, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 729–752 | Cite as

Economic and Health-Related Quality of Life Considerations of New Therapies in Parkinson’s Disease

  • Linda M. Rubenstein
  • Andrea DeLeo
  • Elizabeth A. Chrischilles
Review Article


The progressive disability of Parkinson’s disease results in substantial burdens for patients, their families and society in terms of increased health resource use, poorer quality of life, caregiver burden, disrupted family relationships, decreases in social and leisure activities, deteriorating emotional well-being, and direct and indirect costs of illness.

Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) measures have been used successfully in cross-sectional studies to identify and characterise these burdens; however, there is not yet substantial evidence that these instruments will be responsive to changes in patients over time and that the results will provide patients and health professionals with clinically meaningful information useful in making decisions about treatment strategies.

The few studies documenting direct and indirect costs indicate increased use of ancillary health and community services, significant adaptations in home and transportation, increased use of mobility and self-care aids, and lack of access to appropriate healthcare providers. Patients with Parkinson’s disease incur higher hospital expenses, have increased number of prescriptions, and experience earnings loss; the latter also applies to family caregivers.

The choice, intensity and timing of therapy are determined by a variety of factors: presenting symptoms, age, employment status, comorbidity, cognitive impairment and level of functional impairment. Choices must be individually tailored to a patient’s physical and personal needs.

To be useful for patients with Parkinson’s disease in clinical practice, clinicians should be able to use HR-QOL measures to identify appropriate medical interventions or socio-behavioural modifications to modify the HR-QOL deficits. However, while the interplay of interventions and clinical outcomes are often well understood, the effects of interventions on HR-QOL outcomes have not been studied extensively. Little research has been done that explicitly links the signs and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease to the HR-QOL outcomes.

The only Parkinson’s disease cost-effectiveness study as yet performed indicated higher costs for patients receiving pramipexole than for those not taking the drug, but additional quality life-years were gained.

Longer term effectiveness of many treatment strategies, and the usefulness of HR-QOL instruments to assess these treatments for individual patients over time, are critical areas for future research.


Levodopa Dopamine Agonist Selegiline Pramipexole Ropinirole 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Lilienfeld DE. An epidemiological overview of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia of the Alzheimer type. In: Calne DB, editor. Neurodegenerative diseases. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders, 1994: 399–425Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDowell FH. Parkinson’s disease and related disorders. In: Hazzard WR, Bierman EL, Blass JP, et al., editors. Principles of geriatric medicine and gerontology. 3rd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994: 1051–61Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lilienfeld DE, Perl DP. Projected Neurodegenerative disease mortality in the United States, 1990–2040. Neuroepidemiology 1993; 12: 219–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koller WC, editor. Handbook of Parkinson’s disease. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Marcel Dekker Inc., 1992Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Rijk MC, Breteler MMB, Graveland GA, et al. Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in the elderly: the Rotterdam Study. Neurology 1995; 45 (12): 2143–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schoenberg BS, Anderson DW, Haerer AF. Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in the biracial population of Copiah County, Mississippi. Neurology 1985; 35 (6): 841–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummings JL. Depression and Parkinson’s disease: a review. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149 (4): 443–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saint-Cyr JA, Taylor AE, Lang AE. Neuropsychological and psychiatric side effects in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1993; 43 (12 Suppl. 6): S47–53Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pirozzolo FJ, Swihart AA, Rey GJ, et al. Cognitive impairments associated with Parkinson’s Disease and other movement disorders. In: Jankovic J, Tolosa E, editors. Parkinson’s disease and movement disorders. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1993: 493–510Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Dijk JG, Haan J, Zwinderman K, et al. Autonomic nervous system dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: relationships with age, medication, duration, and severity. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1993; 56 (10): 1090–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marsden CD, Fahn S. Problems in Parkinson’s disease and other a kinetic-rigid syndromes. In: Marsden CD, Fahn S, editors. Movement disorders. Vol. 3. Boston (MA): Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., 1994: 117–23Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stoessl AJ. Prevention and management of late stage complications in Parkinson’s disease. Can J Neurol Sci 1992; 19 Suppl. 1: 113–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roos RAC, Jongen JCF, van der Velde EA. Clinical course of patients with idiopathic Parkinson’sDisease. Mov Disord 1996; 11 (3): 236–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shindler JS, Brown R, Welburn P, et al. Measuring the quality of life of patients with Parkinson’s disease. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, editors. Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990’s. Boston (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993: 289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singer E. The social costs of Parkinson’s disease. J Chronic Dis 1973; 26 (4): 243–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clarke CE, Zobkiw RM, Gullaksen E. Quality of life and care in Parkinson’s disease. Br J Clin Pract 1995; 49 (6): 288–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fukunaga H, Kasai T, Yoshidome H. Clinical findings, status of care, comprehensive quality of life, daily life therapy and treatment at home in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Eur Neurol 1997; 38 Suppl. 2: 64–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan F, Kulas E, et al. The burden of Parkinson’s disease on society, family, and the individual. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45: 844–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chrischilles EA, Rubenstein LR, Voelker MD, et al. The health burdens of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 1998; 13 (3): 406–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karlsen KH, Larsen JP, Tandberg E, et al. Influence of clinical and demographic variables on quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 66 (4): 431–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoerger TJ, Bala MV, Rowland C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pramipexole in Parkinson’s disease in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (5): 541–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubenstein LM, Chrischilles EA, Voelker L. The impact of Parkinson’s disease on health status, health expenditures and productivity: estimates from the national medical expenditures survey. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (4): 486–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rubenstein LM, Voelker MD, Chrischilles EA, et al. The usefulness of the Functional Status Questionnaire (FSQ) and the medical outcomes study short form (SF-36) in Parkinson’s disease research. Qual Life Res 1998; 7 (4): 279–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peto V, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C. Self-reported health status and access to health services in a community sample with Parkinson’s disease. Disabil Rehabil 1997; 19 (3): 97–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fitzsimmons B, Bunting LK. Parkinson’s disease: quality of life issues. Nurs Clin North Am 1993; 28 (4): 807–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Longstreth WTJ, Nelson L, Linde M, et al. Utility of the sickness impact profile in Parkinson’s disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1992; 5 (3): 142–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Welburn P, Walker S. Assessment of quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. In: Smith GT, editor. Measuring health: a practical approach. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1988: 89–108Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salzman EW. Living with Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (2): 114–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Boer AGEM, Wijker W, Speelman JD, et al. Quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease: development of a questionnaire. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 61 (1): 70–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (3): 241–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jenkinson C, Peto V, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Self-reported functioning and well-being in patients with Parkinson’s disease: comparison of the short-form health survey (SF-36) and the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Age Ageing 1995; 24 (6): 505–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berry RA, Murphy JF. Well-being of caregivers of spouses with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Nurs Res 1995; 4 (4): 373–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee KS, Merriman A, Owen A, et al. The medical, social, and functional profile of Parkinson’s disease patients. Singapore Med J 1994; 35 (3): 265–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dodel RC, EggertK M, Singer MD, et al. Cost of drug treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 1998; 13 (2): 249–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Edwards W, Berlin M. Questionnaires and data collection methods for the Household Survey and the Survey of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Rockville (MD): Public Health Service, 1989 Sep. DHHS publication no.: (PHS)89-3450Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: allocating resources to health care. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jette AM, Cleary PD. Functional disability assessment. Phys Ther 1987; 67 (12): 1854–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jette AM, Davies AR, Cleary PD, et al. The functional status questionnaire: reliability and validity when used in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1 (3): 143–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yarnold PR, Bryant FB, Repasy AB, et al. The factor structure and cross-sectional distributional properties of the Beth Israel/UCLA functional status questionnaire. J Behav Med 1991; 14 (2): 141–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Visser MC, Fletcher AE, Parr G, et al. A comparison of three quality of life instruments in subjects with angina pectoris: the Sickness Impact Profile, The Nottingham Health Profile, and the Quality of Well Being Scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (2): 157–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ, et al. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Med Care 1997; 35 (5): 522–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (6): 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): The Health Institute, 1993Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Bruin AF, de Witte LP, Stevens F, et al. Sickness impact profile: the state of the art of a generic functional status measure. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35 (8): 1003–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bergner M, Bobbit R, Kressel S, et al. The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv 1976; 6: 393–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316 (7133): 736–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics, 1995. (Discussion paper 136)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, et al. The Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson’s disease summary index score. Age Ageing 1997; 26 (5): 353–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bushnell DM, Martin ML. Quality of life and Parkinson’s disease: translation and validation of the US Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Qual Life Res 1999; 8 (4): 345–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262 (20): 2879–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sano M, Stern Y, Marder K, et al. A controlled trial of piracetam in intellectually impaired patients with Parkinson’s disease..Mov Disord 1990; 5 (3): 230–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pahwa R, Lyons K, McGuire D, et al. Comparison of standard carbidopa-levodopa and sustained released carbidopa-levodopa in Parkinson’s disease: pharmacokenetic and quality of life measures. Mov Disord 1997; 12 (5): 677–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Block G, Liss C, Reines S, et al. Comparison of immediate-release and controlled release carbidopa/levodopa in Parkinson’s disease: a multicenter 5-year study. Eur Neurol 1997; 37 (1): 23–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Baas H, Beiske AG, Ghika J, et al. Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibition with tolcapone reduces the ‘wearing off’ phenomenon and levodopa requirements in fluctuating parkinsonian patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997; 63 (4): 421–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Capildeo R. Implications of the 5-year CR FIRST trial. Neurology 1998; 50 Suppl. 6: S15–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Guttman M. Double-blind comparison of pramipexole and bromocriptine treatment with placebo in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1997; 49 (4): 1060–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Grandas F, Martines-Martin P, Linazasoro G. Quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease who transfer from standard levodopa to Sinemet CR: the STAR Muticenter Study. J Neurol 1998; 245 Suppl. 1: S31–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Young CA, Tedman BM, Williams IR. Disease progression and perceptions of health in patients with motor neurone disease. J Neurol Sci 1995; 129 Suppl.: 50–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Busenbark KL, Nash J, Hubble JP, et al. Is essential tremor benign? Neurology 1991; 41 (12): 1982–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Jenkinson C, et al. Health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a study of outpatient clinic attenders. Mov Disord 1997; 12 (6): 916–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Badia X, Diaz-Prieto A, Rue M, et al. Measuring health and health state preference among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22: 1379–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hobson JP, Meara RJ. Is the SF-36 health survey questionnaire suitable as a self-report measure of the health status of older adults with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 1997; 6 (3): 213–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Welsh M, Hung L, Waters CH. Sexuality in women with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 1997; 12 (6): 923–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chrischilles EA, Rubenstein LM, Voelker MD. The EuroQol in Parkinson’s disease research: rated current health versus population derived health state preferences. 3rd Annual Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research — Uniting Science and Practice; 1998 May 27–30; Philadelphia (PA)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Damiano AM, Snyder C, Strausser B, et al. A review of health-related quality-of-life concepts and measures for Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 1999; 8 (3): 235–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Frazier LD. Coping with disease-related stressors in Parkinson’s disease. Gerontologist 2000; 40 (1): 53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Deverill M, Brazier J, Green C, et al. The use of QALY and non-QALY measures of health-related quality of life. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (4): 411–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Erickson P, Wilson R, Shannon I. Years of healthy life. Health people 2k. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, 1995 Apr (Statistical Notes, no. 7)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bostrom C, Harms-Ringdahl K, Nordemar R. Relationships between measurements of impairment, disability pain, and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients with shoulder problems. Scand J Rheumatol 1995; 24 (6): 352–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Clark F, Azen SP, Zemke R, et al. Occupational therapy for independent-living older adults. JAMA 1997; 278 (16): 1321–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ernstoff B, Wetterqvist H, Kvist H, et al. Endurance training effect on individuals with postpoliomyelitis. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1996; 77 (9): 843–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hsu JWY, Madsen C, Callaham ML. Quality-of-life and formal functional testing of survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest correlates poorly with traditional neurologic outcome scales. Ann Emerg Med 1996; 28 (6): 597–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yarnold PR, Conrad Stille F, Martin GJ. Cross-sectional psychometric assessment of the functional status questionnaire: use with geriatric versus nongeriatric ambulatory medical patients. Int J Psychiatry Med 1995; 25 (4): 305–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kim SH, Wolde-Tsadik G, Reuben DB. Predictors of perceived health in hospitalized older persons: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45 (4): 420–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tedesco C, Manning S, Lindsay R, et al. Functional assessment of elderly patients after percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty: New York Heart Association classification versus functional status questionnaire. Heart Lung 1990; 19 (2): 118–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lyles KW, Lammers JE, Shipp KM, et al. Functional and mobility impairments associated with Paget’s disease of bone. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43 (5): 502–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jette DU, Manago D, Medved E, et al. The disablement process in patients with pulmonary disease. Phys Ther 1997; 77 (4): 385–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rubenstein, L.V., McCoy, J.M., Cope, D.W.,  et al. 1995Improving patient quality of life with feed back to physicians about functional statusJ Gen Intern Med1060714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    van Hout B, Gagon D, Souetre E, et al. Relationship between seizure frequency and costs and quality of life of outpatients with partial epilepsy in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Epilepsia 1997; 38 (11): 1221–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, et al. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care 1992; 30 (10): 917–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JEJ. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26 (7): 724–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31 (3): 247–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schuling J, Greidanus J, Meyboom-De Jong B. Measuring functional status of stroke patients with the sickness impact profile. Disabil Rehabil 1993; 15 (1): 19–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bousquet J, Knani J, Dhivert H, et al. Quality of life in asthma: I. Internal consistency and validity of the SF-36 questionnaire. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149 (2 Pt 1): 371–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JEJ. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch Item Scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (6): 671–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Lu JFR, et al. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32 (1): 40–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Deane M, Pigott T, Dearing P. The value of the Short Form SF-36 in the outcome assessment of subarachnoid haemorrhage. Br J Neurosurg 1996; 10 (2): 187–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Albertsen PC, Aaronson NK, Muller MJ, et al. Health-related quality of life among patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 1997; 49 (2): 207–16, discussion 216-7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bauman HC, Arthur HM. Relationship between functional exercise capacity and general quality of life in nonsurgical patients with lower-extremity peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Nurs 1997; 15 (1): 21–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Blyth FM, Lazarus R, Ross D, et al. Burden and outcomes of hospitalisation for congestive heart failure. Med J Aust 1997; 167 (2): 67–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Charlier L, Dutrannois J, Kaufman L. The SF-36 questionnaire: a convenient way to assess quality of life in angina pectoris patients. Acta Cardiol 1997; 52 (3): 247–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC, et al. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1997; 52 (10): 879–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, et al. Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of traditional disease specific and quality-of-life measurement of outcomes. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12 (6): 639–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Stansfeld SA, Roberts R, Foot SP. Assessing the validity of SF-36 general health survey. Qual Life Res 1997; 6 (3): 217–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, Digioia D, et al. Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39 (6): 429–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hollingworth W, Mackenzie R, Todd CJ, et al. Measuring change in quality of life following magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: SF-36, EuroQol or Rosser index? Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (4): 325–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Krumholz HM, McHorney CA, Clark L, et al. Change in health after elective percutaneous coronary revascularization. Med Care 1996; 34 (8): 754–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Oliver CW, Twaddle B, Agel J, et al. Outcome after pelvic ring fractures: evaluation using the medical outcomes short form SF-36. Injury 1996; 27 (9): 635–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of 5 generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50 (1): 79–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Mangione CM, Goldman L, Orav EJ, et al. Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: measurement of longitudinal change. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12 (11): 686–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    McHorney CA. Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 health survey. Gerontologist 1996; 36 (5): 571–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Brazier JL, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, et al. Using the SF-36 and EuroQol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res 1996; 5 (2): 195–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Pereles TR, Koval KJ, Gallagher M, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of the distal humerus: functional outcome in the elderly. J Trauma 1997; 43 (4): 578–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Bartman BA, Rosen MJ, Bradham DD, et al. Relationship between health status and utility measures in older claudicants. Qual Life Res 1998; 7 (1): 67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Lyons RA, Crome P, Monaghan S, et al. Health status and disability among elderly people in three UK districts. Age Ageing 1997; 26 (3): 203–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Lyons RA, Perry HM, Littlepage BM. Evidence for the validity of the Short-form 36 Questionnaire (SF-36) in an elderly population. Age Ageing 1994; 23 (3): 182–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, et al. The PDQ-8: development and validation of a short form Parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Psychol Health 1997; 12 (6): 805–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Calne S, Schulzer M, Mak E, et al. Validating a quality of life rating scale for idopathic Parkinsonism: Parkinson’s Impact Scale (PIMS). Parkinsonism and Related Disorders 1996; 2 (2): 55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993; 2 (3): 169–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Busschbach JJ, Horikx PE, van den Bosch JM, et al. Measuring the quality of life before and after bilateral lung transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Chest 1994; 105 (3): 911–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Validity of Euroqol — a generic health status instrument — in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33: 655–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Uyl-de Groot CA, Rutten FF, Bonsel GJ. Measurement and valuation of quality of life in economic appraisal of cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A (1): 111–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    MacDonagh RP, Cliff AM, Speakman MJ, et al. The use of generic measures of health-related quality of life in the assessment of outcome from transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol 1997; 79 (3): 401–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Norum J, Angelsen V, Wist E, et al. Treatment costs in Hodgkin’s disease: a cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A (9): 1510–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    James M, St Leger S, Rowsell KV. Prioritising elective care: a cost utility analysis of orthopaedics in the northwest of England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996; 50 (2): 182–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36 (5): 551–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, et al. Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Qual Life Res 1996; 5 (6): 521–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Sculpher MJ, Dwyer N, Byford S, et al. Randomised trial comparing hysterectomy and transcervical endometrial resection: effect on health related quality of life and costs two years after surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103 (2): 142–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Badia X, Herdman M, Kind P. The influence of ill-health experience on the valuation of health. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (6): 687–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, et al. Qualitative comparison, of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. Stroke 1998; 29 (1): 63–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Bryan S, Ratcliffe J, Neuberger JM, et al. Health-related quality of life following liver transplantation. Qual Life Res 1998; 7 (2): 115–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Carter JH, Stewart BJ, Archbold PG, et al. Living with a person who has Parkinson’s disease: the spouse’s perspective by stage of disease. Mov Disord 1998; 13 (1): 20–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Meara J, Mitchelmore E, Hobson P. Use of the GDS-15 geriatric depression scale as a screening instrument for depressive symptomatology in patients with Parkinson’s disease and their carers in the community. Age Ageing 1999; 28 (1): 35–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Brannan T, Yahr MD. Comparative study of selegiline plus l-dopa-carbidopa versus l-dopa-carbidopa alone in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1995; 37 (1): 95–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Langston JW. Selegiline as neuroprotective therapy in Parkinson’ disease: concepts and controversies. Neurology 1990; 40 Suppl. 3: 61–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Palhagen S, Heinonen EH, Hagglund J, et al. Selegiline delays the onset of disability in de nove parkinsonian patients. Neurology 1998; 51 (2): 520–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Yahr MD, Elizan TS, Moros D. Selegiline in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: long term experience. Acta Neurol Scand 1989; 126: 157–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Birkmayer W, Riederer P, Youdim MBH. Deprenyl in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 1982; 5 (2): 195–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Lees AJ. Comparison of therapeutic effects and mortality data of levodopa and levodopa combined with selegiline in patients with early, mild Parkinson’s disease. BMJ 1995; 311 (7020): 1602–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Ben-Shlomo B, Churchyard A, Head J, et al. Investigation by Parkinson’s disease research group of United Kingdom into excess mortality seen with combined levodopa and selegiline treatment in patients with early, mild Parkinson’s disease: further results of randomised trial and confidential inquiry. BMJ 1998; 316: 1191–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Olanow CW, Myllyla VV, Sotanieme KA, et al. Effects of selegiline on mortality in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis. Neurology 1998; 51 (3): 825–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Koller WC, Giron LT. Selegiline HC1: selective MAO-type B inhibitor. Neurology 1990; 40 Suppl. 3: 58–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Andreu N, Damase-Michel C, Senard J, et al. A dose-ranging study of selegiline in patients with Parkinson’s disease: effect on platelet monoamine oxidase activity. Mov Disord 1997; 12 (3): 293–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Olanow CW, Fahn S, Langston JW, et al. Selegiline and mortality in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1996; 40 (6): 841–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Tetrud JW, Langston JW. The effect of deprenyl (selegiline) on the natural history of Parkinson’s disease. Science 1989; 245 (4917): 19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Parkinson’s Disease Research Group in the United Kingdom. Comparisons of therapeutic effects of levodopa, levodopa and selegiline, and bromocriptine in patients with earl, mild Parkinson’s disease: three year interim report. BMJ 1993; 307: 469–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Yahr MD, Mendoza MR, Moros D, et al. Treatment of Parkinson’s disease in early and late phases: use of pharmacological agents with specific reference to deprenyl (selegiline). Acta Neurol Scand 1983; 95: 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Hauser RA, Molho E, Shale H, et al. A pilot evaluation of the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of tolcapone alone and in combination with oral selegiline in untreated Parkinson’s disease patients. Mov Disord 1998; 13 (4): 643–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Schwab RS, England ACJ, Poskanzer DC, et al. Amantadine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. JAMA 1969; 208 (7): 1168–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Bauer R, McHenry JT. Comparison of amantadine, placebo, and levodopa in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1974; 24 (6): 715–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Danielczyk W. Die MOno- und Kombinationstherapie des Parkinson-Syndroms mit Amantadinen. In: Fischer P-A, editor. Parkinson-Syndrom: Kombinations- und Begleit-Therapien. New York (NY): Schattauer, Stuttgart, 1980: S125–36Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Parkes JD, Baxter RC, Curzon G, et al. Treatment of Parkinson’s disease with amantadine and levodopa: a one-year study. Lancet 1971; I (7709): 1083–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Metman, L.V., Dotto, P.D., Munckhof, P.,  et al. 1998Amantadine as treatment for dyskinesias and motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s diseaseNeurology5013236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Uitti RJ, Rajput AH, Ahlskog JE, et al. Amantadine treatment is an independent predictor of improved survival in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1996; 46: 1551–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Kornhuber J, Weller M, Schoppmeyer K, et al. Amantadine and memantine are NMDA receptor antagonists with neuroprotective properties. J Neural Transm 1994; 43 Suppl.: 91–104Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Parkes JD, Zikha KJ, Marsden P, et al. Amantadine dosage in treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 1970; I (7657): 1130–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Factor SA, Molho ES, Brown DL. Acute delerium after withdrawal of amantadine in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1998; 50 (5): 1456–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Montastruc JL, Rascol O, Senard JM, et al. A randomised controlled study comparing bromocriptine to which levodopa was later added, with levodopa alone in previously untreated patients with Parkinson’s disease: a five year follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57 (9): 1034–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Bergamasco B, Benna P, Scarzella L. Long-term bromocriptine treatment of de novo patients with Parkinson’s disease: a seven-year follow-up. Acta Neurol Scand 1990; 81 (5): 383–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Weiner WJ, Factor SA, Sanchez-Ramos JR, et al. Early combination therapy (bromocriptine and levodopa) does not prevent motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1993; 43 (1): 21–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Lieberman A, Kupersmith M, Neophytides A, et al. Long-term efficacy of bromocriptine. Neurology 1980; 30 (5): 518–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Rinne UK. Combined bromocriptine-levodopa therapy in early Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1985; 35 (8): 1196–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Ogawa N, Kanazawa I, Kowa H, et al. Nationwide multicenter prospective study on the long-term effects of bromocriptine for Parkinson’s disease: final report of a ten-year follow-up. Eur Neurol 1997; 38 Suppl. 2: 37–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Korczyn AD, Brooks DJ, Brunt ER, et al. Ropinirole versus bromocriptine in the treatment of early Parkinson’s disease: a 6-month interim report of a 3-year study. Mov Disord 1998; 13 (1): 46–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Larsen TA, Newman T, LeWitt P, et al. Severity of Parkinson’s disease and the dosage of bromocriptine. Neurology 1984; 34 (6): 795–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Pezzoli G, Martignoni E, Pacchetti C, et al. pergolide compared with bromocriptine in Parkinson’s disease: a multicenter, crossover, controlled study. Mov Disord 1994; 9 (4): 431–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Tolcapone Study Group. Efficacy and tolerability of tolcapone compared with bromocriptine in levodopa-treated parkinsonian patients. Mov Disord 1999; 14 (1): 38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Lieberman AN, Kupersmith M, Gopinathan G, et al. Bromocriptine in Parkinson’s disease: further studies. Neurology 1979; 29 (3): 363–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Ramaker C, van de Beek WJT, Finken MJJ, et al. The efficacy and safety of adjunct bromocriptine therapy in levodopa-induced motor complications: a systematic review. Mov Disord 2000; 15 (1): 56–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Jankovic J, Orman J. Parallel double-blind study of pergolide in Parkinson’s disease. Advances in neurology 1987; 45: 551–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Olanow CW, Alberts MJ. Double-blind controlled study of pergolide mesylate in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 1987; 10 (2): 178–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Olanow CW, Fahn S, Muenter M, et al. A multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial of pergolide as an adjunct to Sinemet in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 1994; 9 (1): 40–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Lieberman A, Olanow CW, Sethi K, et al. A multicenter trial of ropinirole as adjunct treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1998; 51 (4): 1057–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Brooks DJ, Torjanski N, Burn DJ. Ropinirole in the symptomatic treatment of Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm Gen Sect 1995; 45 Suppl.: 231–8Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Kucider M, Gardiner D, Knox S, et al. A multicenter double-blind study of ropinirole as an adjunct to l-dopa in Parkinson’s disease [abstract]. Neurology 1996; 46 Suppl. 2: A475Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Adler CH, Sethi KD, Hauser RA, et al. Ropinirole for the treatment of early Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1997; 49 (2): 393–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Rascol O. A double-blind l-dopa controlled study of ropinirole in de novo patients with Parkinson’s disease [abstract]. Neurology 1996; 46 Suppl. 2: A160Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Rascol O, Brooks DJ, Brunt ER, et al. Ropinirole in the treatment of early Parkinson’s disease: a 6-month interim report of a 5-year L-dopa-controlled stud. Mov Disord 1998; 13: 39–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Rascol O, Lees AJ, Senard JM, et al. Ropinirole in the treatment of levodopa-induced motor fluctuations in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 1996; 19 (3): 234–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Brefel C, Thalamas C, Rayet S, et al. Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of ropinirole in parkinsonian patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45 (4): 412–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Tulloch IF. Pharmacologic profile of ropinirole: a nonergoline dopamine agonist. Neurology 1997; 49 Suppl. 1: S58–S62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Hubble JP, Koller WC, Cutler NR, et al. Pramipexole in patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 1995; 18 (4): 338–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Molho ES, Factor SA, Weiner WJ, et al. The use of pramipexole, a novel dopamine (DA) agonist, in advanced Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm 1995; 45 Suppl.: 225–30Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Shannon KM, Bennet JP, Friedman JH. Efficacy of pramipexole, a novel dopamine agonist, as monotherapy in mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1997; 49: 724–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Parkinson Study Group. Safety and efficacy of pramipexole in early Parkinson’s disease: a randomized dose-ranging study. JAMA 1997; 278 (2): 125–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Lieberman A, Ranhosky A, Korts D. Clinical evaluation of pramipexole in advanced Parkinson’s disease: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Neurology 1997; 49 (1): 162–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Jorga KM, Sedek G. Effect of novel COMT-inhibitor Tolcapone on l-dopa pharmacokinetics when combined with different Sinamet formulas [abstract]. Neurology 1995; 45: S645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Jorga KM. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of tolcapone: a review of early studies in volunteers. Neurology 1998; 50 Suppl. 5: S31–S38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Dingemanse J, Jorga K, Zurcher G, et al. Multiple-dose clinical pharmacology of the catechol-O-methyl-transferase inhibitor tolcapone in elderly subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 50: 47–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Jorga KM, Sedek G, Fotteler B, et al. Optimizing levodopa pharmacokinetics with multiple tolcapone doses in the elderly. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62 (3): 300–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Kurth MC, Adler CH, Hilaire MS, et al. Tolcapone improves motor function and reduces levodopa requirement in patients with Parkinson’s disease experiencing motor fluctuations: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1997; 48 (1): 81–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Waters CH, Kurth M, Bailey P, et al. Tolcapone in stable Parkinson’s disease: efficacy and safety of long-term treatment. Neurology 1997; 49 (3): 665–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Bass H, Beiske AG, Ghika J, et al. COMT inhibition with tolcapone reduces the ‘wearing-off’ phenomenon and levodopa requirements in fluctuating parkinsonian patients. Neurology 1998; 50 (5 Suppl. 5): S46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Dingemanse J, Jorga K, Zurcher G, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interaction between the COMT inhibitor tolcapone and single-dose levodopa. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 40 (3): 253–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Guttman M, International Tolcapone Study Group. Open long-term evaluation of the safety of tolcapone in Parkinson’s disease patients on levodopa containing therapy [abstract]. Mov Disord 1997; 12 Suppl. 1: 83Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Ruottinen HM, Rinne UK. A double-blind pharmacokinetic and clinical dose-response study of entacapone as an adjuvant to levodopa therapy in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 1996; 19 (4): 283–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Ruottinen HM, Rinne UK. Entacapone prolongs levodopa response in a one month double blind study in Parkinsonian patients with levodopa related fluctuations. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 60 (1): 36–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Ruottinen HM, Rinne UK. Effect of one month’s treatment with peripherally acting catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor, entacapone, on pharmacokinetics and motor response to levodopa in advanced Parkinsonian patients. Clin Neuropharmacol 1996; 19 (3): 222–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Rinne UK, Larsen JP, Siden A, et al. Entacapone enhances the response to levodopa in parkinsonian patients with motor fluctuations. Neurology 1998; 51: 1309–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Ahtila S, Kaakkola S, Gordin A, et al. Effect of entacapone, a COMT inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of levodopa after administration of controlled-release levodopa-carbidopa in volunteers. Clin Neuropharmacol 1995; 18 (1): 46–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Illi A, Sundberg S, Ojala-Karlsson P, et al. The effect of entacapone on the disposition and hemodynamic effects of intravenous isoproterenol and epinephrine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58 (2): 221–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Parkinson Study Group. Entacapone improves motor fluctuations in levodopa-treated Parkinson’s disease patients. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 747–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Koller WC, Silver DE, Lieberman A. An algorithm for the management of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1994; 44 Suppl. 10 (12): S1–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Koller WC, Lieberman A, Silver D. Management of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1994; 44 Suppl. 10: S1–S18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Martinez-Martin P, Gil-Nagel A, Gracia LM, et al. Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale characteristics and structure. Mov Disord 1994; 9 (1): 76–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Jenner P, Olanow CW. Oxidative stress and the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1996; 47 (6 Suppl. 3): S161–S170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Albanese A. Emerging treatments in Parkinson’s disease. Eur Neurol 1997; 38 (3): 175–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Koller WC. Neuroprotection for Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1998; 44 Suppl. 1: S155–S159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Lang AE, Lozano AM. Parkinson’s disease. Second of two parts. N Engl J Med 1998; 339 (16): 1130–43Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Olanow CW, Hauser RA, Gauger L, et al. The effect of deprenyl and levodopa on the progression of Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1995; 38 (5): 771–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Heikkila RE, Manzino L, Duvoism RC, et al. Protection against the dopaminergic neurotoxicity of 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) by monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Nature 1984; 311: 467–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Koller WC, Hubble JP. Levodopa therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1990; 40 Suppl. 3: 40–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Fahn S. Controversies in the therapy of Parkinson’s disease. Adv Neurol 1996; 69: 477–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Rinne UK. Controlled-release levodopa superior to standard levodopa in the treatment of early Parkinson’s disease [abstract]. Mov Disord 1990; 5 Suppl. 1: 52Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Calne DB, Burton K, Beckman J, et al. Dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease. Can J Neurol Sci 1984; 11 Suppl. 1: 221–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Tolosa E, Marti MJ, Valldeoriola F, et al. History of levodopa and dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease treatment. Neurology 1998; 50 6 Suppl. 6: S2–S10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Uitti RJ, Ahlskog JE. a. CNS Drugs 1996; 5 (5): 369–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Montastruc JL, Llau ME, Rascol O, et al. Drug-induced parkinsonism: a review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1994; 8 (4): 293–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Ahlskog JE, Muenter MD. Pergolide: long-term use in Parkinson’s disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1988; 63 (10): 979–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Ogawa N. Early introduction of dopamine agonists in the long-term treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1998; 51 Suppl. 2: S13–S20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Wolters EC, Tissingh G, Bergmans PL, et al. Dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1995; 45 3 Suppl. 3: S28–S34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Rinne UK, Bracco F, Chouza C, et al. Cabergoline in the treatment of early Parkinson’s disease: results of the first year of treatment in a double-blind comparison of cabergoline and levodopa. Neurology 1997; 48 (2): 363–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Rinne UK. Dopamine agonists as primary treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Adv Neurol 1986; 45: 519–23Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Mizuno Y, Kondo T, Narabayashi H. Pergolide in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1995; 45 3 Suppl. 3: S13–S21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Calne DB. Treatment of Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 1993; 329 (14): 1021–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Weiner WJ, Singer C, Sanchez-Ramos J. Progression of Parkinson’s disease [comment; letter]. Neurology 1989; 39 (8): 1139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Bravi D, Mouradian MM, Ropberts JW, et al. Wearing-off fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease: contribution of postsynaptic mechanisms. Ann Neurol 1994; 36 (1): 27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Rascol O, Lees AJ, Senard J, et al. A placebo-controlled study of ropinirole a new D2 agonist, in the treatment of motor fluctuations of l-DOPA-treated parkinsonian patients. Adv Neurol 1996; 69: 531–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Shannon KM. New alternatives for the management of early Parkinson’s disease [abstract]. Mov Disord 1996; 11 Suppl. 1: 266Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    Nutt JG. Effects of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibition on the pharmacokinetics of L-dopa. Adv Neurol 1996; 69: 493–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Goetz CG. Influence of COMT inhibition on levodopa pharmacology and therapy. Neurology 1998; 50 Suppl. 5: S26–S30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Nutt JG. On-off phenomenon: relation to levodopa pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Ann Neurol 1987; 22 (4): 535–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (4): 293–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. 224.
    Wasson J, Keller A, Rubenstein L, et al. Benefits and obstacles of health status assessment in ambulatory settings: the clinician’s point of view. Med Care 1992; 30 Suppl. 5: MS42–MS49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Lohr KN. Applications of health status assessment measures in clinical practice. Med Care 1992; 30 Suppl. 5: MS1–MS14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda M. Rubenstein
    • 1
  • Andrea DeLeo
    • 2
    • 3
  • Elizabeth A. Chrischilles
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology, College of Public HealthUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurology, College of MedicineUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Northwest Indiana Neurological AssociatesMunsterUSA

Personalised recommendations