The phenomenology of pain in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that is the second most common disorder after Alzheimer's disease. PD includes both "motor" and "non-motor" symptoms, one of which is pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of pain in patients with PD. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 250 patients diagnosed with PD, 70% of which had mild to moderate PD (stages 2/3 of Hoehn and Yahr scale). The average age was 67.4 years, and the average duration since PD diagnosis was 7.1 years. Relevant data collected from PD patients were obtained from their personal medical history. RESULTS: The prevalence of pain was found to be high (82%), with most patients (79.2%) relating their pain to PD. Disease duration was correlated with the frequency of intense pain (R: 0.393; P < 0.05). PD pain is most frequently perceived as an electrical current (64%), and two pain varieties were most prevalent (2.60 ± 0.63). Our findings confirm links between pain, its evolution over time, its multi-modal character, the wide variety of symptoms of PD, and the female sex. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that the pain felt by PD patients is mainly felt as an electrical current, which contrasts with other studies where the pain is described as burning and itching. Our classification is innovative because it is based on anatomy, whereas those of other authors were based on syndromes.

Association of Parkinson's disease and treatment with aminosalicylates in inflammatory bowel disease: a cross-sectional study in a Spain drug dispensation records.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the association between aminosalicylate-treated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) at population level. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The study was performed based on electronic drug prescription and dispensation records of the Andalusian Public Health System. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals aged ≥50 years with at least one drug dispensation during December 2014 were identified from the records. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Groups were formed: 'possible PD' group, including all who received an anti-Parkinson agent; 'possible IBD' group, those treated with mesalazine and/or derivatives (5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA)); and 'possible PD and IBD', including those receiving both anti-Parkinson agent and 5-ASA. Prevalence of possible PD was determined among those with possible IBD and among those without this condition. The age-adjusted and sex-adjusted OR was calculated. RESULTS: We recorded 2 020 868 individuals (68±11 years, 56% female), 19 966 were included in possible PD group (75±9 years, 53% female) and 7485 in possible IBD group (64±10 years, 47% female); only 56 were included in both groups (76±8 years, 32% female). The prevalence of possible PD was 0.7% among those with possible IBD and 1% among those without this condition (adjusted OR=0.94; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; p=0.657). OR was 0.28 in individuals aged ≤65 years (95% CI 0.10 to 0.74; p=0.01) and 1.17 in older individuals (95% CI 0.89 to 1.54; p=0.257). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest a protective role for IBD and/or 5-ASA against PD development, especially among under 65-year olds. Further studies are warranted to explore this association given its scientific and therapeutic implications.

The Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale-2 (PDSS-2): Validation of the Spanish Version and Its Relationship With a Roommate-Based Version.

BACKGROUND: Because of the prevalence and impact of sleep disorders in Parkinson's disease (PD), valid instruments for their evaluation and monitoring are necessary. However, some nocturnal sleep disorders may go unnoticed by patients themselves. OBJECTIVES: To validate a pan-Spanish version of the Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale Version 2 (PDSS-2) and to test the relationships between the PDSS-2 and a PDSS-2 roommate version. METHODS: PD patients (n = 399) from seven Spanish-speaking countries were included. In addition to the tested PDSS-2 scales, valid measures for sleep disorders and both motor and nonmotor manifestations were applied. Acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, precision, and construct validity were explored, as well as discrepancies and agreement between the PDSS-2 and the roommate version. RESULTS: PDSS-2 showed negligible floor and ceiling effects. Four factors (57% of the variance) were identified. Reliability parameters were satisfactory: alpha = 0.84; item homogeneity coefficient = 0.27; corrected item total correlation = 0.28 to 0.61; and test-retest reliability (average kappa = 0.70; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.83). The standard error of measurement was 5.84, and correlations with other scales assessing nocturnal sleep were high (rS = 0.62-0.56). In comparison to the patient-based total score, the by proxy total score showed no significant difference, high correlation (rS = 0.70), and acceptable agreement (ICC = 0.69), but there were discrepancies in two or more points in 18% of item scores. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the PDSS-2 has shown satisfactory clinimetric attributes. Acceptability and precision data are presented for the first time. The PDSS-2 roommate version could be useful to complement the patient-based evaluation, but additional studies are needed.

Self-Assessment of Disability in Parkinson's Disease: The MDS-UPDRS Part II Versus Clinician-Based Ratings.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by motor and nonmotor symptoms that progress with time, causing disability. The performance of a disease-specific, self-applied tool for assessing disability, the MDS-UPDRS Part II, is tested against generic and rater-based rating scales. METHODS: An international, cross-sectional, observational study was performed. Patients were assessed with the Hoehn and Yahr (HY) and five disability measures: MDS-UPDRS Part II, Schwab and England Scale (S&E), Clinical Impression of Severity Index-PD (CISI-PD) Disability item, Barthel Index (BI), and Rapid Assessment of Disability Scale (RADS). Data analysis included correlation coefficients, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and intraclass-correlation coefficient for concordance. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 451 patients, 55.2% men, with a mean age of 65.06 years (SD = 10.71). Disability rating scales correlated from |0.75| (CISI-PD Disability with BI) to 0.87 (MDS-UPDRS Part II with RADS). In general, MDS-UPDRS Part II showed high correlation coefficients with clinical variables and satisfactory concordance with the rest of disability measures, with ICC ranging from 0.83 (with BI) to 0.93 (with RADS). All disability rating scales showed statistical significant differences in the sample grouped by sex, age, disease duration, and severity level. CONCLUSIONS: The MDS-UPDRS Part II showed an appropriate performance to assess disability in PD, even better than some rater-based, generic or specific, scales applied in this study.

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SLS-6): First validation study in Parkinson's disease population.

INTRODUCTION: To explore the psychometric attributes of a new Satisfaction with Life Scale (SLS-6) in a wide Spanish-speaking population with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: This was an international, cross-sectional study. Several rater-based and patient-reported outcomes measures for evaluation of PD (e.g., Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease-Motor) and other constructs (e.g., Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire, Scale for Living with Chronic Illness) were applied together with the SLS-6. Acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability, precision, and construct validity were tested. RESULTS: The study included 324 patients from five countries, with age (mean ± standard deviation) 66.67 ± 10.68 years. None of the SLS-6 items had missing values and all acceptability parameters fulfilled the standard criteria. Scaling assumptions allowed the calculation of a summary index from items 2 to 6, complementary to the global evaluation (item 1). For these five items, Cronbach's alpha was 0.85; the corrected item-total correlation 0.53-0.73; inter-item correlation, 0.45-0.70, with an item homogeneity index of 0.55. The standard error of measurement, based on Cronbach's alpha for a single observation, was 3.48. SLS-6 correlations were moderate to strong (rs ≥ 0.35) with the patient-reported outcomes and weak to moderate with the rater-based assessments used in the study. The SLS-6 total score was significantly different according to PD severity levels established according to Hoehn and Yahr staging, Clinical Impression of Severity Index, and Patient-Based Global Impression of Severity scale. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that SLS-6 is an easy, feasible, acceptable, consistent, precise and valid measure to evaluate satisfaction with life in PD patients.

Levodopa en el tratamiento de la enfermedad de Parkinson: mitos y realidades / Levodopa in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: myths and realties

Durante los últimos años hemos sido testigos de una utilización preferente de agonistas dopaminérgicos (AD) como tratamiento de la enfermedad de Parkinson (EP), con la intención de retrasar en lo posible el desarrollo de fluctuaciones y discinesias. Sin embargo, la levodopa continúa siendo el fármaco antiparkinsoniano más eficaz y, probablemente, el que mejora un mayor número de síntomas de la enfermedad. En este artículo se ha realizado una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura por parte de un grupo de neurólogos expertos y miembros del Grupo de Trastornos del Movimiento de la Sociedad Española de Neurología sobre los beneficios y riesgos del tratamiento con levodopa en pacientes con EP. La principal conclusión de este artículo es que la levodopa continúa siendo el tratamiento más eficaz para la EP. Aunque el riesgo y la incidencia de desarrollar discinesias se mantiene en un nivel menor en el grupo tratado inicialmente con AD, el número de pacientes que desarrollan discinesias incapacitantes es muy bajo en todos los estudios y similar para los AD y la levodopa, y las escalas de calidad de vida son también similares en ambos grupos, lo que cuestiona el impacto que estas complicaciones motoras tienen sobre la calidad de vida de los pacientes con EP. A la vista de estos resultados, deberíamos plantearnos si está justificado privar a los pacientes del buen control de los síntomas que proporciona la levodopa por el temor a que desarrollen discinesias o fluctuaciones motoras leves que no van a mermar su calidad de vida. A ello hay que añadir la posibilidad de que desarrollen efectos secundarios graves, que son más frecuentes con el uso de AD (AU)

In recent years we have witnessed a growing tendency to opt for the use of dopamine agonists (DA) as treatment for Parkinson’s disease (PD), with the aim of delaying as far as possible the development of fluctuations and dyskinesias. Yet, levodopa continues to be the most effective antiparkinson drug and is probably the one that improves the greatest number of symptoms of the disease. This article reports on the results of a comprehensive review of the literature dealing with the benefits and risks of levodopa treatment in patients with PD which was conducted by a group of expert neurologists and members of the Spanish Neurology Society’s Movement Disorder Group. The main conclusion reached in this article is that levodopa continues to be the most effective treatment for PD. Although the risk and incidence of developing dyskinesias remains at a lower level in the group initially treated with DA, the number of patients who develop disabling dyskinesias is very low in all the studies and is similar for DA and for levodopa. Scores on the quality of life scales are also similar in the two groups, which casts some doubt on the impact that these motor complications have on the quality of life of patients with PD. In view of these findings, we should consider whether there is any real justification for depriving patients of the good control of their symptoms offered by levodopa owing to the fear of developing dyskinesias or mild motor fluctuations that are not really going to have any negative effect on their quality of life. There is also the possibility of their developing severe side effects, which are more frequent with the use of DA (AU)

[Levodopa in the treatment of Parkinson's disease: myths and realties]. / Levodopa en el tratamiento de la enfermedad de Parkinson: mitos y realidades.

In recent years we have witnessed a growing tendency to opt for the use of dopamine agonists (DA) as treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD), with the aim of delaying as far as possible the development of fluctuations and dyskinesias. Yet, levodopa continues to be the most effective antiparkinson drug and is probably the one that improves the greatest number of symptoms of the disease. This article reports on the results of a comprehensive review of the literature dealing with the benefits and risks of levodopa treatment in patients with PD which was conducted by a group of expert neurologists and members of the Spanish Neurology Society's Movement Disorder Group. The main conclusion reached in this article is that levodopa continues to be the most effective treatment for PD. Although the risk and incidence of developing dyskinesias remains at a lower level in the group initially treated with DA, the number of patients who develop disabling dyskinesias is very low in all the studies and is similar for DA and for levodopa. Scores on the quality of life scales are also similar in the two groups, which casts some doubt on the impact that these motor complications have on the quality of life of patients with PD. In view of these findings, we should consider whether there is any real justification for depriving patients of the good control of their symptoms offered by levodopa owing to the fear of developing dyskinesias or mild motor fluctuations that are not really going to have any negative effect on their quality of life. There is also the possibility of their developing severe side effects, which are more frequent with the use of DA.

Tratamiento de la enfermedad de Parkinson. El inicio del tratamiento, ¿en el momento del diagnóstico o más tarde? / Treatment of Parkinson's disease. Starting treatment: at the time of diagnosis or later?

No disponible

No disponible