Cargando…

The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN‐DBS) is an effective and evidence‐based treatment for idiopathic Parkinson's disease (iPD). A minority of patients does not sufficiently benefit from STN‐DBS. OBJECTIVE: The predictive validity of the levodopa challenge for indi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wolke, Robin, Becktepe, Jos Steffen, Paschen, Steffen, Helmers, Ann‐Kristin, Kübler‐Weller, Dorothee, Youn, Jinyoung, Brinker, Dana, Bergman, Hagai, Kühn, Andrea A., Fasano, Alfonso, Deuschl, Günther
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10450242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37635781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13825
_version_ 1785095153419026432
author Wolke, Robin
Becktepe, Jos Steffen
Paschen, Steffen
Helmers, Ann‐Kristin
Kübler‐Weller, Dorothee
Youn, Jinyoung
Brinker, Dana
Bergman, Hagai
Kühn, Andrea A.
Fasano, Alfonso
Deuschl, Günther
author_facet Wolke, Robin
Becktepe, Jos Steffen
Paschen, Steffen
Helmers, Ann‐Kristin
Kübler‐Weller, Dorothee
Youn, Jinyoung
Brinker, Dana
Bergman, Hagai
Kühn, Andrea A.
Fasano, Alfonso
Deuschl, Günther
author_sort Wolke, Robin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN‐DBS) is an effective and evidence‐based treatment for idiopathic Parkinson's disease (iPD). A minority of patients does not sufficiently benefit from STN‐DBS. OBJECTIVE: The predictive validity of the levodopa challenge for individual patients is analyzed. METHODS: Data from patients assessed with a preoperative Levodopa‐test and a follow‐up examination (mean ± standard deviation: 9.15 months ±3.39) from Kiel (n = 253), Berlin (n = 78) and Toronto (n = 98) were studied. Insufficient DBS outcome was defined as an overall UPDRS‐III reduction <33% compared to UPDRS‐III in med‐off at baseline or alternatively if the minimal clinically important improvement of 5 points was not reached. Single UPDRS‐items and sub‐scores were dichotomized. Following exploratory analysis, we trained supervised regression‐ and classification models for outcome prediction. RESULTS: Data analysis confirmed significant correlation between the absolute UPDRS‐III reduction during Levodopa challenge and after stimulation. But individual improvement was inaccurately predicted with a large range of up to 30 UPDRS III points. Further analysis identified preoperative UPDRS‐III/med‐off‐scores and preoperative Levodopa‐improvement as most influential factors. The models for UPDRS‐III and sub‐scores improvement achieved comparably low accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: With large prediction intervals, the Levodopa challenge use for patient counseling is limited, though remains important for excluding non‐responders to Levodopa. Despite these deficiencies, the current practice of patient selection is highly successful and builds not only on the Levodopa challenge. However, more specific motor tasks and further paraclinical tools for prediction need to be developed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10450242
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104502422023-08-26 The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation Wolke, Robin Becktepe, Jos Steffen Paschen, Steffen Helmers, Ann‐Kristin Kübler‐Weller, Dorothee Youn, Jinyoung Brinker, Dana Bergman, Hagai Kühn, Andrea A. Fasano, Alfonso Deuschl, Günther Mov Disord Clin Pract Research Articles BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN‐DBS) is an effective and evidence‐based treatment for idiopathic Parkinson's disease (iPD). A minority of patients does not sufficiently benefit from STN‐DBS. OBJECTIVE: The predictive validity of the levodopa challenge for individual patients is analyzed. METHODS: Data from patients assessed with a preoperative Levodopa‐test and a follow‐up examination (mean ± standard deviation: 9.15 months ±3.39) from Kiel (n = 253), Berlin (n = 78) and Toronto (n = 98) were studied. Insufficient DBS outcome was defined as an overall UPDRS‐III reduction <33% compared to UPDRS‐III in med‐off at baseline or alternatively if the minimal clinically important improvement of 5 points was not reached. Single UPDRS‐items and sub‐scores were dichotomized. Following exploratory analysis, we trained supervised regression‐ and classification models for outcome prediction. RESULTS: Data analysis confirmed significant correlation between the absolute UPDRS‐III reduction during Levodopa challenge and after stimulation. But individual improvement was inaccurately predicted with a large range of up to 30 UPDRS III points. Further analysis identified preoperative UPDRS‐III/med‐off‐scores and preoperative Levodopa‐improvement as most influential factors. The models for UPDRS‐III and sub‐scores improvement achieved comparably low accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: With large prediction intervals, the Levodopa challenge use for patient counseling is limited, though remains important for excluding non‐responders to Levodopa. Despite these deficiencies, the current practice of patient selection is highly successful and builds not only on the Levodopa challenge. However, more specific motor tasks and further paraclinical tools for prediction need to be developed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2023-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10450242/ /pubmed/37635781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13825 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Wolke, Robin
Becktepe, Jos Steffen
Paschen, Steffen
Helmers, Ann‐Kristin
Kübler‐Weller, Dorothee
Youn, Jinyoung
Brinker, Dana
Bergman, Hagai
Kühn, Andrea A.
Fasano, Alfonso
Deuschl, Günther
The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation
title The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation
title_full The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation
title_fullStr The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation
title_full_unstemmed The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation
title_short The Role of Levodopa Challenge in Predicting the Outcome of Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation
title_sort role of levodopa challenge in predicting the outcome of subthalamic deep brain stimulation
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10450242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37635781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13825
work_keys_str_mv AT wolkerobin theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT becktepejossteffen theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT paschensteffen theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT helmersannkristin theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT kublerwellerdorothee theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT younjinyoung theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT brinkerdana theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT bergmanhagai theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT kuhnandreaa theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT fasanoalfonso theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT deuschlgunther theroleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT wolkerobin roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT becktepejossteffen roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT paschensteffen roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT helmersannkristin roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT kublerwellerdorothee roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT younjinyoung roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT brinkerdana roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT bergmanhagai roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT kuhnandreaa roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT fasanoalfonso roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation
AT deuschlgunther roleoflevodopachallengeinpredictingtheoutcomeofsubthalamicdeepbrainstimulation