Introduction Treatment adjustments in Parkinson's disease (PD) are in part dependent on motor assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of home-based motor monitoring plus standard in-office visits versus in-office visits alone in patients with advanced PD. Methods The procedures consisted of a prospective, one-year follow-up, randomized, case-control study. A total of 40 patients with advanced PD were randomized into two groups: 20 patients underwent home-based motor monitoring by using wireless motion sensor technology, while the other 20 patients had in-office visits. Motor and non-motor symptom severities, quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and comorbidities were assessed every four months. Direct costs were assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results Both groups of PD patients were largely comparable in their clinical and demographic variables at baseline; however, there were more participants using levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in the home-based motor monitoring group. There was a trend for lower Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale functional status (UPDRS II) scores in the patients monitored at home compared to the standard clinical follow-up ( p = 0.06). However, UPDRS parts I, III, IV and quality-adjusted life-years scores were similar between both groups. Home-based motor monitoring was cost-effective in terms of improvement of functional status, motor severity, and motor complications (UPDRS II, III; IV subscales), with an ICER/UPDRS ranging from €126.72 to €701.31, respectively. Discussion Home-based motor monitoring is a tool which collects cost-effective clinical information and helps augment health care for patients with advanced PD.
Objective Because patients homozygous for Huntington disease (HD) receive the gain-of-function mutation in a double dose, one would expect a more toxic effect in homozygotes than in heterozygotes. Our aim was to investigate the phenotypic differences between homozygotes with both alleles ≥36 CAG repeats and heterozygotes with 1 allele ≥36 CAG repeats. Methods This was an international, longitudinal, case-control study (European Huntington's Disease Network Registry database). Baseline and longitudinal total functional capacity, motor, cognitive, and behavioral scores of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) were compared between homozygotes and heterozygotes. Four-year follow-up data were analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects models. To estimate the association of age at onset with the length of the shorter and larger allele in homozygotes and heterozygotes, regression analysis was applied. Results Of 10,921 participants with HD (5,777 female [52.9%] and 5,138 male [47.0%]) with a mean age of 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 28 homozygotes (0.3%) and 10,893 (99.7%) heterozygotes were identified. After correcting for multiple comparisons, homozygotes and heterozygotes had similar age at onset and UHDRS scores and disease progression. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, the longer allele was the most contributing factor to decreased age at HD onset in the homozygotes (p < 0.0001) and heterozygotes (p < 0.0001). Conclusions CAG repeat expansion on both alleles of the HTT gene is infrequent. Age at onset, HD phenotype, and disease progression do not significantly differ between homozygotes and heterozygotes, indicating similar effect on the mutant protein. Classification of evidence This study provides Class II evidence that age at onset, the motor phenotype and rate of motor decline, and symptoms and signs progression is similar in homozygotes compared to heterozygotes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.