Objective: In some countries, such as Germany, there has been a move towards the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease in specialised inpatient units. However, data on patient outcome and the daily costs of antiparkinsonian drugs in these settings are rare. This study was conducted to determine the effect of an inpatient setting (a specialised Parkinson’s disease clinic) on drug therapy costs and patient symptoms.
Patients and Methods: This study involved 63 consecutively referred inpatients of a Parkinson’s disease clinic. On entry to the clinic, the patients’ antiparkinsonian drug regimen was titrated in order to improve their motor function. The daily costs of drug therapy per patient (in 2002 values) were calculated, and the severity of Parkinson’s disease symptoms scored via scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and standardised instrumental procedures (peg insertion and tapping), both initially and at the end of the patients’ stay in the clinic. The variables between the two evaluation timepoints were compared.
Results: The titration of antiparkinsonian drugs was associated with a significant decrease in the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease at discharge from the clinic compared with admission (as measured by UPDRS total and subscale scores [all p < 0.001], and, to a lesser extent, by peg insertion and tapping [both p < 0.05]). A significant increase in daily drug costs (an increase of €14.11 per patient for all drugs and €12.36 per patient for antiparkinsonian drugs [both p <0.001]) was also observed.
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that the symptoms experienced by patients with Parkinson’s disease improve after performance of antiparkinsonian drug titration within the setting of a specialised Parkinson’s disease clinic. The effect on symptoms was seen most clearly with the UPDRS, although both peg insertion and tapping reflected this improvement to a certain extent. Drug titration resulted in, on average, a doubling of daily drug costs. Future trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of such a hospital stay on indirect costs associated with treating Parkinson’s disease, and on caregiver burden, and also to compare the efficacy of a Parkinson’s disease clinic with an outpatient setting.
Ben Shlomo Y. The epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Baillieres Clin Neurol 1997; 6(1): 55–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
Obeso JA, Olanow CW, Nutt JG. Levodopa motor complications in Parkinson’s disease. Trends Neurosci 2000; 23(10 Suppl.): S2–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke CE. Medical management of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72Suppl. 1: I22–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
LePen C, Wait S, Moutard-Martin F, et al. Cost of illness and disease severity in a cohort of French patients with Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16(1): 59–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimbo T, Hira K, Takemura M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dopamine agonists in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease in Japan. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(8): 875–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoerger TJ, Bala MV, Rowland C, et al. Cost effectiveness of pramipexole in Parkinson’s disease in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14(5): 541–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery Jr EB, Lieberman A, Singh G, et al. Patient education and health promotion can be effective in Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled trial. PROPATH Advisory Board. Am J Med 1994; 97(5): 429–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein LM, DeLeo A, Chrischilles EA. Economic and health-related quality of life considerations of new therapies in Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(7): 729–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbins GT, Goetz CG, Lang AE, et al. Factor analysis of the motor section of the unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale during the off-state. Mov Disord 1999; 14(4): 585–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Martin P, Fontan C, Frades PB, et al. Parkinson’s disease: quantification of disability based on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Neurologia 2000; 15(9): 382–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
Nutt JG, Lea ES, Van Houten L, et al. Determinants of tapping speed in normal control subjects and subjects with Parkinson’s disease: differing effects of brief and continued practice. Mov Disord 2000; 15(5): 843–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soliveri P, Brown RG, Jahanshahi M, et al. Effect of practice on performance of a skilled motor task in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55(6): 454–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller T, Schafer S, Kuhn W, et al. Correlation between tapping and inserting of pegs in Parkinson’s disease. Can J Neurol Sci 2000; 27(4): 311–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, et al. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55(3): 181–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahn S, Elton R, and Members of the UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Goldstein M, et al., editors. Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease II. New York: Macmillan, 1987: 153–63Google Scholar
Müller T, Kuhn W, Schulte T, et al. Intravenous amantadine sulphate application improves the performance of complex but not simple motor tasks in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Lett 2003; 339(1): 25–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller T, Benz S. Quantification of the dopaminergic response in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2002; 8(1): 181–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller T, Benz S, Przuntek H. Tapping and peg insertion after levodopa intake in treated and de novo parkinsonian patients. Can J Neurol Sci 2002; 29(1): 73–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
Braak H, Braak E, Yilmazer D, et al. New aspects of pathology in Parkinson’s disease with concomitant incipient Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm Suppl 1996; 48: 1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
Freed CR, Greene PE, Breeze RE, et al. Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 344(10): 710–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hely MA, Morris JG, Traficante R, et al. The Sydney multicentre study of Parkinson’s disease: progression and mortality at 10 years. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 67(3): 300–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przuntek H, Welzel D, Gerlach M, et al. Early institution of bromocriptine in Parkinson’s disease inhibits the emergence of levodopa-associated motor side effects: long-term results of the PRADO study. J Neural Transm Gen Sect 1996; 103(6): 699–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rascol O, Brooks DJ, Korczyn AD, et al. A five-year study of the incidence of dyskinesia in patients with early Parkinson’s disease who were treated with ropinirole or levodopa: 056 Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 342(20): 1484–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przuntek H, Bittkau S, Bliesath H, et al. Budipine provides additional benefit in patients with Parkinson disease receiving a stable optimum dopaminergic drug regimen. Arch Neurol 2002; 59(5): 803–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baas H, Beiske AG, Ghika J, et al. Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibition with tolcapone reduces the ‘wearing off’ phenomenon and levodopa requirements in fluctuating parkinsonian patients. Neurology 1998; 50(5 Suppl. 5): S46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poewe WH, Deuschl G, Gordin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of entacapone in Parkinson’s disease patients with suboptimal levodopa response: a 6-month randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study in Germany and Austria (Celomen study). Acta Neurol Scand 2002; 105(4): 245–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar