Parkinson's disease subtypes in the Oxford Parkinson disease centre (OPDC) discovery cohort

Background: Within Parkinson’s there is a spectrum of clinical features at presentation which may represent sub-types of the disease. However there is no widely accepted consensus of how best to group patients. Objective: Use a data-driven approach to unravel any heterogeneity in the Parkinson’s phenotype in a well-characterised, population-based incidence cohort. Methods: 769 consecutive patients, with mean disease duration of 1.3 years, were assessed using a broad range of motor, cognitive and non-motor metrics. Multiple imputation was carried out using the chained equations approach to deal with missing data. We used an exploratory and then a confirmatory factor analysis to determine suitable domains to include within our cluster analysis. K-means cluster analysis of the factor scores and all the variables not loading into a factor was used to determine phenotypic subgroups. Results: Our factor analysis found three important factors that were characterised by: psychological well-being features; non-tremor motor features, such as posture and rigidity; and cognitive features. Our subsequent five cluster model identified groups characterised by (1) mild motor and non-motor disease (25.4%), (2) poor posture and cognition (23.3%), (3) severe tremor (20.8%), (4) poor psychological well-being, RBD and sleep (18.9%), and (5) severe motor and non-motor disease with poor psychological well-being (11.7%). Conclusion: Our approach identified several Parkinson’s phenotypic sub-groups driven by largely dopaminergic-resistant features (RBD, impaired cognition and posture, poor psychological well-being) that, in addition to dopaminergic-responsive motor features may be important for studying the aetiology, progression, and medication response of early Parkinson’s

Personality and addictive behaviours in early Parkinson's disease and REM sleep behaviour disorder

INTRODUCTION: Changes in personality have been described in Parkinson's disease (PD), with suggestion that those with established disease tend to be risk averse with a disinclination for addictive behaviour. However, little is known about the earliest and prodromal stages. Personality and its relationship with addictive behaviours can help answer important questions about the mechanisms underlying PD and addiction. METHODS: 941 population-ascertained PD subjects within 3.5 years of diagnosis, 128 patients with rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) and 292 control subjects were fully characterised for motor symptoms, non-motor symptoms and across the following 5 personality domains: 1) neuroticism 2) extraversion 3) conscientiousness 4) agreeableness 5) openness using the Big Five Inventory. RESULTS: Patients with early PD were more neurotic (p < 0.001), less extraverted (p < 0.001) and less open than controls (p < 0.001). RBD subjects showed the same pattern of being more neurotic (p < 0.001), less extraverted (p = 0.03) and less open (p < 0.001). PD patients had smoked less (p = 0.02) and drunk less alcohol (p = 0.03) than controls, but caffeine beverage consumption was similar. Being more extraverted (p < 0.001), more open (p < 0.001), and less neurotic (p < 0.001) predicted higher alcohol use, while being more extravert (p = 0.007) and less agreeable (p < 0.001) was associated with smoking more. CONCLUSIONS: A similar pattern of personality changes is seen in PD and RBD compared to a control population. Personality characteristics were associated with addictive behaviours, suggestive of a common link, but the lower rates of addictive behaviours before and after the onset of motor symptoms in PD persisted after accounting for personality

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

REM sleep behaviour disorder is associated with worse quality of life and other non-motor features in early Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND: Concomitant REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is commonly observed in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Although the brainstem structures responsible for the symptoms of RBD correspond to the premotor stages of PD, the association of RBD with motor and non-motor features in early PD remains unclear. METHODS: The study evaluated 475 patients with PD within 3.5 years of diagnosis for the presence of probable RBD (pRBD) using the REM Sleep Behaviour Disorder Screening Questionnaire (RBDSQ). A neurologist and a trained research nurse carried out evaluation of each participant blinded to the results of the RBDSQ. Standardised rating scales for motor and non-motor features of PD, as well as health-related quality of life measures, were assessed. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between pRBD and a variety of outcomes, controlling for confounding factors. RESULTS: The overall frequency of pRBD was 47.2% (95% CI 42.7% to 51.9%). None of the patients had a previous diagnosis of RBD. Patients with PD and concomitant pRBD did not differ on motor phenotype and scored comparably on the objective motor scales, but reported problems with motor aspects of daily living more frequently. Adjusted for age, sex, disease duration and smoking history, pRBD was associated with greater sleepiness (p=0.001), depression (p=0.001) and cognitive impairment (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: pRBD is common and under-recognised in early PD. It is associated with increased severity and frequency of non-motor features, poorer subjective motor performance and a greater impact on health-related quality of life

Delineating nonmotor symptoms in early Parkinson's disease and first-degree relatives

Nonmotor symptoms (NMS) are an important prodromal feature of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, their frequency, treatment rates, and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the early motor phase is unclear. Rates of NMS in enriched at-risk populations, such as first-degree PD relatives, have not been delineated. We assessed NMS in an early cohort of PD, first-degree PD relatives and control subjects to address these questions. In total, 769 population-ascertained PD subjects within 3.5 years of diagnosis, 98 first-degree PD relatives, and 287 control subjects were assessed at baseline across the following NMS domains: (1) neuropsychiatric; (2) gastrointestinal; (3) sleep; (4) sensory; (5) autonomic; and (6) sexual. NMS were much more common in PD, compared to control subjects. More than half of the PD cases had hyposmia, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, or urinary dysfunction. NMS were more frequent in those with the postural instability gait difficulty phenotype, compared to the tremor dominant (mean total number of NMS 7.8 vs. 6.2; P < 0.001). PD cases had worse HRQoL scores than controls (odds ratio: 4.1; P < 0.001), with depression, anxiety, and pain being stronger drivers than motor scores. NMS were rarely treated in routine clinical practice. First-degree PD relatives did not significantly differ in NMS, compared to controls, in this baseline study. NMS are common in early PD and more common in those with postural instability gait difficulty phenotype or on treatment. Despite their major impact on quality of life, NMS are usually under-recognized and untreated. © 2015 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Predictors of cognitive impairment in an early stage Parkinson's disease cohort

The impact of Parkinson's disease (PD) dementia is substantial and has major functional and socioeconomic consequences. Early prediction of future cognitive impairment would help target future interventions. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and fluency tests were administered to 486 patients with PD within 3.5 years of diagnosis, and the results were compared with those from 141 controls correcting for age, sex, and educational years. Eighteen-month longitudinal assessments were performed in 155 patients with PD. The proportion of patients classified with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia varied considerably, depending on the MoCA and MMSE thresholds used. With the MoCA total score at screening threshold, 47.7%, 40.5%, and 11.7% of patients with PD were classified with normal cognition, MCI, and dementia, respectively; by comparison, 78.7% and 21.3% of controls had normal cognition and MCI, respectively. Cognitive impairment was predicted by lower education, increased age, male sex, and quantitative motor and non-motor (smell, depression, and anxiety) measures. Longitudinal data from 155 patients with PD over 18 months showed significant reductions in MoCA scores, but not in MMSE scores, with 21.3% of patients moving from normal cognition to MCI and 4.5% moving from MCI to dementia, although 13.5% moved from MCI to normal; however, none of the patients with dementia changed their classification. The MoCA may be more sensitive than the MMSE in detecting early baseline and longitudinal cognitive impairment in PD, because it identified 25.8% of those who experienced significant cognitive decline over 18 months. Cognitive decline was associated with worse motor and non-motor features, suggesting that this reflects a faster progressive phenotype