| Title |
Long-term duodenal levodopa infusion in Parkinson’s disease: a 3-year motor and cognitive follow-up study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-012-6597-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maurizio Zibetti, Aristide Merola, Valeria Ricchi, Alice Marchisio, Carlo Alberto Artusi, Laura Rizzi, Elisa Montanaro, Dario Reggio, Claudio De Angelis, Mario Rizzone, Leonardo Lopiano |
| Abstract |
Duodenal infusion of levodopa/carbidopa gel (Duodopa) is an effective treatment option for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). Long-term clinical experience up to 16 years suggests that the safety of this procedure is acceptable, while several observational studies showed that Duodopa reduces motor fluctuations and dyskinesias improving patients' quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term motor and cognitive outcome of Duodopa treatment in advanced PD patients and its' impact on the QoL. Twenty-five consecutive PD patients were assessed using the Unified PD rating scale (UPDRS), a battery of neuropsychological tests, and the PD questionnaire (PDQ-39) at baseline and after a mean period of three years of Duodopa treatment. Seventeen out of 25 patients reached the follow-up evaluation; five patients discontinued Duodopa and three patients died of causes unrelated to drug infusion. Duodopa improved motor complications (UPDRS-IV) and quality of life (PDQ-39). A sub-group of subjects (41 %) developed a significant deterioration of cognitive functions over time. The most common adverse events were dislocation and the kinking of the intestinal tube. In conclusion, Duodopa therapy is effective in the long-term treatment of advanced PD patients. Continuous enteral levodopa infusion achieves a reduction of motor fluctuations and dyskinesias improving patients' QoL, despite the progression of PD motor symptoms and a significant decline in cognitive functions in a sub-group of patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 34% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,386,149
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#448
of 4,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,823
of 164,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#2
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 164,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.