Search

Background: As Parkinson's disease (PD) advances, management is challenged by an increasingly variable and inconsistent response to oral dopaminergic therapy, requiring special considerations by the provider. Continuous 24 h/day subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa (LDp/CDp) provides steady dopaminergic stimulation that can reduce symptom fluctuation. Objective: Our aim is to review the initiation, optimization, and maintenance of LDp/CDp therapy, identify possible challenges, and share potential mitigations. Methods: Review available LDp/CDp clinical trial data for practical considerations regarding the management of patients during LDp/CDp therapy initiation, optimization, and maintenance based on investigator clinical trial experience. Results: LDp/CDp initiation, optimization, and maintenance can be done without hospitalization in the clinic setting. Continuous 24 h/day LDp/CDp infusion can offer more precise symptom control than oral medications, showing improvements in motor fluctuations during both daytime and nighttime hours. Challenges include infusion-site adverse events for which early detection and prompt management may be required, as well as systemic adverse events (eg, hallucinations) that may require adjustment of the infusion rate or other interventions. A learning curve should be anticipated with initiation of therapy, and expectation setting with patients and care partners is key to successful initiation and maintenance of therapy. Conclusion: Continuous subcutaneous infusion of LDp/CDp represents a promising therapeutic option for individuals with PD. Individualized dose optimization during both daytime and nighttime hours, coupled with patient education, and early recognition of certain adverse events (plus their appropriate management) are required for the success of this minimally invasive and highly efficacious therapy.

Objectives: To evaluate the proportion of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients identified as having advanced Parkinson's disease (APD) according to physician's judgement in Australia. Methods: This cross-sectional, non-interventional observational study was performed in movement disorder clinics from 18 countries. Results from Australia are presented. Participants included consecutive adults with PD attending routine clinical visits, or inpatients, who could speak English. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients diagnosed with APD via physician judgement. Results: 100 patients were recruited in Australia: 61.0% (95% CI 51.4–70.6%) diagnosed with APD by physician judgement. Patients were 66.6 ± 8.5 years, 65% were male, were living at home (97%), and diagnosed with PD for median 10.7 years (0–30.5 years). Motor fluctuations were present in 68%. For those with APD, referral was predominantly to enable access to device assisted therapies (DAT) (49%), while for non-APD, referral was largely for diagnostic purposes (41%). Patients had a median follow-up at the movement disorder clinic of 4.8 years for those with APD, or 3.6 years for non-APD. While 62% were eligible for DAT, only two-thirds of these received them. The most commonly used DAT was deep brain stimulation (64.3%). There was fair agreement between physician's judgement and the APD criteria by Delphi method (Cohen's kappa) 0.325 (95% CI 0.150–0.500) in the Australian subset. Conclusions: The definition of APD requires refinement in order to facilitate greater agreement among movement disorder specialists. A third of APD patients eligible for DAT remain untreated. Better referral and education of patients with APD is needed.