BACKGROUND: previous studies on mortality of Parkinson's disease (PD) enrolled a relatively small number of participants and were conducted in western countries. The objective of this study was to evaluate mortality rate of PD using a large nationwide cohort in Korea and to evaluate effects comorbidities have on mortality in PD. METHODS: the nationwide population-based cohort study was conducted using the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort data. Patients with a primary diagnosis of PD were selected from the database. A matched cohort without PD was enrolled through randomly matching patients by sex, age, year of diagnosis, residential area and income level to the PD group with a ratio of 1:9. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess mortality risk between the two cohorts. A logistic regression analysis was used to identify mortality risk factors in PD cohort. RESULTS: in total, 25,620 patients were enrolled. The Cox proportional regression model had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.479 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.272-2.704] for mortality in PD cohort. Comorbidities, such as ischaemic stroke [odds ratios (OR) = 2.314, 95% CI, 1.895-2.824], haemorrhagic stroke (OR = 2.281, 95% CI, 1.466-3.550) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.307, 95% CI, 1.048-1.630) were associated with increased mortality, whereas dyslipidemia (OR = 0.285, 95% CI, 0.227-0.358) was negatively correlated with mortality. CONCLUSION: over the 10 year follow-up period, the PD cohort's mortality rate was 2.5 times higher than the comparison cohort. Understanding the effects that comorbidities have on morality in PD would be useful for predicting mortality in patients with PD.
Brain Ischemia , Parkinson Disease , Stroke , Cohort Studies , Humans , Parkinson Disease/diagnosis , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Risk Factors
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient's perception of the use of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and provide a basis for physicians to understand the patient's perspective. Patients and methods: Between December 2018 and June 2019, a total of 307 patients (162 males, 145 females; mean age: 48 years; range, 18 to 81 years) were included in this investigator-initiated, multi-center, observational, and cross-sectional study in six rheumatology centers. We asked patients using bDMARDs to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to complete a questionnaire regarding major considerations and satisfaction with bDMARDs, preferred administration route, knowledge about bDMARDs, experiences of adverse events, non-adherence, and expectations of their healthcare provider. The satisfaction of physician and clinical information on the patient's disease and treatment were also collected. Results: Of the patients, 139 had RA and 168 had AS. Median disease duration was six years in RA and five years in AS. A total of 80.1% of the patients and 77.1% of the physicians indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the therapeutic effect of the current bDMARD. Most patients were open to intravenous or subcutaneous injection, with the most preferred route of administration being subcutaneous (41.3%), followed by intravenous (32.0%), and oral (26.7%). The patients considered therapeutic effect to be more important than cost or convenience while choosing a bDMARD (69.3%), and most were willing to be educated about therapeutic effects (46.1%). Only 35.2% of the patients reported well and/or very well knowledge about the therapeutic effects, side effects, and administration methods of their current bDMARD, and 86.6% cited their physician as the primary source of information about biological treatment. Conclusion: Patients value therapeutic effect more than cost or convenience while selecting a bDMARD, and consider their physicians to be the primary information source. Therefore, it is important for physicians to provide appropriate education and encourage patients to cooperate actively with treatment.
