERPRETATION Memantine seems to improve global clinical status and behavioural symptoms of patients with mild to moderate DLB, and might be an option for treatment of these patients. FUNDING Lundbeck.

Initiating levodopa/carbidopa therapy with and without entacapone in early Parkinson disease: The STRIDE‐PD study

L‐dopa is the most widely used and most effective therapy for Parkinson disease (PD), but chronic treatment is associated with motor complications in the majority of patients. It has been hypothesized that providing more continuous delivery of L‐dopa to the brain would reduce the risk of motor complications, and that this might be accomplished by combining L‐dopa with entacapone, an inhibitor of catechol‐O‐methyltransferase, to extend its elimination half‐life.