Polypharmacy, Potentially Inappropriate Medications, and Drug-Drug Interactions in Vulnerable Older Adults With Advanced Cancer Initiating Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults starting cancer treatment and associated with potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), potential drug-drug interactions (DDI), and drug-cancer treatment interactions (DCI). For a large cohort of vulnerable older adults with advanced cancer starting treatment, we describe patterns of prescription and nonprescription medication usage, the prevalence of PIM, and the prevalence, severity, and type of DDI/DCI. METHODS: This secondary analysis used baseline data from a randomized study enrolling patients aged ≥70 years with advanced cancer starting a new systemic cancer treatment (University of Rochester Cancer Center [URCC] 13059; PI: Mohile). PIM were categorized using 2019 Beers criteria and Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions. Potential DDI/DCI were evaluated using Lexi-Interact Online. Medication classification followed the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical system. Bivariate associations were evaluated between sociodemographic and geriatric assessment (GA) measures and medication measures. Chord diagrams and network analysis were used to understand and describe DDI/DCI. RESULTS: Among 718 patients (mean age 77.6 years), polypharmacy (≥5 medications), excessive polypharmacy (≥10 medications), and ≥1 PIM were identified in 61.3%,14.5%, and 67.1%, respectively. Cardiovascular medications were the most prevalent (47%), and nonprescription medications accounted for 26% of total medications and 40% of PIM. One-quarter of patients had ≥1 potential major DDI not involving cancer treatment, and 5.4% had ≥1 potential major DCI. Each additional medication increased the odds of a potential major DDI and DCI by 39% and 12%, respectively. Polypharmacy and PIM are associated with multiple GA domains. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of vulnerable older adults with advanced cancer starting treatment, polypharmacy, PIM, and potential DDI/DCI are very common. Nonprescription medications are frequently PIMs and/or involved in potential DDI/DCI.

Life expectancy in older adults with advanced cancer: Evaluation of a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model.

OBJECTIVES: Oncologists estimate patients' prognosis to guide care. Evidence suggests oncologists tend to overestimate life expectancy, which can lead to care with questionable benefits. Information obtained from geriatric assessment may improve prognostication for older adults. In this study, we created a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model for older adults with advanced cancer and compared its performance to alternative models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile) capturing geriatric assessment and vital status up to one year for adults age ≥ 70 years with advanced cancer. Oncologists estimated life expectancy as 0-6 months, 7-12 months, and > 1 year. Three statistical models were developed: (1) a model including age, sex, cancer type, and stage (basic model), (2) basic model + Karnofsky Performance Status (≤50, 60-70, and 80+) (KPS model), and (3) basic model +16 binary indicators of geriatric assessment impairments (GA model). Cox regression was used to model one-year survival; c-indices and time-dependent c-statistics assessed model discrimination and stratified survival curves assessed model calibration. RESULTS: We included 484 participants; mean age was 75; 48% had gastrointestinal or lung cancer. Overall, 43% of patients died within one year. Oncologists classified prognosis accurately for 55% of patients, overestimated for 35%, and underestimated for 10%. C-indices were 0.61 (basic model), 0.62 (KPS model), and 0.63 (GA model). The GA model was well-calibrated. CONCLUSIONS: The GA model showed moderate discrimination for survival, similar to alternative models, but calibration was improved. Further research is needed to optimize geriatric assessment-based prognostic models for use in older adults with advanced cancer.

Evaluation of geriatric assessment and management on the toxic effects of cancer treatment (GAP70+): a cluster-randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with advanced cancer are at a high risk for treatment toxic effects. Geriatric assessment evaluates ageing-related domains and guides management. We examined whether a geriatric assessment intervention can reduce serious toxic effects in older patients with advanced cancer who are receiving high risk treatment (eg, chemotherapy). METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, we enrolled patients aged 70 years and older with incurable solid tumours or lymphoma and at least one impaired geriatric assessment domain who were starting a new treatment regimen. 40 community oncology practice clusters across the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention (oncologists received a tailored geriatric assessment summary and management recommendations) or usual care (no geriatric assessment summary or management recommendations were provided to oncologists) by means of a computer-generated randomisation table. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had any grade 3-5 toxic effect (based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4) over 3 months. Practice staff prospectively captured toxic effects. Masked oncology clinicians reviewed medical records to verify. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02054741. FINDINGS: Between July 29, 2014, and March 13, 2019, we enrolled 718 patients. Patients had a mean age of 77·2 years (SD 5·4) and 311 (43%) of 718 participants were female. The mean number of geriatric assessment domain impairments was 4·5 (SD 1·6) and was not significantly different between the study groups. More patients in intervention group compared with the usual care group were Black versus other races (40 [11%] of 349 patients vs 12 [3%] of 369 patients; p<0·0001) and had previous chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients vs 81 [22%] of 369 patients; p=0·016). A lower proportion of patients in the intervention group had grade 3-5 toxic effects (177 [51%] of 349 patients) compared with the usual care group (263 [71%] of 369 patients; relative risk [RR] 0·74 (95% CI 0·64-0·86; p=0·0001). Patients in the intervention group had fewer falls over 3 months (35 [12%] of 298 patients vs 68 [21%] of 329 patients; adjusted RR 0·58, 95% CI 0·40-0·84; p=0·0035) and had more medications discontinued (mean adjusted difference 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·25; p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: A geriatric assessment intervention for older patients with advanced cancer reduced serious toxic effects from cancer treatment. Geriatric assessment with management should be integrated into the clinical care of older patients with advanced cancer and ageing-related conditions. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Relationships of self-perceived age with geriatric assessment domains in older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Older self-perceived age is associated with poor health and higher healthcare utilization in the geriatric population. We evaluated the associations of self-perceived age with geriatric assessment (GA) domain impairments in older adults with cancer. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of baseline data from a GA cluster-randomized trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile). We included patients aged ≥70 with incurable stage III/IV solid tumor or lymphoma considering or receiving treatment and had ≥1 GA domain impairment other than polypharmacy. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the associations of age difference between chronological and self-perceived age (categorized into "feeling younger than chronological age" vs. "feeling the same or older than their chronological age") with GA domain impairments. RESULTS: We included 533 patients; mean age was 76.6 (SD 5.2). On multivariate analyses, compared to those who felt younger than their chronological age, those who felt the same or older were more likely to have impairments in physical performance [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 5.42, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.69-17.40)], functional status (AOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.07), comorbidity (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20-2.19), psychological health (AOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.85-3.73), and nutrition (AOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20-2.28). They were also more likely to screen positively for polypharmacy (AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.30-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with cancer who felt the same or older than their chronological age were more likely to have GA domain impairments. Further studies are needed to better understand the relationships between self-perceived age, aging-related conditions, and outcomes in this population.

Communication With Older Patients With Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial From the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

Importance: Older patients with cancer and their caregivers worry about the effects of cancer treatment on aging-related domains (eg, function and cognition). Quality conversations with oncologists about aging-related concerns could improve patient-centered outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) can capture evidence-based aging-related conditions associated with poor clinical outcomes (eg, toxic effects) for older patients with cancer. Objective: To determine whether providing a GA summary and GA-guided recommendations to oncologists can improve communication about aging-related concerns. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster-randomized clinical trial enrolled 541 participants from 31 community oncology practices within the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Patients were aged 70 years or older with an advanced solid malignant tumor or lymphoma who had at least 1 impaired GA domain; patients chose 1 caregiver to participate. The primary outcome was assessed on an intent-to-treat basis. Interventions: Oncology practices were randomized to receive either a tailored GA summary with recommendations for each enrolled patient (intervention) or alerts only for patients meeting criteria for depression or cognitive impairment (usual care). Main Outcomes and Measures: The predetermined primary outcome was patient satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns (modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire [score range, 0-28; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction]), measured after the first oncology visit after the GA. Secondary outcomes included the number of aging-related concerns discussed during the visit (from content analysis of audiorecordings), quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale for patients and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for caregivers), and caregiver satisfaction with communication about aging-related patient concerns. Results: A total of 541 eligible patients (264 women, 276 men, and 1 patient did not provide data; mean [SD] age, 76.6 [5.2] years) and 414 caregivers (310 women, 101 men, and 3 caregivers did not provide data; mean age, 66.5 [12.5] years) were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied after the visit with communication about aging-related concerns (difference in mean score, 1.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05-2.13 points; P = .04); satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns remained higher in the intervention group over 6 months (difference in mean score, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.04-2.16; P = .04). There were more aging-related conversations in the intervention group's visits (difference, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-4.95; P < .001). Caregivers in the intervention group were more satisfied with communication after the visit (difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.12-1.98; P = .03). Quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Including GA in oncology clinical visits for older adults with advanced cancer improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443.

The Influence of Patient Race and Activation on Pain Management in Advanced Lung Cancer: a Randomized Field Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Pain management racial disparities exist, yet it is unclear whether disparities exist in pain management in advanced cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of race on physicians' pain assessment and treatment in advanced lung cancer and the moderating effect of patient activation. DESIGN: Randomized field experiment. Physicians consented to see two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) over 18 months. SPs portrayed 4 identical roles-a 62-year-old man with advanced lung cancer and uncontrolled pain-differing by race (black or white) and role (activated or typical). Activated SPs asked questions, interrupted when necessary, made requests, and expressed opinions. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncologists from small cities, and suburban and rural areas of New York, Indiana, and Michigan. Physicians' mean age was 52 years (SD = 27.17), 59% male, and 64% white. MAIN MEASURES: Opioids prescribed (or not), total daily opioid doses (in oral morphine equivalents), guideline-concordant pain management, and pain assessment. KEY RESULTS: SPs completed 181 covertly audio-recorded visits that had complete data for the model covariates. Physicians detected SPs in 15% of visits. Physicians prescribed opioids in 71% of visits; 38% received guideline-concordant doses. Neither race nor activation was associated with total opioid dose or guideline-concordant pain management, and there were no interaction effects (p > 0.05). Activation, but not race, was associated with improved pain assessment (ẞ, 0.46, 95% CI 0.18, 0.74). In post hoc analyses, oncologists (but not PCPs) were less likely to prescribe opioids to black SPs (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07, 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Neither race nor activation was associated with opioid prescribing; activation was associated with better pain assessment. In post hoc analyses, oncologists were less likely to prescribe opioids to black male SPs than white male SPs; PCPs had no racial disparities. In general, physicians may be under-prescribing opioids for cancer pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01501006.

Geriatric assessment-driven polypharmacy discussions between oncologists, older patients, and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common in older adults with cancer, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Approaches to identifying and addressing PP/PIM are needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 years with advanced cancer were enrolled in this cluster-randomized study. All underwent geriatric assessment (GA), and oncologists randomized to the intervention arm received GA-driven recommendations; no information was provided to oncologists at usual care sites. For patients with PP (≥5 medications or ≥1 high-risk medication), clinic visits with treating oncologists were audiorecorded and transcribed, and discussions regarding PP/PIM identified. Quality of provider response was coded as dismissed, mentioned, acknowledged, or addressed. RESULTS: Forty patient transcripts were analyzed (20 per arm). More discussions occurred in the intervention group (n = 81) versus the usual care group (n = 51). More concerns per patient were brought up in the intervention group (4.1 vs. 2.6, p = 0.07). Physician-initiated discussions were higher in the intervention group (73% vs. 49%, p = 0.006). More PP concerns were "addressed" in the intervention group (59% vs. 45%, p = 0.1). Oncology supportive care medication concerns were more often addressed in the usual care group (58% vs. 18%, p = 0.008), but medication management concerns were addressed more commonly in the intervention group (38% vs. 79%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In this secondary analysis, a GA-driven intervention increased PP discussions, particularly about total number of medications and medication management. PP/PIM concerns were more commonly addressed in the intervention group, except for the subset of conversations about supportive care medications.

Community Oncologists' Decision-Making for Treatment of Older Patients With Cancer.

Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that "the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved" (89%) and that "geriatrics training is essential" (72%). However, <25% were "very confident" in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73-9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01-9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12-7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43-7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36-7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12-5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.

The social and behavioral influences (SBI) study: study design and rationale for studying the effects of race and activation on cancer pain management.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities exist in the care provided to advanced cancer patients. This article describes an investigation designed to advance the science of healthcare disparities by isolating the effects of patient race and patient activation on physician behavior using novel standardized patient (SP) methodology. METHODS/DESIGN: The Social and Behavioral Influences (SBI) Study is a National Cancer Institute sponsored trial conducted in Western New York State, Northern/Central Indiana, and lower Michigan. The trial uses an incomplete randomized block design, randomizing physicians to see patients who are either black or white and who are "typical" or "activated" (e.g., ask questions, express opinions, ask for clarification, etc.). The study will enroll 91 physicians. DISCUSSION: The SBI study addresses important gaps in our knowledge about racial disparities and methods to reduce them in patients with advanced cancer by using standardized patient methodology. This study is innovative in aims, design, and methodology and will point the way to interventions that can reduce racial disparities and discrimination and draw links between implicit attitudes and physician behaviors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , #NCT01501006, November 30, 2011.

Promoting End-of-Life Discussions in Advanced Cancer: Effects of Patient Coaching and Question Prompt Lists.

Purpose To build on results of a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a combined patient-oncologist intervention to improve communication in advanced cancer, we conducted a post hoc analysis of the patient intervention component, a previsit patient coaching session that used a question prompt list (QPL). We hypothesized that intervention-group participants would bring up more QPL-related topics, particularly prognosis-related topics, during the subsequent oncologist visit. Patients and Methods This cluster RCT with 170 patients who had advanced nonhematologic cancer (and their caregivers) recruited from practices of 24 participating oncologists in western New York. Intervention-group oncologists (n = 12) received individualized communication training; up to 10 of their patients (n = 84) received a previsit individualized communication coaching session that incorporated a QPL. Control-group oncologists (n = 12) and patients (n = 86) received no interventions. Topics of interest identified by patients during the coaching session were summarized from coaching notes; one office visit after the coaching session was audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using linear regression modeling for group differences. Results Compared with controls, more than twice as many intervention-group participants brought up QPL-related topics during their office visits (70.2% v 32.6%; P < .001). Patients in the intervention group were nearly three times more likely to ask about prognosis (16.7% v 5.8%; P =.03). Of 262 topics of interest identified during coaching, 158 (60.3%) were QPL related; 20 (12.7%) addressed prognosis. Overall, patients in the intervention group brought up 82.4% of topics of interest during the office visit. Conclusion A combined coaching and QPL intervention was effective to help patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers identify and bring up topics of concern, including prognosis, during their subsequent oncologist visits. Considering that most patients are misinformed about prognosis, more intensive steps are needed to better promote such discussions.

Effect of a Patient-Centered Communication Intervention on Oncologist-Patient Communication, Quality of Life, and Health Care Utilization in Advanced Cancer: The VOICE Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Observational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Oncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627.

Determinants of Patient-Oncologist Prognostic Discordance in Advanced Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with advanced cancer often report expectations for survival that differ from their oncologists' expectations. Whether patients know that their survival expectations differ from those of their oncologists remains unknown. This distinction is important because knowingly expressing differences of opinion is important for shared decision making, whereas patients not knowing that their understanding differs from that of their treating physician is a potential marker of inadequate communication. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence, distribution, and proportion of prognostic discordance that is due to patients' knowingly vs unknowingly expressing an opinion that differs from that of their oncologist. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study conducted at academic and community oncology practices in Rochester, New York, and Sacramento, California. The sample comprises 236 patients with advanced cancer and their 38 oncologists who participated in a randomized trial of an intervention to improve clinical communication. Participants were enrolled from August 2012 to June 2014 and followed up until October 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We ascertained discordance by comparing patient and oncologist ratings of 2-year survival probability. For discordant pairs, we determined whether patients knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists by asking the patients to report how they believed their oncologists rated their 2-year survival. RESULTS: Among the 236 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.4] years; 54% female), 161 patient-oncologist survival prognosis ratings (68%; 95% CI, 62%-75%) were discordant. Discordance was substantially more common among nonwhite patients compared with white patients (95% [95% CI, 86%-100%] vs 65% [95% CI, 58%-73%], respectively; P = .03). Among 161 discordant patients, 144 (89%) did not know that their opinions differed from that of their oncologists and nearly all of them (155 of 161 [96%]) were more optimistic than their oncologists. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, patient-oncologist discordance about survival prognosis was common and patients rarely knew that their opinions differed from those of their oncologists.

Values and options in cancer care (VOICE): study design and rationale for a patient-centered communication and decision-making intervention for physicians, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Communication about prognosis and treatment choices is essential for informed decision making in advanced cancer. This article describes an investigation designed to facilitate communication and decision making among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. METHODS/DESIGN: The Values and Options in Cancer Care (VOICE) Study is a National Cancer Institute sponsored randomized controlled trial conducted in the Rochester/Buffalo, NY and Sacramento, CA regions. A total of 40 oncologists, approximately 400 patients with advanced cancer, and their family/friend caregivers (one per patient, when available) are expected to enroll in the study. Drawing upon ecological theory, the intervention uses a two-pronged approach: oncologists complete a multifaceted tailored educational intervention involving standardized patient instructors (SPIs), and patients and caregivers complete a coaching intervention to facilitate prioritizing and discussing questions and concerns. Follow-up data will be collected approximately quarterly for up to three years. DISCUSSION: The intervention is hypothesized to enhance patient-centered communication, quality of care, and patient outcomes. Analyses will examine the effects of the intervention on key elements of physician-patient-caregiver communication (primary outcomes), the physician-patient relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, patient well-being, and health service utilization (secondary outcomes). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01485627.

Development and testing of the Parkinson's disease quality of life scale.

We report on the development and results of preliminary psychometric testing of a disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scale intended for use in individuals diagnosed with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD). Results from an initial qualitative study provided content for item development and scale construction of the Parkinson's disease quality of life scale (PDQUALIF). The 33-item instrument includes seven domains: social/role function, self-image/sexuality, sleep, outlook, physical function, independence, and urinary function, plus one item of Global HRQoL. Initial psychometric testing of the instrument was conducted in 233 outpatient clinic attendees with physician-confirmed idiopathic PD. Factor structure, reliability and validity of the scale have been established in this cross-sectional study. Continuing development of the PDQUALIF will be directed at enhancing the psychometric properties, establishing responsiveness and determining appropriateness in culturally diverse samples.

Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson disease (PD) is a degenerative neurological disorder for which no treatment has been shown to slow the progression. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a range of dosages of coenzyme Q10 is safe and well tolerated and could slow the functional decline in PD. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dosage-ranging trial. SETTING: Academic movement disorders clinics. PATIENTS: Eighty subjects with early PD who did not require treatment for their disability. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to placebo or coenzyme Q10 at dosages of 300, 600, or 1200 mg/d. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The subjects underwent evaluation with the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) at the screening, baseline, and 1-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-month visits. They were followed up for 16 months or until disability requiring treatment with levodopa had developed. The primary response variable was the change in the total score on the UPDRS from baseline to the last visit. RESULTS: The adjusted mean total UPDRS changes were +11.99 for the placebo group, +8.81 for the 300-mg/d group, +10.82 for the 600-mg/d group, and +6.69 for the 1200-mg/d group. The P value for the primary analysis, a test for a linear trend between the dosage and the mean change in the total UPDRS score, was.09, which met our prespecified criteria for a positive trend for the trial. A prespecified, secondary analysis was the comparison of each treatment group with the placebo group, and the difference between the 1200-mg/d and placebo groups was significant (P =.04). CONCLUSIONS: Coenzyme Q10 was safe and well tolerated at dosages of up to 1200 mg/d. Less disability developed in subjects assigned to coenzyme Q10 than in those assigned to placebo, and the benefit was greatest in subjects receiving the highest dosage. Coenzyme Q10 appears to slow the progressive deterioration of function in PD, but these results need to be confirmed in a larger study.