↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Newer Pharmacological Treatments on Quality of Life in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Impact of Newer Pharmacological Treatments on Quality of Life in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
Published in
CNS Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/00023210-200822070-00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Gallagher, Anette Schrag

Abstract

Parkinson's disease is a common progressive neurodegenerative condition with multiple motor and nonmotor features contributing to impairment of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Pharmacological treatments have been directed primarily at dopamine replacement with levodopa and agents to improve its bioavailability, including DOPA decarboxylase inhibitors, catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitors and monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors, as well as synthetic dopamine agonists. These treatments to restore motor function are often very successful in early Parkinson's disease, with objective improvement and concomitant improvement in subjective HR-QOL scores. However, as the disease progresses, motor complications and nonmotor symptoms predominate and are often refractory to therapeutic interventions. Antiparkinsonian medications have been shown to improve motor severity and motor complications of advancing disease, and there is increasing evidence that this can be translated into subjective improvement of HR-QOL from a patient's point of view. However, the degree of improvement is less marked on HR-QOL scores than on motor scores, and some studies do not show improvement of HR-QOL in parallel to motor improvements. A number of explanations are possible, including limitations of the scales used, trial designs and lack of clinical improvement from the patients' point of view. This review concentrates on clinical trials with an index of HR-QOL as an outcome measure, with particular emphasis on well designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active comparator-controlled methodology. Drugs that have been more recently added to the armamentarium of Parkinson's disease, including the oral (pramipexole, ropinirole and piribedil) and transdermal (rotigotine) non-ergotamine-derived dopamine agonists, the novel MAO-B inhibitor rasagiline and the COMT inhibitors tolcapone and entacapone, were included. The effect of each of these agents on overall HR-QOL and depression, a factor that has been shown to significantly contribute to HR-QOL in several multivariate analyses, is discussed.Overall, the literature search revealed 14 double-blind, placebo- or active comparator-controlled trials with an index of HR-QOL as an outcome measure. Entacapone resulted in HR-QOL improvement in nonfluctuating patients (one study) but not clearly in those with motor fluctuations (two studies). Tolcapone was only tested in patients with motor fluctuations and resulted in significant improvement in two of four studies using HR-QOL as an outcome measure. Rasagiline improved HR-QOL as monotherapy in early Parkinson's disease (one study), but not clearly in more advanced disease (one study). Rotigotine improved HR-QOL in both early Parkinson's disease (one study) and more advanced disease with motor fluctuations (one study). The impact of ropinirole and pramipexole on HR-QOL as monotherapy in early Parkinson's disease versus placebo has not been assessed, but both agents have resulted in improved HR-QOL in patients with motor fluctuations (ropinirole one study, pramipexole one study). The evidence for antidepressant efficacy of antiparkinsonian medications is limited.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 97 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 29%
Psychology 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2022.
All research outputs
#3,798,945
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#352
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,759
of 187,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#110
of 570 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 187,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 570 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.