Werner Poewe

Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Scale Presentation and Clinimetric Testing Results

We present a clinimetric assessment of the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)‐sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale (MDS‐UPDRS). The MDS‐UDPRS Task Force revised and expanded the UPDRS using recommendations from a published critique. The MDS‐UPDRS has four parts, namely, I: Non‐motor Experiences of Daily Living; II: Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III: Motor Examination; IV: Motor Complications. Twenty questions are completed by the patient/caregiver. Item‐specific instructions and an appendix of complementary additional scales are provided. Movement disorder specialists and study coordinators administered the UPDRS (55 items) and MDS‐UPDRS (65 items) to 877 English speaking (78% non‐Latino Caucasian) patients with Parkinsons disease from 39 sites. We compared the two scales using correlative techniques and factor analysis. The MDS‐UPDRS showed high internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha = 0.79–0.93 across parts) and correlated with the original UPDRS (ρ = 0.96). MDS‐UPDRS across‐part correlations ranged from 0.22 to 0.66. Reliable factor structures for each part were obtained (comparative fit index > 0.90 for each part), which support the use of sum scores for each part in preference to a total score of all parts. The combined clinimetric results of this study support the validity of the MDS‐UPDRS for rating PD.

Second consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy

Background: A consensus conference on multiple system atrophy (MSA) in 1998 established criteria for diagnosis that have been accepted widely. Since then, clinical, laboratory, neuropathologic, and imaging studies have advanced the field, requiring a fresh evaluation of diagnostic criteria. We held a second consensus conference in 2007 and present the results here. Methods: Experts in the clinical, neuropathologic, and imaging aspects of MSA were invited to participate in a 2-day consensus conference. Participants were divided into five groups, consisting of specialists in the parkinsonian, cerebellar, autonomic, neuropathologic, and imaging aspects of the disorder. Each group independently wrote diagnostic criteria for its area of expertise in advance of the meeting. These criteria were discussed and reconciled during the meeting using consensus methodology. Results: The new criteria retain the diagnostic categories of MSA with predominant parkinsonism and MSA with predominant cerebellar ataxia to designate the predominant motor features and also retain the designations of definite, probable, and possible MSA. Definite MSA requires neuropathologic demonstration of CNS α-synuclein–positive glial cytoplasmic inclusions with neurodegenerative changes in striatonigral or olivopontocerebellar structures. Probable MSA requires a sporadic, progressive adult-onset disorder including rigorously defined autonomic failure and poorly levodopa-responsive parkinsonism or cerebellar ataxia. Possible MSA requires a sporadic, progressive adult-onset disease including parkinsonism or cerebellar ataxia and at least one feature suggesting autonomic dysfunction plus one other feature that may be a clinical or a neuroimaging abnormality. Conclusions: These new criteria have simplified the previous criteria, have incorporated current knowledge, and are expected to enhance future assessments of the disease.

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.

The Movement Disorder Society Evidence‐Based Medicine Review Update: Treatments for the non‐motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease

The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Task Force on Evidence‐Based Medicine (EBM) Review of Treatments for Parkinsons Disease (PD) was first published in 2002 and was updated in 2005 to cover clinical trial data up to January 2004 with the focus on motor symptoms of PD. In this revised version the MDS task force decided it was necessary to extend the review to non‐motor symptoms. The objective of this work was to update previous EBM reviews on treatments for PD with a focus on non‐motor symptoms. Level‐I (randomized controlled trial, RCT) reports of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for the non‐motor symptoms of PD, published as full articles in English between January 2002 and December 2010 were reviewed. Criteria for inclusion and ranking followed the original program outline and adhered to EBM methodology. For efficacy conclusions, treatments were designated: efficacious, likely efficacious, unlikely efficacious, non‐efficacious, or insufficient evidence. Safety data were catalogued and reviewed. Based on the combined efficacy and safety assessment, Implications for clinical practice were determined using the following designations: clinically useful, possibly useful, investigational, unlikely useful, and not useful. Fifty‐four new studies qualified for efficacy review while several other studies covered safety issues. Updated and new efficacy conclusions were made for all indications. The treatments that are efficacious for the management of the different non‐motor symptoms are as follows: pramipexole for the treatment of depressive symptoms, clozapine for the treatment of psychosis, rivastigmine for the treatment of dementia, and botulinum toxin A (BTX‐A) and BTX‐B as well as glycopyrrolate for the treatment of sialorrhea. The practical implications for these treatments, except for glycopyrrolate, are that they are clinically useful. Since there is insufficient evidence of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of sialorrhea exceeding 1 week, the practice implication is that it is possibly useful. The treatments that are likely efficacious for the management of the different non‐motor symptoms are as follows: the tricyclic antidepressants nortriptyline and desipramine for the treatment of depression or depressive symptoms and macrogol for the treatment of constipation. The practice implications for these treatments are possibly useful. For most of the other interventions there is insufficient evidence to make adequate conclusions on their efficacy. This includes the tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline, all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reviewed (paroxetine, citalopram, sertraline, and fluoxetine), the newer antidepressants atomoxetine and nefazodone, pergolide, Ω‐3 fatty acids as well as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of depression or depressive symptoms; methylphenidate and modafinil for the treatment of fatigue; amantadine for the treatment of pathological gambling; donepezil, galantamine, and memantine for the treatment of dementia; quetiapine for the treatment of psychosis; fludrocortisone and domperidone for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension; sildenafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, ipratropium bromide spray for the treatment of sialorrhea; levodopa/carbidopa controlled release (CR), pergolide, eszopiclone, melatonin 3 to 5 mg and melatonin 50 mg for the treatment of insomnia and modafinil for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness. Due to safety issues the practice implication is that pergolide and nefazodone are not useful for the above‐mentioned indications. Due to safety issues, olanzapine remains not useful for the treatment of psychosis. As none of the studies exceeded a duration of 6 months, the recommendations given are for the short‐term management of the different non‐motor symptoms. There were no RCTs that met inclusion criteria for the treatment of anxiety disorders, apathy, medication‐related impulse control disorders and related behaviors other than pathological gambling, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD), sweating, or urinary dysfunction. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence for the treatment of these indications. This EBM review of interventions for the non‐motor symptoms of PD updates the field, but, because several RCTs are ongoing, a continual updating process is needed. Several interventions and indications still lack good quality evidence, and these gaps offer an opportunity for ongoing research.

Slower progression of Parkinson's disease with ropinirole versus levodopa: The REAL-PET study

Preclinical studies suggest ropinirole (a D2/D3 dopamine agonist) may be neuroprotective in Parkinsons disease (PD), and a pilot clinical study using 18F‐dopa positron emission tomography (PET) suggested a slower loss of striatal dopamine storage with ropinirole compared with levodopa. This prospective, 2‐year, randomized, double‐blind, multinational study compared the rates of loss of dopamine‐terminal function in de novo patients with clinical and 18F‐dopa PET evidence of early PD, randomized 1 to 1 to receive either ropinirole or levodopa. The primary outcome measure was reduction in putamen 18F‐dopa uptake (Ki) between baseline and 2‐year PET. Of 186, 162 randomized patients were eligible for analysis. A blinded, central, region‐of‐interest analysis showed a significantly lower reduction (p = 0.022) in putamen Ki over 2 years with ropinirole (−13.4%; n = 68) compared with levodopa (−20.3%; n = 59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–13.06). Statistical parametric mapping localized lesser reductions in 18F‐dopa uptake in the putamen and substantia nigra with ropinirole. The greatest Ki decrease in each group was in the putamen (ropinirole, −14.1%; levodopa, −22.9%; 95% CI, 4.24–13.3), but the decrease was significantly lower with ropinirole compared with levodopa (p < 0.001). Ropinirole is associated with slower progression of PD than levodopa as assessed by 18F‐dopa PET. Ann Neurol 2003

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.

Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations.

The Movement Disorder Society Task Force for Rating Scales for Parkinsons disease (PD) prepared a critique of the Hoehn and Yahr scale (HY). Strengths of the HY scale include its wide utilization and acceptance. Progressively higher stages correlate with neuroimaging studies of dopaminergic loss, and high correlations exist between the HY scale and some standardized scales of motor impairment, disability, and quality of life. Weaknesses include the scales mixing of impairment and disability and its non‐linearity. Because the HY scale is weighted heavily toward postural instability as the primary index of disease severity, it does not capture completely impairments or disability from other motor features of PD and gives no information on nonmotor problems. Direct clinimetric testing of the HY scale has been very limited, but the scale fulfills at least some criteria for reliability and validity, especially for the midranges of the scale (Stages 2–4). Although a “modified HY scale” that includes 0.5 increments has been adopted widely, no clinimetric data are available on this adaptation. The Task Force recommends that: (1) the HY scale be used in its original form for demographic presentation of patient groups; (2) when the HY scale is used for group description, medians and ranges should be reported and analysis of changes should use nonparametric methods; (3) in research settings, the HY scale is useful primarily for defining inclusion/exclusion criteria; (4) to retain simplicity, clinicians should “rate what you see” and therefore incorporate comorbidities when assigning a HY stage; and (5) because of the wide usage of the modified HY scale with 0.5 increments, this adaptation warrants clinimetric testing. Without such testing, however, the original five‐point scales should be maintained.

Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: Status and recommendations The Movement Disorder Society Task Force on rating scales for Parkinson's disease

The Movement Disorder Society Task Force for Rating Scales for Parkinsons disease (PD) prepared a critique of the Hoehn and Yahr scale (HY). Strengths of the HY scale include its wide utilization and acceptance. Progressively higher stages correlate with neuroimaging studies of dopaminergic loss, and high correlations exist between the HY scale and some standardized scales of motor impairment, disability, and quality of life. Weaknesses include the scales mixing of impairment and disability and its non‐linearity. Because the HY scale is weighted heavily toward postural instability as the primary index of disease severity, it does not capture completely impairments or disability from other motor features of PD and gives no information on nonmotor problems. Direct clinimetric testing of the HY scale has been very limited, but the scale fulfills at least some criteria for reliability and validity, especially for the midranges of the scale (Stages 2–4). Although a “modified HY scale” that includes 0.5 increments has been adopted widely, no clinimetric data are available on this adaptation. The Task Force recommends that: (1) the HY scale be used in its original form for demographic presentation of patient groups; (2) when the HY scale is used for group description, medians and ranges should be reported and analysis of changes should use nonparametric methods; (3) in research settings, the HY scale is useful primarily for defining inclusion/exclusion criteria; (4) to retain simplicity, clinicians should “rate what you see” and therefore incorporate comorbidities when assigning a HY stage; and (5) because of the wide usage of the modified HY scale with 0.5 increments, this adaptation warrants clinimetric testing. Without such testing, however, the original five‐point scales should be maintained.

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.)

Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Process, format, and clinimetric testing plan.

This article presents the revision process, major innovations, and clinimetric testing program for the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)–sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinsons Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), known as the MDS‐UPDRS. The UPDRS is the most widely used scale for the clinical study of Parkinsons disease (PD). The MDS previously organized a critique of the UPDRS, which cited many strengths, but recommended revision of the scale to accommodate new advances and to resolve problematic areas. An MDS‐UPDRS committee prepared the revision using the recommendations of the published critique of the scale. Subcommittees developed new material that was reviewed by the entire committee. A 1‐day face‐to‐face committee meeting was organized to resolve areas of debate and to arrive at a working draft ready for clinimetric testing. The MDS‐UPDRS retains the UPDRS structure of four parts with a total summed score, but the parts have been modified to provide a section that integrates nonmotor elements of PD: I, Nonmotor Experiences of Daily Living; II, Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III, Motor Examination; and IV, Motor Complications. All items have five response options with uniform anchors of 0 = normal, 1 = slight, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe. Several questions in Part I and all of Part II are written as a patient/caregiver questionnaire, so that the total rater time should remain approximately 30 minutes. Detailed instructions for testing and data acquisition accompany the MDS‐UPDRS in order to increase uniform usage. Multiple language editions are planned. A three‐part clinimetric program will provide testing of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to interventions. Although the MDS‐UPDRS will not be published until it has successfully passed clinimetric testing, explanation of the process, key changes, and clinimetric programs allow clinicians and researchers to understand and participate in the revision process.