Cost-Effectiveness of Dopamine Agonists and Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient-rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone. METHODS: PD MED is a pragmatic, open-label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs between levodopa and levodopa-sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30; P < 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671-£4109; P < 0.01) than levodopa-sparing therapies, the difference in costs driven by the higher costs of levodopa-sparing therapies. There were no significant differences in the costs of inpatient, social care, and institutional care between arms. There was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; -0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628-£3015; P < 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists. There were no significant differences between arms for other costs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost-effective compared with levodopa-sparing therapies. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was more cost-effective, with similar quality-adjusted life-years but lower costs than dopamine agonists. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson's Disease: a comparison of trained and untrained listeners.

Intelligibility of speech is a key outcome in speech and language therapy (SLT) and research. SLT students frequently participate as raters of intelligibility but we lack information about whether they rate intelligibility in the same way as the general public. This paper aims to determine if there is a difference in the intelligibility ratings made by SLT students (trained in speech related topics) compared to individuals from the general public (untrained). The SLT students were in year 2 of a BSc programme or the first 6 months of a MSc programme. We recorded 10 speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) related speech reading aloud the words and sentences from the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. These speech recordings were rated for intelligibility by 'trained' raters and 'untrained' raters. The effort required to understand the speech was also reported. There were no significant differences in the measures of intelligibility from the trained and untrained raters for words or sentences after adjusting for speaker by including them as a covariate in the model. There was a slight increase in effort reported by the untrained raters for the sentences. This difference in reported effort was not evident with the words. SLT students can be recruited alongside individuals from the general public as naïve raters for evaluating intelligibility in people with speech disorders.

Botulinum toxins for the prevention of migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine occurs in around 15% of adults and is ranked as the seventh most disabling disease amongst all diseases globally. Despite the available treatments many people suffer prolonged and frequent attacks which have a major impact on their quality of life. Chronic migraine is defined as 15 or more days of headache per month, at least eight of those days being migraine. People with episodic migraine have fewer than 15 headache days per month. Botulinum toxin type A has been licensed in some countries for chronic migraine treatment, due to the results of just two trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of botulinum toxins versus placebo or active treatment for the prevention or reduction in frequency of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE & MEDLINE in Process, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (to December 2017). We examined reference lists and carried out citation searches on key publications. We sent correspondence to major manufacturers of botulinum toxin. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of botulinum toxin (any sero-type) injections into the head and neck for prophylaxis of chronic or episodic migraine in adults. Eligible comparators were placebo, alternative prophylactic agent or different dose of botulinum toxin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. For continuous outcomes we used mean change data when available. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used data from the 12-week post-treatment follow-up time point. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: Description of trialsWe found 90 articles describing 28 trials (4190 participants), which were eligible for inclusion. The longest treatment duration was three rounds of injections with three months between treatments, so we could not analyse long-term effects. For the primary analyses, we pooled data from both chronic and episodic participant populations. Where possible, we also separated data into chronic migraine, episodic migraine and 'mixed group' classification subgroups. Most trials (21 out of 28) were small (fewer than 50 participants per trial arm). The risk of bias for included trials was low or unclear across most domains, with some trials reporting a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Botulinum toxin versus placeboTwenty-three trials compared botulinum toxin with placebo. Botulinum toxin may reduce the number of migraine days per month in the chronic migraine population by 3.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to -1.4, 4 trials, 1497 participants, low-quality evidence). This was reduced to -2 days (95% CI -2.8 to -1.1, 2 trials, 1384 participants; moderate-quality evidence) when we removed small trials.A single trial of people with episodic migraine (N = 418) showed no difference between groups for this outcome measure (P = 0.49).In the chronic migraine population, botulinum toxin reduces the number of headache days per month by 1.9 days (95% CI -2.7 to -1.0, 2 trials, 1384 participants, high-quality evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference in the number of migraine attacks for both chronic and episodic migraine participants (6 trials, N = 2004, P = 0.30, low-quality evidence). For the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants a reduction in severity of migraine rated during clinical visits, on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) of 3.3 cm (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5, very low-quality evidence) in favour of botulinum toxin treatment came from four small trials (N = 209); better reporting of this outcome measure from the additional eight trials that recorded it may have improved our confidence in the pooled estimate. Global assessment and quality-of-life measures were poorly reported and it was not possible to carry out statistical analysis of these outcome measures. Analysis of adverse events showed an increase in the risk ratio with treatment with botulinum toxin over placebo 30% (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47, moderate-quality evidence). For every 100 participants 60 experienced an adverse event in the botulinum toxin group compared with 47 in the placebo group.Botulinum toxin versus other prophylactic agentThree trials studied comparisons with alternative oral prophylactic medications. Meta-analyses were not possible for number of migraine days, number of headache days or number of migraine attacks due to insufficient data, but individually trials reported no differences between groups for a variety of efficacy measures in the population of both chronic and episodic migraine participants. The global impression of disease measured using Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores were reported from two trials that showed no difference between groups. Compared with oral treatments, botulinum toxin showed no between-group difference in the risk of adverse events (2 trials, N = 114, very low-quality evidence). The relative risk reduction (RRR) for withdrawing from botulinum toxin due to adverse events compared with the alternative prophylactic agent was 72% (P = 0.02, 2 trials, N = 119).Dosing trialsThere were insufficient data available for the comparison of different doses.Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE methods was varied but mostly very low; the quality of the evidence for the placebo and active control comparisons was low and very low, respectively for the primary outcome measure. Small trial size, high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity were common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In chronic migraine, botulinum toxin type A may reduce the number of migraine days per month by 2 days compared with placebo treatment. Non-serious adverse events were probably experienced by 60/100 participants in the treated group compared with 47/100 in the placebo group. For people with episodic migraine, we remain uncertain whether or not this treatment is effective because the quality of this limited evidence is very low. Better reporting of outcome measures in published trials would provide a more complete evidence base on which to draw conclusions.

Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether initial treatment for Parkinson's disease should consist of levodopa, dopamine agonists, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (MAOBI) is uncertain. We aimed to establish which of these three classes of drug, as initial treatment, provides the most effective long-term control of symptoms and best quality of life for people with early Parkinson's disease. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label randomised trial, patients newly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (by telephone call to a central office; 1:1:1) between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or MAOBI) and levodopa alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Primary outcomes were the mobility dimension on the 39-item patient-rated Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) quality-of-life scale (range 0-100 with six points defined as the minimally important difference) and cost-effectiveness. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN69812316. FINDINGS: Between Nov 9, 2000, and Dec 22, 2009, 1620 patients were assigned to study groups (528 to levodopa, 632 to dopamine agonist, 460 to MAOBI). With 3-year median follow-up, PDQ-39 mobility scores averaged 1·8 points (95% CI 0·5-3·0, p=0·005) better in patients randomly assigned to levodopa than those assigned to levodopa-sparing therapy, with no increase or attrition of benefit during 7 years' observation. PDQ-39 mobility scores were 1·4 points (95% CI 0·0-2·9, p=0·05) better in patients allocated MAOBI than in those allocated dopamine agonists. EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0·03 (95% CI 0·01-0·05; p=0·0002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·61-1·08, p=0·14), admissions to institutions (0·86, 0·63-1·18; p=0·4), and death (0·85, 0·69-1·06, p=0·17) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. MAOBI as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was at least as effective as dopamine agonists. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and UK Department of Health.

Physiotherapy for Parkinson's disease: a comparison of techniques.

BACKGROUND: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and wellbeing, thereby enhancing quality of life. Trials have shown that physiotherapy has short-term benefits in PD. However, which physiotherapy intervention is most effective remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of one physiotherapy intervention compared with a second approach in patients with PD. SEARCH METHODS: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of numerous literature databases (for example MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, plus handsearching of major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to the end of January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of one physiotherapy intervention versus another physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently from each paper by two authors. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance and martial arts. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 43 trials were identified with 1673 participants. All trials used small patient numbers (average trial size of 39 participants); the methods of randomisation and concealment of allocation were poor or not stated in most trials. Blinded assessors were used in just over half of the trials and only 10 stated that they used intention-to-treat analysis.A wide variety of validated and customised outcome measures were used to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions. The most frequently reported physiotherapy outcomes were gait speed and timed up and go, in 19 and 15 trials respectively. Only five of the 43 trials reported data on falls (12%). The motor subscales of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 were the most commonly reported clinician-rated disability and patient-rated quality of life outcome measures, used in 22 and 13 trials respectively. The content and delivery of the physiotherapy interventions varied widely in the trials included within this review, so no quantitative meta-analysis could be performed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Considering the small number of participants examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies, the possibility of publication bias, and the variety of interventions, formal comparison of the different physiotherapy techniques could not be performed. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of one physiotherapy intervention over another in PD.This review shows that a wide range of physiotherapy interventions to treat PD have been tested . There is a need for more specific trials with improved treatment strategies to underpin the most appropriate choice of physiotherapy intervention and the outcomes measured.

Addressing Comorbidities in People with Parkinson's Disease: Considerations From An Expert Panel.

In the UK, guidance exists to aid clinicians and patients deciding when treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) should be initiated and which therapies to consider. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends that before starting PD treatment clinicians should discuss the following: the patient's individual clinical circumstances; lifestyle; preferences; needs and goals; as well as the potential benefits and harms of the different drug classes. Individualization of medicines and management in PD significantly improves patients' outcomes and quality of life. This article aims to provide simple and practical guidance to help clinicians address common, but often overlooked, co-morbidities. A multi-disciplinary group of PD experts discussed areas where clinical care can be improved by addressing commonly found co-morbidities in people with Parkinson's (PwP) based on clinical experience and existing literature, in a roundtable meeting organized and funded by Bial Pharma UK Ltd. The experts identified four core areas (bone health, cardiovascular risk, anticholinergic burden, and sleep quality) that, if further standardized may improve treatment outcomes for PwP patients. Focusing on anticholinergic burden, cardiac risk, sleep, and bone health could offer a significant contribution to personalizing regimes for PwP and improving overall patient outcomes. Within this opinion-based paper, the experts offer a list of guiding factors to help practitioners in the management of PwP.

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index. RESULTS: People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT.

Background: Speech impairments are common with Parkinson's disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal. Objective(s): The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson's disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other. Design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted. Setting: United Kingdom outpatient and home settings. Participants: People with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy. Interventions: The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire - Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Results: Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD (n = 130), National Health Service speech and language therapy (n = 129) and control (n = 129). The impact of voice problems at 3 months after randomisation was lower for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD participants than control [-8.0 (99% confidence interval: -13.3, -2.6); p = 0.001]. There was no evidence of improvement for those with access to National Health Service speech and language therapy when compared to control [1.7 (99% confidence interval: -3.8, 7.1); p = 0.4]. Participants randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD reported a lower impact of their voice problems than participants randomised to National Health Service speech and language therapy [99% confidence interval: -9.6 (-14.9, -4.4); p < 0.0001]. There were no reports of serious adverse events. Staff were confident with the trial interventions; a range of patient and therapist enablers of implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD were identified. The economic evaluation results suggested Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was more expensive and more effective than control or National Health Service speech and language therapy but was not cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £197,772 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and £77,017 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Limitations: The number of participants recruited to the trial did not meet the pre-specified power. Conclusions: People that had access to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD described a significantly greater reduction in the impact of their Parkinson's disease-related speech problems 3 months after randomisation compared to people that had no speech and language therapy. There was no evidence of a difference between National Health Service speech and language therapy and those that received no speech and language therapy. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD resulted in a significantly lower impact of voice problems compared to National Health Service speech and language therapy 3 months after randomisation which was still present after 12 months; however, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was not found to be cost-effective. Future work: Implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in the National Health Service and identifying alternatives to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD for those who cannot tolerate it. Investigation of less costly alternative options for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment delivery require investigation, with economic evaluation using a preference-based outcome measure that captures improvement in communication. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN12421382. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 58. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Most people with Parkinson's disease develop difficulties with their speech and voice. Communicating becomes difficult. This affects their relationships, work, social life and how they feel about themselves. Our PD COMM trial compared two types of speech and language therapy to find out if they helped the speech and voice problems people with Parkinson's have. We measured changes in the way their voice and speech problems affected their lives and how much therapy cost the National Health Service and families. Everyone taking part had speech or voice problems because of their Parkinson's disease. People could not take part if they had dementia, evidence of laryngeal pathology or previous laryngeal surgery or received speech and therapy for Parkinson's disease in the last 2 years. People who agreed to take part joined one of three groups, which were alike except for the therapy they received. A computer decided which group they joined by chance. National Health Service speech and language therapy Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD No speech and language therapy for 12 months The 388 people who took part came from 41 outpatient clinics in Scotland, England and Wales. Most were older men. The people that received Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD felt better about their speech and voice after 3 months compared to people in the other groups. A year later, they still felt better about it. People that received National Health Service therapy had no benefit compared to people with no access to therapy. Analysis of cost-effectiveness indicated that Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD did not offer value for money and the intervention cost more because more speech and language therapy time was needed to deliver it. Our next question is to ask how we can provide Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in a way that costs less, for example, using therapy assistants and computer packages or at home. Clear speech and language therapy approaches for people with Parkinson's disease and speech or voice problems should be tested in trials that measure changes in people's lives.

Dissection of the genetics of Parkinson's disease identifies an additional association 5' of SNCA and multiple associated haplotypes at 17q21.

We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 1705 Parkinson's disease (PD) UK patients and 5175 UK controls, the largest sample size so far for a PD GWAS. Replication was attempted in an additional cohort of 1039 French PD cases and 1984 controls for the 27 regions showing the strongest evidence of association (P< 10(-4)). We replicated published associations in the 4q22/SNCA and 17q21/MAPT chromosome regions (P< 10(-10)) and found evidence for an additional independent association in 4q22/SNCA. A detailed analysis of the haplotype structure at 17q21 showed that there are three separate risk groups within this region. We found weak but consistent evidence of association for common variants located in three previously published associated regions (4p15/BST1, 4p16/GAK and 1q32/PARK16). We found no support for the previously reported SNP association in 12q12/LRRK2. We also found an association of the two SNPs in 4q22/SNCA with the age of onset of the disease.

Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. Physiotherapy aims to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety, and well-being, thereby enhancing quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no intervention in patients with PD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant trials by conducting electronic searches of numerous literature databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, and by handsearching major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to the end of January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy intervention versus no physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each article. We used standard meta-analysis methods to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no physiotherapy intervention. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance, and martial arts. We used tests for heterogeneity to assess for differences in treatment effect across these different physiotherapy interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 39 trials with 1827 participants. We considered the trials to be at a mixed risk of bias as the result of unreported allocation concealment and probable detection bias. Compared with no intervention, physiotherapy significantly improved the gait outcomes of speed (mean difference 0.04 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.06, P = 0.0002); two- or six-minute walk test (13.37 m, 95% CI 0.55 to 26.20, P = 0.04) and Freezing of Gait questionnaire (-1.41, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.19, P = 0.02); functional mobility and balance outcomes of Timed Up & Go test (-0.63 s, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.21, P = 0.003), Functional Reach Test (2.16 cm, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.43, P = 0.0008), and Berg Balance Scale (3.71 points, 95% CI 2.30 to 5.11, P < 0.00001); and clinician-rated disability using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (total -6.15 points, 95% CI-8.57 to -3.73, P < 0.00001; activities of daily living: -1.36, 95% CI -2.41 to -0.30, P = 0.01; and motor: -5.01, 95% CI -6.30 to -3.72, P < 0.00001). No difference between arms was noted in falls (Falls Efficacy Scale: -1.91 points, 95% CI -4.76 to 0.94, P = 0.19) or patient-rated quality of life (PDQ-39 Summary Index: -0.38 points, 95% CI -2.58 to 1.81, P = 0.73). One study reported that adverse events were rare; no other studies reported data on this outcome. Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions revealed no evidence that the treatment effect differed across physiotherapy interventions for any of the outcomes assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Benefit for physiotherapy was found in most outcomes over the short term (i.e. < 3 months) but was significant only for speed, two- or six-minute walk test, Freezing of Gait questionnaire, Timed Up & Go, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale, and clinician-rated UPDRS. Most of the observed differences between treatments were small. However, for some outcomes (e.g. speed, Berg Balance Scale, UPDRS), the differences observed were at, or approaching, what are considered minimal clinically important changes. These benefits should be interpreted with caution because the quality of most of the included trials was not high. Variation in measurements of outcome between studies meant that our analyses include a small proportion of the participants recruited.This review illustrates that a wide range of approaches are employed by physiotherapists to treat patients with PD. However, no evidence of differences in treatment effect was noted between the different types of physiotherapy interventions being used, although this was based on indirect comparisons. A consensus menu of 'best practice' physiotherapy is needed, as are large, well-designed randomised controlled trials undertaken to demonstrate the longer-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in PD.

A multi-centre clinico-genetic analysis of the VPS35 gene in Parkinson disease indicates reduced penetrance for disease-associated variants.

BACKGROUND: Two recent studies identified a mutation (p.Asp620Asn) in the vacuolar protein sorting 35 gene as a cause for an autosomal dominant form of Parkinson disease . Although additional missense variants were described, their pathogenic role yet remains inconclusive. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed the largest multi-center study to ascertain the frequency and pathogenicity of the reported vacuolar protein sorting 35 gene variants in more than 15,000 individuals worldwide. p.Asp620Asn was detected in 5 familial and 2 sporadic PD cases and not in healthy controls, p.Leu774Met in 6 cases and 1 control, p.Gly51Ser in 3 cases and 2 controls. Overall analyses did not reveal any significant increased risk for p.Leu774Met and p.Gly51Ser in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our study apart from identifying the p.Asp620Asn variant in familial cases also identified it in idiopathic Parkinson disease cases, and thus provides genetic evidence for a role of p.Asp620Asn in Parkinson disease in different populations worldwide.

Systematic review and UK-based study of PARK2 (parkin), PINK1, PARK7 (DJ-1) and LRRK2 in early-onset Parkinson's disease.

Approximately 3.6% of patients with Parkinson's disease develop symptoms before age 45. Early-onset Parkinson's disease (EOPD) patients have a higher familial recurrence risk than late-onset patients, and 3 main recessive EOPD genes have been described. We aimed to establish the prevalence of mutations in these genes in a UK cohort and in previous studies. We screened 136 EOPD probands from a high-ascertainment regional and community-based prevalence study for pathogenic mutations in PARK2 (parkin), PINK1, PARK7 (DJ-1), and exon 41 of LRRK2. We also carried out a systematic review, calculating the proportion of cases with pathogenic mutations in previously reported studies. We identified 5 patients with pathogenic PARK2, 1 patient with PINK1, and 1 with LRRK2 mutations. The rate of mutations overall was 5.1%. Mutations were more common in patients with age at onset (AAO) < 40 (9.5%), an affected first-degree relative (6.9%), an affected sibling (28.6%), or parental consanguinity (50%). In our study EOPD mutation carriers were more likely to present with rigidity and dystonia, and 6 of 7 mutation carriers had lower limb symptoms at onset. Our systematic review included information from >5800 unique cases. Overall, the weighted mean proportion of cases with PARK2 (parkin), PINK1, and PARK7 (DJ-1) mutations was 8.6%, 3.7%, and 0.4%, respectively. PINK1 mutations were more common in Asian subjects. The overall frequency of mutations in known EOPD genes was lower than previously estimated. Our study shows an increased likelihood of mutations in patients with lower AAO, family history, or parental consanguinity.

Speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech problems in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease patients commonly suffer from speech and vocal problems including dysarthric speech, reduced loudness and loss of articulation. These symptoms increase in frequency and intensity with progression of the disease). Speech and language therapy (SLT) aims to improve the intelligibility of speech with behavioural treatment techniques or instrumental aids. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech and voice problems in patients with Parkinson's disease. SEARCH METHODS: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of numerous literature databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL, as well as handsearching of relevant conference abstracts and examination of reference lists in identified studies and other reviews. The literature search included trials published prior to 11(th) April 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) of speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by CH and CT and differences settled by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials with a total of 63 participants were found comparing SLT with placebo for speech disorders in Parkinson's disease. Data were available from 41 participants in two trials. Vocal loudness for reading a passage increased by 6.3 dB (P = 0.0007) in one trial, and 11.0 dB (P = 0.0002) in another trial. An increase was also seen in both of these trials for monologue speaking of 5.4 dB (P = 0.002) and 11.0 dB (P = 0.0002), respectively. It is likely that these are clinically significant improvements. After six months, patients from the first trial were still showing a statistically significant increase of 4.5 dB (P = 0.0007) for reading and 3.5 dB for monologue speaking. Some measures of speech monotoni city and articulation were investigated; however, all these results were non-significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although improvements in speech impairments were noted in these studies, due to the small number of patients examined, methodological flaws, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively support or refute the efficacy of SLT for speech problems in Parkinson's disease. A large well designed placebo-controlled RCT is needed to demonstrate SLT's effectiveness in Parkinson's disease. The trial should conform to CONSORT guidelines. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients with Parkinson's disease should be chosen and patients followed for at least six months to determine the duration of any improvement.

Comparison of speech and language therapy techniques for speech problems in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson's disease commonly suffer from speech and voice difficulties such as impaired articulation and reduced loudness. Speech and language therapy (SLT) aims to improve the intelligibility of speech with behavioural treatment techniques or instrumental aids. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of novel SLT techniques versus a standard SLT approach to treat Parkinsonian speech problems. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant, published prior to 11(th) April 2011, by electronic searches of numerous literature databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and CINAHL, as well as handsearching relevant conference abstracts and examining reference lists in identified studies and other reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) of one type of speech and language therapy versus another were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved differences by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 159 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Data could not be analysed from one trial due to changes in patient numbers and from a second because the data provided were not in a usable format. All trials reported intelligibility measures but a statistically significant result was only reported for the diagnostic rhyme test used in the study of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment -LOUD (LSVT-LOUD) versus a modified version of this therapy (LSVT-ARTIC). In this case a difference of 12.5 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -22.2 to -2.8; P = 0.01) between the mean changes in favour of the LSVT-LOUD group was reported for a speech sample overlaid with Babble noise; this difference was not reproduced for the two additional noise conditions under which the speech samples were assessed. LSVT-LOUD also outperformed LSVT-ARTIC and Respiration therapy (RT) in improving loudness, with a difference in reading a sample text of 5.0 dB (95%CI -8.3 to -1.7; P = 0.003) and 5.5 dB (95% CI 3.4 to 7.7; P < 0.00001) respectively, and a difference in monologue speech of 2.9 dB (95% CI 0.6 to 5.2; P = 0.01) versus RT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Considering the small patient numbers in these trials, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of any form of SLT over another to treat speech problems in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy aims to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and well-being, thereby enhancing quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no intervention in patients with PD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant trials by electronic searches of numerous literature databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, plus handsearching of major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to end of December 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy intervention versus no physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each article. We used standard meta-analysis methods to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no physiotherapy intervention. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance and martial arts. We used tests for heterogeneity to assess for differences in treatment effect across these different physiotherapy interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 33 trials with 1518 participants. Compared with no-intervention, physiotherapy significantly improved the gait outcomes of velocity (mean difference 0.05 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 0.07, P = 0.0002), two- or six-minute walk test (16.40 m, CI: 1.90 to 30.90, P = 0.03) and step length (0.03 m, CI: 0 to 0.06, P = 0.04); functional mobility and balance outcomes of Timed Up & Go test (-0.61 s, CI: -1.06 to -0.17, P = 0.006), Functional Reach Test (2.16 cm, CI: 0.89 to 3.43, P = 0.0008) and Berg Balance Scale (3.36 points, CI: 1.91 to 4.81, P < 0.00001); and clinician-rated disability using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (total: -4.46 points, CI -7.16 to -1.75, P = 0.001; activities of daily living: -1.36, CI -2.41 to -0.30, P = 0.01; and motor: -4.09, CI: -5.59 to -2.59, P < 0.00001). There was no difference between arms in falls or patient-rated quality of life. Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the physiotherapy interventions for any of the outcomes assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Benefit for physiotherapy was found in most outcomes over the short-term (i.e. < three months), but was only significant for velocity, two- or six-minute walk test, step length, Timed Up & Go, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale and clinician-rated UPDRS. Most of the observed differences between the treatments were small. However, for some outcomes (e.g. velocity, Berg Balance Scale and UPDRS), the differences observed were at, or approaching, what are considered minimally clinical important changes.The review illustrates that a wide range of approaches are employed by physiotherapists to treat PD. However, there was no evidence of differences in treatment effect between the different types of physiotherapy interventions being used, though this was based on indirect comparisons. There is a need to develop a consensus menu of 'best-practice' physiotherapy, and to perform large well-designed randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the longer-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in PD.

Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy aims to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and well-being, thereby enhancing quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no intervention in patients with PD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant trials by electronic searches of numerous literature databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, plus handsearching of major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to end of December 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy intervention versus no physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each article. We used standard meta-analysis methods to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no physiotherapy intervention. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance and martial arts. We used tests for heterogeneity to assess for differences in treatment effect across these different physiotherapy interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 33 trials with 1518 participants. Compared with no-intervention, physiotherapy significantly improved the gait outcomes of velocity (mean difference 0.05 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 0.07, P = 0.0002), two- or six-minute walk test (16.40 m, CI: 1.90 to 30.90, P = 0.03) and step length (0.03 m, CI: 0 to 0.06, P = 0.04); functional mobility and balance outcomes of Timed Up & Go test (-0.61 s, CI: -1.06 to -0.17, P = 0.006), Functional Reach Test (2.16 cm, CI: 0.89 to 3.43, P = 0.0008) and Berg Balance Scale (3.36 points, CI: 1.91 to 4.81, P < 0.00001); and clinician-rated disability using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (total: -4.46 points, CI -7.16 to -1.75, P = 0.001; activities of daily living: -1.36, CI -2.41 to -0.30, P = 0.01; and motor: -4.09, CI: -5.59 to -2.59, P < 0.00001). There was no difference between arms in falls or patient-rated quality of life. Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the physiotherapy interventions for any of the outcomes assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Benefit for physiotherapy was found in most outcomes over the short-term (i.e. < three months), but was only significant for velocity, two- or six-minute walk test, step length, Timed Up & Go, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale and clinician-rated UPDRS. Most of the observed differences between the treatments were small. However, for some outcomes (e.g. velocity, Berg Balance Scale and UPDRS), the differences observed were at, or approaching, what are considered minimally clinical important changes.The review illustrates that a wide range of approaches are employed by physiotherapists to treat PD. However, there was no evidence of differences in treatment effect between the different types of physiotherapy interventions being used, though this was based on indirect comparisons. There is a need to develop a consensus menu of 'best-practice' physiotherapy, and to perform large well-designed randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the longer-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in PD.

Should treatment for Parkinson's disease start immediately on diagnosis or delayed until functional disability develops?

BACKGROUND: Evidence from clinical trials with monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (TEMPO, ADAGIO and DATATOP) and levodopa (ELLDOPA) suggests that Parkinson's disease patients may benefit from treatment being commenced immediately on diagnosis rather than waiting for functional disability to develop, as is traditional clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a narrative literature review and meta-analysis of delayed-start design trials in Parkinson's disease. RESULTS: There was inconsistency in the results of the two rasagiline delayed-start design trials, with early treatment with a 2 mg dose significantly superior in the TEMPO trial, but the 1 mg dose significantly better in the ADAGIO trial, making interpretation difficult. Further, the benefits of immediate treatment were small in terms of total unified Parkinson's disease rating scale scores, with a mean difference of 0.91 units (95% confidence interval 0.01, 1.80; P = 0.05) in a meta-analysis of the TEMPO and ADAGIO delayed-start design trials. Such small differences are unlikely to be of clinical relevance. There is also little information on whether immediate treatment has a beneficial effect on patient quality of life with an acceptable adverse reaction profile, and we have no data on whether immediate treatment is cost-effective. DISCUSSION: Based on the evidence available, changing clinical practice to immediate therapy on diagnosis is not warranted and further trials are needed.

Meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant treatment to levodopa in later Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Levodopa initially provides good symptomatic control of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, but motor complications often develop after long-term use. Other classes of antiparkinsonian drugs including dopamine agonists, catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitors, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors are then added as adjuvant therapy. It is unclear whether one class of drug is more effective than another. This meta-analysis evaluates the comparative benefits and risks of these agents as adjuvant treatment in Parkinson's disease patients with motor complications. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 1966 to the end of June 2010 was conducted to identify randomized trials involving a dopamine agonist, catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor versus placebo, as adjuvant to levodopa therapy. RESULTS: Forty-five trials involving nearly 9,000 participants were included. The meta-analysis confirms reports from individual trials that compared with placebo, adjuvant therapy significantly reduces patient off-time and levodopa dose, with improved symptom severity scores (e.g., Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale). However, dyskinesia and numerous other side effects are increased with adjuvant therapy. Few randomized comparisons between drugs have been undertaken, but indirect comparisons suggest that dopamine agonist therapy may be more effective than catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor therapy, which have comparable efficacy. No differences between drugs within each class were observed other than the catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor tolcapone appearing more efficacious than entacapone. DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis highlights the need for direct head-to-head randomized trials to assess the impact of adjuvant therapy on patient-rated quality of life and health economic outcomes.

Helicobacter pylori eradication for Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Levodopa is the mainstay of treatment for alleviating the motor symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease. However, patients often experience fluctuations in their symptoms over time and 'wearing off' which may be partly related to variable absorption of the drug. There is some evidence that treatment of the common gastrointestinal infection Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) with antibiotics may improve levodopa absorption in the gut and hence improve symptoms. OBJECTIVES: 1) What is the prevalence of H pylori in Parkinson's disease patients? 2) Does treatment of H pylori infection with antibiotics improve symptoms in Parkinson's disease patients? Is this effect dependent on improvements in the absorption of levodopa? SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) and trial registers, handsearched conference proceedings and carried out citation searching on key articles. All searching was updated in August 2009. We contacted authors to provide additional information where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials in patients with a well-defined definition of Parkinson's disease and who were H pylori-positive. Two people independently selected studies for inclusion using predetermined criteria. We used recruitment figures from clinical trials and other studies identified from the searching to determine the prevalence of H pylori in Parkinson's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors abstracted data from the source papers and assessed methodological quality independently. We presented results descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: Two completed and one ongoing clinical trial met the inclusion criteria. One trial (34 patients randomised) examined the effects of H pylori eradication on levodopa absorption and motor symptoms and found significant improvements in both. The ongoing trial has similar objectives and aims to recruit 100 patients. The other completed trial (20 patients analysed) sought to find a causal link between infection with H pylori and Parkinsonism and was non-contributory. A worsening of symptoms was noted with eradication failure.The prevalence of H pylori in Parkinson's disease was reported in four studies and ranged from 37% to 59% which is similar to that of the general population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of evidence on the effects of screening and treating H pylori in patients with Parkinson's disease. There is limited evidence to suggest that H Pylori eradication improves the absorption of levodopa and improves motor symptoms. Results from an ongoing trial will inform the evidence base and will be incorporated in an update of this review. There is a need for well-conducted randomised controlled trials with standard outcome measures for motor symptoms and incorporating the costs of screening and treatment.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as disease-modifying agents for Parkinson's disease: evidence from observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Neuroinflammation may play a key role in the neurodegeneration associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be beneficial in the primary and secondary prevention of PD. OBJECTIVES: 1) Do NSAIDs prevent the onset of PD?2) Are NSAIDs neuroprotective in PD - do they slow the progression of disease once PD is established?3) What are the adverse effects of taking NSAIDs in PD? SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including trial registers, complemented with handsearching of conference proceedings and citation searching on key articles. All searching was updated in May 2011. We contacted authors to provide additional information where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: For the primary prevention review, we sought primary prevention trials and observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). Participants were free of PD when exposure to NSAIDs was assessed. For the secondary prevention review, we sought clinical trials in patients with a well-defined definition of PD. Two people independently selected studies for inclusion using predetermined criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors abstracted data from the source papers and assessed methodological quality independently. No studies met the inclusion criteria for the secondary prevention review. For the primary prevention review only observational studies were found. We combined data where appropriate using the inverse variance method. We assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scales and by examining the period of exposure assessed prior to PD onset (or the index date in controls). MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen observational studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary prevention review (five cohort, nine case-control studies). Exposure to any NSAIDs or aspirin had no effect on the risk of developing PD. Exposure to non-aspirin NSAIDs reduced the risk of developing PD by 13% (effect estimate 0.87 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.04 - random-effects model), but this did not reach statistical significance. We found similar results for the most robust studies. Ibuprofen in isolation was examined in four studies and was associated with a 27% reduction in risk (effect estimate 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85). There was a lack of information on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence for the use of NSAIDs in the secondary prevention of PD. Non-aspirin NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, may reduce the risk of developing PD. However, little is known of the effects of other individual drugs and at present no recommendations can be made regarding their use in primary prevention.