Background
Dopamine replacement therapy reduces most motor and nonmotor features of Parkinson's disease. However, with disease progression, adjustments of dopaminergics and the application of advanced therapies must be considered.
Objectives
To validate the OPTIMIPARK questionnaire as a tool to help clinicians make therapeutic decisions on patients treated with levodopa.
Methods
We tested a questionnaire including 9 items encompassing motor and nonmotor signs, complications, and disability in a multicenter, observational, cross‐sectional study. A neurologist (neurologist 1 [N1]) assessed patients according to regular clinical practice and blinded to the OPTIMIPARK questionnaire score. Therapeutic decisions were classified as “no changes,” “adjustment of conventional treatment,” and “advanced therapy indicated.” External neurologists (neurologist 3 [N3] and neurologist 4 [N4]), who only knew the patient age, years of disease, and current treatment, made their therapeutic decisions based on the OPTIMIPARK score. Concordance between the criterion of the N1 versus the OPTIMIPARK‐based N3–N4 consensus was analyzed applying weighted κ. The area under Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves was calculated for OPTIMIPARK scores.
Results
A total of 113 patients with Parkinson's disease were included. The OPTIMIPARK‐based decision led to a higher proportion of patients requiring therapeutic modification than N1 assessment (74% vs. 60%; P = 0.002). Concordance between the N1 and N3–N4 decisions was moderate, whereas interobserver agreement among N3 and N4 was high. Area Under the Curve(AUC) values of 0.83 and 0.82 were found for “no changes” and “advanced therapy indicated” decisions by the N1 neurologist.
Conclusions
OPTIMIPARK might be more sensitive than regular clinical practice in suggesting the need for a therapeutic change. Furthermore, the low and high scores identify with high accuracy well‐adjusted patients and candidates for advanced therapy, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.