Adherence therapy improves medication adherence and quality of life in people with Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many factors are associated with medication non-adherence in Parkinson's disease (PD), including complex treatment regimens, mood disorders and impaired cognition. However, interventions to improve adherence which acknowledge such factors are lacking. A phase II randomised controlled trial was conducted investigating whether Adherence Therapy (AT) improves medication adherence and quality of life (QoL) compared with routine care (RC) in PD. METHODS: Eligible PD patients and their spouse/carers were randomised to intervention (RC plus AT) or control (RC alone). Primary outcomes were change in adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale) and QoL (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39) from baseline to week-12 follow up. Secondary outcomes were MDS-UPDRS (part I, II, IV), Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire (BMQ), EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Caregiving Distress Scale. Blinded data were analysed using logistic and linear regression models based on the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients and 46 spouse/carers completed the study (intervention: n = 38 patients, n = 24 spouse/carers). At week-12 AT significantly improved adherence compared with RC (OR 8.2; 95% CI: 2.8, 24.3). Numbers needed to treat (NNT) were 2.2 (CI: 1.6, 3.9). Compared with RC, AT significantly improved PDQ-39 (-9.0 CI: -12.2, -5.8), BMQ general harm (-1.0 CI: -1.9, -0.2) and MDS-UPDRS part II (-4.8 CI: -8.1, -1.4). No significant interaction was observed between the presence of a spouse/carer and the effect of AT. CONCLUSION: Adherence Therapy improved self-reported adherence and QoL in a PD sample. The small NNT suggests AT may be cost-effective. A larger pragmatic trial to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of AT by multiple therapists is required.

Adherence therapy for medication non-compliant patients with hypertension: a randomised controlled trial.

The objective of this study is to establish the efficacy of adherence therapy (AT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing blood pressure (BP) in non-compliant hypertensive patients. This study was designed as a parallel-group single-blind randomised controlled trial. The study was carried out at three general hospital outpatient clinics in Jordan. A total of 136 non-compliant hypertensive patients with a mean baseline BP of 164.5 mm Hg (s.d. 10.0) over 102.2 mm Hg (s.d. 7.0) participated in the study. 7 weekly 20-min sessions of AT in addition to TAU. The main outcome of this study is systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 11-weeks follow-up. In all, 68 patients received TAU and 68 AT. Intention-to-treat analysis included all participants randomised. AT lowered SBP by -23.11 mm Hg (95% CI: -25.85, -20.36) and diastolic BP (DBP) by -15.18 mm Hg (95% CI: -17.55, -12.80) at 11 weeks compared with TAU. Adherence (measured by pill counting) was also improved in the AT group by 37% at 11 weeks compared with TAU. No significant adverse events were reported. AT increases adherence to medication for hypertension which then leads to a clinically important reduction in BP.

Occupational therapy for patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite drug and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. It has both motor and non-motor symptomatology, and their interaction with their environment can be very complex. The role of the occupational therapist is to support the patient and help them maintain their usual level of self-care, work and leisure activities for as long as possible. When it is no longer possible to maintain their usual activities, occupational therapists support individuals in changing and adapting their relationship with their physical and social environment to develop new valued activities and roles. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of occupational therapy with placebo or no interventions (control group) in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966-April 2007), EMBASE (1974-2000), CINAHL (1982-April 2007), Psycinfo (1806-April 2007), Ovid OLDMEDLINE (1950-1965), ISI Web of Knowledge (1981-April 2007), National Library for Health (NLH) (April 2007), Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health (NMAP) (April 2007), Intute: Medicine (December 2005), Proquest Nursing Journals (PNJ, 1986 - April 2007); rehabilitation databases: AMED (1985-April 2007), MANTIS (1880-2000), REHABDATA (1956-2000), REHADAT (2000), GEROLIT (1979-2000); English language databases of foreign language research and third world publications: Pascal (1984-2000), LILACS (1982- April 2007), MedCarib (17th Century-April 2007), JICST-EPlus (1985-2000), AIM (1993-April 2007), IMEMR (1984-April 2007), grey literature databases: SIGLE (1980-2000), ISI-ISTP (1982-April 2007), DISSABS (1999-2000), Conference Papers Index (CPI, 1982-2000) and Aslib Index to Theses (AIT, 1716- April 2006), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2007), the CenterWatch Clinical Trials listing service (April 2007), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT, April 2007), Current controlled trials (CCT) (April 2007), ClinicalTrials.gov (April 2007), CRISP (1972-April 2007), PEDro (April 2007), NIDRR (April 2007) and NRR (April 2007) and the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews were examined. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included, however those trials that allowed quasi-random methods of allocation were allowed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by two authors and differences were settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were identified with 84 patients in total. Although both trials reported a positive effect from occupational therapy, all of the improvements were small. The trials did not have adequate placebo treatments, used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was not specified in one trial. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources reducing the strength of the studies further. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Considering the significant methodological flaws in the studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease. There is now a consensus as to UK current and best practice in occupational therapy when treating people with Parkinson's disease. We now require large well designed placebo-controlled RCTs to demonstrate occupational therapy's effectiveness in Parkinson's disease. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, occupational therapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least six months to determine the duration of benefit. The trials should be reported using CONSORT guidelines.

Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors versus active comparators for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: As Parkinson's disease progresses the control of the symptoms often requires the addition of other drugs to levodopa. The principle aim of COMT inhibitor therapy is to increase the duration of effect of the levodopa dose and thus reduce the time patients spend in the relatively immobile 'off' phase. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant COMT inhibitor therapy versus active comparators in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1974-2003), were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of COMT inhibitors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of adjuvant COMT inhibitor therapy versus an active comparator in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were found that examined the efficacy of a COMT inhibitor against an active comparator (n = 349). Koller 1998 compared the efficacy of tolcapone versus pergolide (n = 203) over 12 weeks and TSG 1999 compared the efficacy of tolcapone versus bromocriptine (n = 146) over 8 weeks. No trials were found that compared entacapone with active comparators. Tolcapone produced similar benefits to bromocriptine in 'off' time reduction, motor impairment and disability ratings over three months of therapy. Tolcapone produced a greater reduction in levodopa dosage than bromocriptine. Tolcapone produced similar benefits to pergolide in levodopa dose reduction, motor impairment and disability ratings, and in generic health-related quality of life scales over the first two months of therapy. Tolcapone produced a greater improvement in the disease-specific quality of life scale PDQ-39 than pergolide. Nausea, constipation and orthostatic complaints were greater with agonist therapy, but otherwise the frequency of adverse events and withdrawals from treatment were similar with the two classes of adjuvant medication. One patient had significantly elevated liver enzymes whilst on tolcapone, but otherwise the frequency of adverse events and withdrawals from treatment were similar. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The two trials comparing tolcapone with the dopamine agonists bromocriptine and pergolide were underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences between them. This is based on medium-term evidence. No evidence was found comparing entacapone with active comparators. Further larger and longer-term trials are required to compare tolcapone with entacapone and COMT inhibitor therapy with alternative adjuvant classes of drug in later Parkinson's disease such as dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: As Parkinson's disease progresses the control of motor symptoms often requires the addition of other drugs to levodopa. The principle aim of COMT inhibitor therapy is to increase the duration of effect of each levodopa dose and thus reduce the time patients spend in the relatively immobile 'off' phase. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant COMT inhibitor therapy versus placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1974-2003), were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of COMT inhibitors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of adjuvant COMT inhibitor therapy versus a placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 2566 patients with Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations were included in this review. Eight trials examined entacapone versus placebo in a total of 1560 patients. These trials were between two and twelve months in duration. Six trials examined tolcapone versus placebo in a total of 1006 patients. These trials were between six weeks and twelve months in duration. Both tolcapone and entacapone reduced 'off' time, reduced levodopa dose and modestly improved motor impairments and disability. This was at the expense of increased risk of dyskinesias, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. A few participants taking tolcapone were found to have raised liver enzyme levels. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: In the management of the motor complications seen in Parkinson's disease, tolcapone and entacapone can be used to reduce off time, reduce levodopa dose, and modestly improve motor impairment and disability. This is based on, at best, medium term evidence. However some participants on tolcapone had raised liver enzymes. This combined with three cases of fatal hepatic toxicity found during post-marketing surveillance has raised concerns over the safety of tolcapone.

Systematic review of antidepressant therapies in Parkinson's disease.

Depression is the most common psychiatric disturbance in Parkinson's disease. We conducted a Cochrane systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressant therapies in idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Relevant trials were identified from electronic databases, reference lists and queries to antidepressant manufacturers. Three randomised controlled trials examined oral antidepressants in 106 patients with Parkinson's disease. No eligible trials of electroconvulsive or behavioural therapy were found. In the first arm of the crossover trial by Andersen et al. (n=22), nortriptyline treated patients showed a larger improvement than placebo in a unique depression rating scale after 16 weeks although significance levels were not provided. A parallel group trial by Wermuth et al. (n=37) did not show any significant difference between citalopram and placebo in Hamilton score after 52 weeks. Rabey et al. (n=47) performed an open-label trial comparing fluvoxamine with amitriptyline. Similar numbers in each group had a 50% reduction in Hamilton score after 16 months. Major side effects including visual hallucinations and confusion were reported with fluvoxamine and amitriptyline. Insufficient data on the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant therapies in Parkinson's disease are available on which to make recommendations for their use. Large scale randomised controlled trials are urgently required.

Amantadine for dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal involuntary movements known as dyskinesias are amongst the most disabling side-effects of levodopa therapy. It is thought that amantadine, an NMDA-receptor antagonist, may reduce dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson's disease without worsening Parkinsonian symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant amantadine therapy versus placebo in treating dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa, and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1974-2001), SCISEARCH (1974-2001), BIOSIS (1993-2001), GEROLIT (1979-2001), OLDMEDLINE (1957-1965), LILACS (1982-2001), MedCarib (17th Century - 2001), PASCAL (1973-2001), JICST-EPLUS (1985-2001), RUSSMED (1973-2001), DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS (2000-2001), SIGLE (1980-2001), ISI-ISTP (1990-2001), Aslib Index to Theses (2001), Clinicaltrials.gov (2001), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (2001), NIDRR (2001) and NRR (2001) were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of amantadine were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of dyskinesia in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by NC and KD onto standardised forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials were found comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of dyskinesia in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Three trials were excluded on the basis that they had no control group and a further three did not state whether they randomised the treatment that participants received. The included trials were double-blind cross-over studies involving a total of 53 patients. All three studies failed to present data from the first arm, instead presenting results as combined data from both treatment arms and both placebo arms. Two trials had no wash-out interval between the treatment periods. In view of the risk of a carry-over effect into the second arm, the results of these trials were not analysed. The final trial had a one week wash-out interval but only examined 11 participants. One study reported side-effects of amantadine in 8 of the 18 participants, including confusion and worsening of hallucinations. Another reported reversible edema of both feet in one of eleven participants. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of evidence it is impossible to determine whether amantadine is a safe and effective form of treatment for levodopa-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Beta-blocker therapy for tremor in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: The tremor of Parkinson's disease can cause considerable disability for the individual concerned. Traditional antiparkinsonian therapies such as levodopa have only a minor effect on tremor. Beta-blockers are used to attenuate other forms of tremor such as Essential Tremor or the tremor associated with anxiety. It is thought that beta-blockers may be of use in controlling the tremor of Parkinson's disease. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant beta-blocker therapy against placebo for the treatment of tremor in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCISEARCH, BIOSIS, GEROLIT, OLDMEDLINE, LILACS, MedCarib, PASCAL, JICST-EPLUS, RUSSMED, DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, Aslib Index to Theses, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, NIDRR, NRR and CENTRAL were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of beta-blockers were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of adjuvant beta-blocker therapy versus placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by two of the authors onto standardised forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials were found comparing beta-blocker therapy with placebo in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. These were double-blind cross-over studies involving a total of 72 patients. Three studies did not present data from the first arm, instead presenting results as combined data from both treatment arms and both placebo arms. The risk of a carry-over effect into the second arm meant that these results were not analysed. The fourth study presented data from each arm. This was in the form of a mean total score for tremor for each group. Details of the baseline scores, the numbers of patients in each group and standard deviations were not provided, meaning that the magnitude and significance of any changes due to therapy could not be calculated. One study reported a substantial fall in heart rate in 14 of the 22 patients, with one patient withdrawing after his heart rate dropped to 56 beats per minute (baseline heart rate was not reported). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of this lack of evidence, it is impossible to determine whether beta-blocker therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of tremor in Parkinson's disease. The high frequency of bradycardia in one trial raises some concerns about the prescription of beta-blockers to normotensive elderly patients but the study was too small for the true degree of risk to be calculated.

Amantadine in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Although levodopa is the most common drug prescribed to relieve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease it is associated with motor and psychiatric side-effects. Consequently, interest has turned to alternative drugs with improved side-effect profiles to replace or augment levodopa. Amantadine, originally used as an antiviral drug, has been shown to improve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of amantadine therapy (monotherapy or adjuvant therapy) versus placebo in treating people with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1974-2001), SCISEARCH (1974-2001), BIOSIS (1993-2001), GEROLIT (1979-2001), OLDMEDLINE (1957-1965), LILACS (1982-2001), MedCarib (17th Century - 2001), PASCAL (1973-2001), JICST-EPLUS (1985-2001), RUSSMED (1973-2001), DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS (2000-2001), SIGLE (1980-2001), ISI-ISTP (1990-2001), Aslib Index to Theses (2001), Clinicaltrials.gov (2001), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (2001), NIDRR (2001) and NRR (2001) were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of amantadine were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by NC and KD onto standardised forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials were found comparing amantadine monotherapy or adjuvant therapy with placebo in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Five examined amantadine as adjuvant therapy with optimal levels of levodopa or anticholinergics and one examined amantadine as an adjuvant therapy with minimum tolerated levels of anticholinergics or as a monotherapy. Five were double-blind cross-over studies and one was a double-blind parallel group study. In total they examined 215 patients. The parallel group study allowed the randomisation codes to be broken and allowed patients in the placebo group to then receive amantadine. This could have led to bias. One study did not present the results of the placebo arm of the trial, hence we could not determine the difference between the two treatment groups. Two cross-over studies presented the results of the combined data from both treatment and placebo arms. The risk of carry-over effect into the second arm meant that these results could not be analysed. The final two studies presented at least some of their data from the end of the first arm of the trials. However only means were given, without standard deviations, so we could not determine the statistical significance of any difference between the amantadine and placebo groups. Although the authors did report on the side-effects from amantadine (such as livido recticularis, dry mouth and blurred vision), they state that none of them were severe. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: A considerable amount of evidence on the effectiveness of amantadine has accrued from non-controlled trials, often in patients with Parkinsonian conditions other than idiopathic Parkinson's disease. However, rigorous analysis of the six randomised controlled trials of amantadine reveals insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

Recognition of the 60 kilodalton cysteine-rich outer membrane protein OMP2 by CD4(+) T cells from humans infected with Chlamydia trachomatis.

T cell-mediated immunity is important in the control of chlamydia infection but chlamydia-specific T cells are also implicated in the inflammation and tissue damage which characterize chlamydia associated diseases. To investigate target antigens of the T cell-mediated immune response to chlamydia infection, Chlamydia trachomatis-specific CD4+ T cell clones were isolated from a patient with chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis. T cell immunoblotting indicated that an antigen of approximately 60 kilodaltons molecular mass was recognized, and recombinant 60 kilodalton cysteine-rich outer membrane 2 (OMP2) proved to be stimulatory. By using deletion constructs and synthetic peptides an epitope presented by HLA-DRB1*0401 was defined and proved to contain the nonamer peptide within the OMP2 sequence predicted to have the greatest binding affinity for DRB1*0401 The sequence of the epitope is conserved in all C. trachomatis strains but not in C. pneumoniae. Investigation of patients with acute urethritis and additional patients with sexually acquired reactive arthritis showed that OMP2-reactive T cells were readily detectable in peripheral blood and synovial fluid. Thus OMP2 is a target antigen of the T cell-mediated immune response to CT infection.

Occupational therapy for patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite drug and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. The role of the occupational therapist is to support the patient and help them maintain their usual level of self-care, work and leisure activities for as long as possible. When it is no longer possible to maintain their usual activities, occupational therapists support individuals in changing and adapting their relationship with their physical and social environment to develop new valued activities and roles. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of occupational therapy with placebo or no interventions (control group) in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews were examined. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included, however those trials that allowed quasi-random methods of allocation were allowed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by two authors and differences were settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were identified with 84 patients in total. Although both trials reported a positive effect from occupational therapy, all of the improvements were small. The trials did not have adequate placebo treatments, used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was not specified in one trial. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources reducing the strength of the studies further. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Considering the significant methodological flaws in the studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease. There does not appear to be a consensus as to the best practice in occupational therapy when treating people with Parkinson's disease. A survey of therapists is needed to determine what methods of occupational therapy are currently being used by therapists to treat Parkinson's disease, and whether there is a consensus as to 'best-practice'. Large well designed placebo-controlled RCTs are needed to demonstrate occupational therapy's effectiveness in Parkinson's disease. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, occupational therapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least six months to determine the duration of benefit. The trials should be reported using CONSORT guidelines.

Physiotherapy for patients with Parkinson's Disease: a comparison of techniques.

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal medical and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. The role of the physiotherapist is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of physiotherapy with placebo or no interventions in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included, however those trials that allowed quasi-random methods of allocation were allowed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by KD and DJ and differences settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were identified with 280 patients. Eight trials did not have adequate placebo treatments, all used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was good in only four trials. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources. Although ten of the trials claimed a positive effect from physiotherapy, few outcomes measured were statistically significant. Walking velocity was measured in four trials and increased significantly in two of them. Stride length was the only other outcome measured in more than one trial, it was significantly improved in two trials. Five other outcomes improved significantly in individual studies, but eight other outcomes did not improve significantly. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Considering the methodological flaws in many of the studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. The studies illustrate that a wide range of approaches are being employed by physiotherapists to treat Parkinson's disease. This was confirmed by the UK survey of physiotherapists. There is a need to develop a consensus as to 'best-practice'. Large well designed placebo-controlled RCTs are then needed to demonstrate the efficacy and effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. The stage of the disease at which the physiotherapy is given should be specified at the outset. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, physiotherapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least six months to determine the duration of any beneficial effects. The trials should be reported according to CONSORT guidelines.

Speech and language therapy for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Dysarthria is a common manifestation of Parkinson's disease which increases in frequency and intensity with the progress of the disease (Streifler 1984). Up to 20% of Parkinsonian patients are referred for speech and language therapy (S & L T), its aim being to improve the intelligibility of the patient's speech. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of speech and language therapy versus placebo or no interventions in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by KD and RW and differences settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials were found comparing speech and language therapy with placebo for speech disorders in Parkinson's disease. A total of 63 patients were examined. The loudness of the patients' voices were increased by between 7-18%, depending on the speaking task being performed. It is likely that this is a clinically significant improvement. After six months the degree of improvement was reduced but was still statistically significant. Overall measures of dysarthria were measured in two trials and also improved. The clinical significance of these improvements was less clear cut as intelligibility of speech was not measured in any of these studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Considering the small number of patients examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of speech and language therapy for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. A Delphi-style survey is needed to develop a consensus as to what is 'standard' S< for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. Then a large well designed placebo-controlled RCT is needed to demonstrate speech and language therapy's effectiveness for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. The trial should conform to CONSORT guidelines. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients should be chosen and the patients followed for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any improvement.

A comparison of speech and language therapy techniques for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Dysarthria is a common manifestation of Parkinson's disease that increases in frequency and intensity with the progress of the disease (Streifler 1984). Up to 20% of Parkinsonian patients are referred for speech and language therapy (S & LT), its aim being to improve the intelligibility of the patient's speech. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of novel S & LT techniques versus standard S & LT to treat dysarthria in patients with Parkinson's disease. To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of one S & LT technique versus a second form of S & LT to treat Parkinsonian dysarthria. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by KD and RW and differences settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials were identified with only 71 patients. The method of randomisation was good in only one trial and the concealment of allocation was inadequate in both trials. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources. The methods used in the two studies varied so much that meta-analysis of the results was not possible. Scott 83 compared prosodic exercises with visual cues with prosodic exercises alone (See Glossary: Table 01). The authors examined prosody and intelligibility as outcome measures immediately after therapy. Ramig 95 compared the Lee Silverman Voice Therapy (LSVT) which emphasises increased vocal effort, with respiratory therapy which aimed to increase respiratory muscle activity. Ramig 95 examined a wide range of vocal characteristics, activities of daily living affected by speech, depression and the carer's impressions of the patient's speech quality. Some of these outcomes were measured up to 24 months after the end of the therapy. However, in neither study were changes in outcomes due to 'Therapy A' compared with the changes due to 'Therapy B' statistically. Therefore no comment on the comparative efficacy of these types of speech and language therapy can be made. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Considering the methodological flaws in both of these studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of any given form of S & LT over another to treat dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. Given the lack of evidence from RCTs to support or refute the efficacy of S & LT in Parkinson's disease (see Cochrane review 'Speech and Language therapy for Dysarthria in Patients with Parkinson's Disease'), the consensus as to what is considered 'best-practice' S & LT must be proved first through a large well-designed placebo-controlled randomised trial before examining variations in S & LT methodology. The design of these trials should minimise bias and be reported fully using CONSORT guidelines (CONSORT 1996). Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, their carers, physicians and speech and language therapists should be chosen and the patients followed for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any improvement.

Ropinirole for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term levodopa therapy for Parkinson's disease is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and abnormal involuntary movements. One approach is to add a dopamine agonist at this stage of the disease to reduce the time the patient spends immobile or off and to reduce the dose of levodopa in the hope of reducing such problems in the future. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant ropinirole therapy versus placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease already established on levodopa therapy and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with SmithKline Beecham. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of ropinirole versus placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Three double-blind, parallel group, randomised, controlled trials have been conducted on 263 patients. The two phase II studies were relatively small, were conducted over the short term (12 weeks), and used relatively low doses of ropinirole (mean administered doses 3.3 and 3.5 mg/d) in a twice daily regime. In view of this clinical heterogeneity and some statistical heterogeneity, the results of these trials have not been included in a meta-analysis. The conclusions of this review are based on the evidence from a single phase III study which was medium term (26 weeks) and used ropinirole doses in line with the current UK licensed maximum in a thrice daily regime. In view of difficulties in assessing changes in off time in ~~ Leiberman 98~~, caused by the initial imbalance between the arms of the trial, it is unsafe to draw any firm conclusion about the effect of ropinirole on off time. However, as an adverse event, dyskinesia was significantly increased in those who received ropinirole (~~ Leiberman 98~~; odds ratio 2.90; 1.36, 6.19 95% CI; Table 8). Measurements of motor impairments and disability were poor in this study with incomplete information available. Levodopa dose could be reduced in ~~ Leiberman 98~~ with a significantly larger reduction on ropinirole than on placebo (weighted mean difference 180 mg/d; 106, 253 95% CI; Table 2). No significant differences in the frequency of adverse event reports were noted between ropinirole and placebo apart from the increase in dyskinesia with ropinirole. There was a trend towards fewer withdrawals from ropinirole in ~~ Leiberman 98~~ but this did not reach statistical significance. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ropinirole therapy can reduce levodopa dose but at the expense of increased dyskinetic adverse events. No clear effect on off time reduction was found but this may have been due to the under-powering of the single evaluable trial. Inadequate data on motor impairments and disability was collected to assess these outcomes. These conclusions apply to short and medium term treatment, up to 26 weeks. Further longer term trials are required, with measurements of effectiveness, and also studies to compare the newer with the older dopamine agonists.

Ropinirole versus bromocriptine for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term levodopa therapy for Parkinson's disease is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and abnormal involuntary movements. One approach is to add a dopamine agonist at this stage of the disease to reduce the time the patient spends immobile or off and to reduce the dose of levodopa in the hope of reducing such problems in the future. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant ropinirole therapy with bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease already established on levodopa therapy and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with SmithKline Beecham. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of ropinirole versus bromocriptine in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In the 3 trials identified, no significant differences between ropinirole and bromocriptine were found in off time reduction, dyskinesia as an adverse event, motor impairment and disability, or levodopa dose reduction. Withdrawal rates and adverse event frequency were similar with the two agents apart from significantly less nausea with ropinirole (odds ratio 0.50; 0.29, 0.84 95% CI; p =0.01). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ropinirole is at least as good as bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease with motor complications in terms of improving off time and reducing levodopa dose, without increasing adverse events including dyskinesia. However, these comparitor studies may have been underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences between the agonists. Further, much larger, phase IV studies are required to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of all of the dopamine agonists as adjuvant therapy in Parkinson's disease.

Cabergoline for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Long term levodopa therapy in Parkinson's disease is associated with the development of motor complications including abnormal involuntary movements and a shortening response to each dose (wearing off phenomenon). It is thought that dopamine agonists can reduce the duration of immobile off periods and the need for levodopa therapy whilst maintaining or improving motor impairments and only minimally increasing dopaminergic adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant cabergoline therapy versus placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with Pharmacia Upjohn Limited. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of cabergoline versus placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, off time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Cabergoline has been compared with placebo in two phase II (6 - 12 weeks) and one phase III randomised controlled trials (24 weeks). These were double-blind, parallel group, multicentre studies including 268 patients with Parkinson's disease and motor complications. The reduction of 1.14 hours (WMD; 95% CI -0.06, 2.33; p = 0.06) in off time in favour of cabergoline was not statistically significant. Inadequate data on dyskinesia was collected either on rating scales or as adverse event reporting to allow a conclusion to be drawn. A small but statistically significant advantage of cabergoline over placebo was seen in one study for UPDRS ADL (part II) score and UPDRS motor score. No such advantage was seen in one other study due to small numbers of patients and the comparatively low doses of cabergoline used. No significant differences in Schwab and England scale were seen in two studies. Levodopa dose reduction was significantly greater with cabergoline (WMD 149.6 mg/d; 95% CI 94.1, 205.1; p < 0.00001). There was a trend towards more dopaminergic adverse events with cabergoline but this did not reach statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level. However, there was a trend towards fewer withdrawals from cabergoline. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In the management of the motor complications seen in Parkinson's disease, cabergoline can be used to reduce levodopa dose and modestly improve motor impairment and disability with an acceptable adverse event profile. These conclusions are based on, at best, medium term evidence.

A comparison of physiotherapy techniques for patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal medical and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. The role of the physiotherapist is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. What form of physiotherapy is most effective in the treatment of Parkinson's disease remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of novel physiotherapy techniques versus 'standard' physiotherapy in patients with Parkinson's disease. Standard physiotherapy is defined as the type of therapy that the physiotherapist would usually use to treat Parkinson's disease. 2. To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of one physiotherapy technique versus a second form of physiotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by KD and CEH and differences settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were identified with 142 patients. All used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was poor or not statedin all of the trials. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources. The methods of physiotherapy varied so widely that the data could not be combined. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Considering the small number of patients examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of any given form of physiotherapy over another in Parkinson's disease. Another Cochrane review, Physiotherapy for patients with Parkinson's Disease, found that there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of physiotherapy compared to no physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. A wide range of physiotherapy approaches were used in these studies and a survey of UK physiotherapists confirmed that they also use an eclectic combination of techniques in the treatment of Parkinson's disease (Plant 1999). Therefore a consensus must be found as to 'best practice' physiotherapy for Parkinson's disease. The efficacy of 'standard' physiotherapy should be proved first before examining variations in physiotherapy methods. Therefore large well designed randomised controlled trials are needed to judge the effect of physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. After this large RCTs are needed to demonstrate the most effective form of physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, physiotherapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any effect. The trials should be reported according to CONSORT guidelines (CONSORT 1996).

Non-pharmacological therapies for dysphagia in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia occurs frequently in Parkinson's disease although patients themselves may be unaware of swallowing difficulties. Speech and language therapists in conjunction with nurses and dietitians use techniques that aim to improve swallowing and reduce the risk of choking, aspiration and chest infections. OBJECTIVES: ~Bullet~To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of non-pharmacological swallowing therapy for dysphagia versus placebo or no intervention in patients with Parkinson's disease. ~Bullet~To compare one form of non-pharmacological swallowing therapy for dysphagia with another in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. We did not examine any trials using drugs or surgery to treat the dysphagia. We did not examine any trials where part of the therapist's advice was to insert a nasogastric or percutaneous gastrostomy tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Not applicable. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials or controlled trials were found that examined the efficacy of non-pharmacological swallowing therapy for the treatment of dysphagia in Parkinson's disease. However there is one large RCT currently recruiting patients that will compare 'chin down' posture with thickened liquids in the treatment of dysphagia. The main outcomes will be the rates of aspiration and pneumonia. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support or refute the efficacy of non-pharmacological swallowing therapy for dysphagia in Parkinson's disease. Large well designed placebo-controlled RCTs are required to assess the effectiveness of swallowing therapy for dysphagia in Parkinson's disease and reported according to CONSORT guidelines. Suitable outcome measures should be chosen so that the efficacy and effectiveness of non-pharmacological swallowing therapy can be assessed and an economic analysis performed. Outcomes which have meaning to patients and carers should be used wherever possible since they need to know the value of this therapy in practical terms. The patients should be followed for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any improvement.

Ropinirole for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term levodopa therapy for Parkinson's disease is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and abnormal involuntary movements. One approach is to add a dopamine agonist at this stage of the disease to reduce the time the patient spends immobile or off and to reduce the dose of levodopa in the hope of reducing such problems in the future. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant ropinirole therapy versus placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease already established on levodopa therapy and suffering from motor complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with SmithKline Beecham. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of ropinirole versus placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Three double-blind, parallel group, randomised, controlled trials have been conducted on 263 patients. The two phase II studies were relatively small, were conducted over the short term (12 weeks), and used relatively low doses of ropinirole. The other phase III study was medium term (26 weeks) and used ropinirole doses in line with the current UK licensed maximum. Additional data from the manufacturer showed that the difference in the reduction in off time was non-significantly greater with ropinirole than placebo (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.19 hours; -0.63, 1.00 95% CI). As an adverse event, dyskinesia was significantly increased in those who received ropinirole (odds ratio [OR] 2.59; 1.35, 4.96 95% CI; p < 0.004). Measurements of motor impairments and disability were poor in these studies with incomplete information available. Levodopa dose could be reduced in two studies with a significantly larger reduction on ropinirole than on placebo (WMD 136.5mg/d; 74.5, 198.6 95% CI; p =0.00002). No significant differences in the frequency of adverse event reports were noted between ropinirole and placebo apart from the increase in dyskinesia with ropinirole. There was a trend towards fewer withdrawals from ropinirole but this did not reach statistical significance. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ropinirole therapy can reduce levodopa dose but at the expense of increased dyskinetic adverse events. No significant effect on off time reduction was found but this may have been due to under-powered trials and the low doses of ropinirole used in the phase II studies. Inadequate data on motor impairments and disability was collected to assess these outcomes. These conclusions apply to short and medium term treatment, up to 26 weeks. Further longer term trials are required, with measurements of effectiveness, and also studies to compare the newer with the older dopamine agonists.