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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |