Trial reportParkinsonism & related disorders2024
Validating new symptom emergence as a patient-centric outcome measure for PD clinical trials.
Trial report in Parkinsonism & related disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTracking of emergent symptoms (ES) in de novo Parkinson Disease (PD) patients using Parts Ib and II of the MDS-UPDRS rating scale has been proposed as an outcome measure for PD clinical trials, based on observations in the Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy Assessment of Isradipine for PD (STEADY-PD3) clinical trial.
methodsIndividual item-level data was extracted from the SURE-PD3 study (coded as "PD-1018" in the C-path pooled dataset). We sought to confirm the observations made in the STEADY-PD3 dataset by analyzing data from a different Phase 3 clinical trial, the Phase 3 Study of Urate Elevation in Parkinson Disease (SURE-PD3), in which MDS-UPDRS was assessed more frequently than the 12-month intervals in STEADY-PD3, using similar methodology.
resultsWe were able to broadly validate results that demonstrated the frequency of ES, lack of impact of the introduction of symptomatic medications, and in the reduction in sample size required to demonstrate slowing of disease progression at a group level compared with the traditional total MDS-UPDRS summed score scoring methods. Counts of ES generally correlated modestly with summed MDS-UPRDS scores, both for the various sub-parts and for the overall scale as well. However, instability of individual item responses, especially during the first 6 months of observation complicated the assessment of the temporal evolution and stability of ES over time in the course of the SURE-PD3 study.
conclusionFurther validation using data sets with frequent administration of MDS-UPDRS is necessary to assess value of this approach as an outcome measure in PD clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.