Are 5-2-1 Delphi criteria and MANAGE-PD useful screening tools for general neurologists for qualification to device-aided therapies in advanced Parkinson's Disease?

Abstract

Aim of study: We sought to compare MANAGE-PD and 5-2-1 Delphi criteria which are two commonly used and approved screening tools in Parkinson's Disease, in order to highlight their strengths and limitations.

Clinical rationale for study: Timely intervention with device-aided therapies is vital as it enables improving motor symptoms, lowering the dosage and side-effects of dopaminergic treatment, and improving patients' and caregivers' quality of life. Various screening tools have been created to help clinicians find the best candidates for device-aided therapies (DAT) for advanced Parkinson's Disease. In this study, we aimed to compare the 5-2-1 Delphi criteria to MANAGE-PD to determine how they could be used specifically to maximise their potential.

Material and methods: All of the patients (260) included in this study were DAT-naive, > 18 years of age, diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, and had been referred to the Department of Neurology for qualification for advanced therapies over a 4-year period (2019-2022). They were subjected to both 5-2-1 Delphi criteria and MANAGE-PD tools and divided into subgroups based on the results of the screening. The data of patients was then statistically analysed.

Results: In the study group, 51 patients (19.5%) met all three of the 5-2-1 criteria, and 123 (47.1%) patients were categorised as '3' in MANAGE-PD, meaning that they may benefit from DAT. Finally, at the local centre level, 64 (24.5%) patients were qualified for DAT. 22 (34.4%) patients who were qualified for DAT by a clinician did not meet the 5-2-1 criteria.

Conclusions: The 5-2-1 scheme based on the data from this study was characterised by a 92.5% specificity level and 65.1% sensitivity level compared to 69.5% specificity and 98.4% sensitivity level of MANAGE-PD.

Clinical implications: We found that MANAGE-PD has a better screening potential of DAT admission than 5-2-1 criteria. While both tools are reliable and valuable in daily practice, our study suggests that some patients may be omitted when using only less complicated tools such as 5-2-1 during the assessment.