@article{VolkmannAlbaneseAntoninietal.2013,
  author    = {Volkmann, Jens and Albanese, Alberto and Antonini, Angelo and Chaudhuri, K. Ray and Clarke, Karl E. and de Bie, Rob M. A. and Deuschl, G{\"u}nther and Eggert, Karla and Houeto, Jean-Luc and Kulisevsky, Jaime and Nyholm, Dag and Odin, Per and Ostergaard, Karen and Poewe, Werner and Pollak, Pierre and Rabey, Jose Martin and Rascol, Olivier and Ruzicka, Evzen and Samuel, Michael and Speelman, Hans and Sydow, Olof and Valldeoriola, Francesc and van der Linden, Chris and Oertel, Wolfgang},
  title     = {Selecting deep brain stimulation or infusion therapies in advanced Parkinson's disease: an evidence-based review},
  series = {Journal of Neurology},
  volume    = {260},
  journal   = {Journal of Neurology},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00415-012-6798-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-132373},
  pages     = {2701-2714},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Motor complications in Parkinson's disease (PD) result from the short half-life and irregular plasma fluctuations of oral levodopa. When strategies of providing more continuous dopaminergic stimulation by adjusting oral medication fail, patients may be candidates for one of three device-aided therapies: deep brain stimulation (DBS), continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion, or continuous duodenal/jejunal levodopa/carbidopa pump infusion (DLI). These therapies differ in their invasiveness, side-effect profile, and the need for nursing care. So far, very few comparative studies have evaluated the efficacy of the three device-aided therapies for specific motor problems in advanced PD. As a result, neurologists currently lack guidance as to which therapy could be most appropriate for a particular PD patient. A group of experts knowledgeable in all three therapies reviewed the currently available literature for each treatment and identified variables of clinical relevance for choosing one of the three options such as type of motor problems, age, and cognitive and psychiatric status. For each scenario, pragmatic and (if available) evidence-based recommendations are provided as to which patients could be candidates for either DBS, DLI, or subcutaneous apomorphine.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MolochnikovRabeyDobronevskyetal.2012,
  author    = {Molochnikov, Leonid and Rabey, Jose M. and Dobronevsky, Evgenya and Bonuccelli, Ubaldo and Ceravolo, Roberto and Frosini, Daniela and Gr{\"u}nblatt, Edna and Riederer, Peter and Jacob, Christian and Aharon-Peretz, Judith and Bashenko, Yulia and Youdim, Moussa B. H. and Mandel, Silvia A.},
  title     = {A molecular signature in blood identifies early Parkinson's disease},
  series = {Molecular Neurodegeneration},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Molecular Neurodegeneration},
  number    = {26},
  doi       = {10.1186/1750-1326-7-26},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-134508},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Background: The search for biomarkers in Parkinson's disease (PD) is crucial to identify the disease early and monitor the effectiveness of neuroprotective therapies. We aim to assess whether a gene signature could be detected in blood from early/mild PD patients that could support the diagnosis of early PD, focusing on genes found particularly altered in the substantia nigra of sporadic PD. Results: The transcriptional expression of seven selected genes was examined in blood samples from 62 early stage PD patients and 64 healthy age-matched controls. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis identified five genes as optimal predictors of PD: p19 S-phase kinase-associated protein 1A (odds ratio [OR] 0.73; 95\% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.90), huntingtin interacting protein-2 (OR 1.32; CI 1.08-1.61), aldehyde dehydrogenase family 1 subfamily A1 (OR 0.86; 95\% CI 0.75-0.99), 19 S proteasomal protein PSMC4 (OR 0.73; 95\% CI 0.60-0.89) and heat shock 70-kDa protein 8 (OR 1.39; 95\% CI 1.14-1.70). At a 0.5 cut-off the gene panel yielded a sensitivity and specificity in detecting PD of 90.3 and 89.1 respectively and the area under the receiving operating curve (ROC AUC) was 0.96. The performance of the five-gene classifier on the de novo PD individuals alone composing the early PD cohort (n = 38), resulted in a similar ROC with an AUC of 0.95, indicating the stability of the model and also, that patient medication had no significant effect on the predictive probability (PP) of the classifier for PD risk. The predictive ability of the model was validated in an independent cohort of 30 patients at advanced stage of PD, classifying correctly all cases as PD (100\% sensitivity). Notably, the nominal average value of the PP for PD (0.95 (SD = 0.09)) in this cohort was higher than that of the early PD group (0.83 (SD = 0.22)), suggesting a potential for the model to assess disease severity. Lastly, the gene panel fully discriminated between PD and Alzheimer's disease (n = 29). Conclusions: The findings provide evidence on the ability of a five-gene panel to diagnose early/mild PD, with a possible diagnostic value for detection of asymptomatic PD before overt expression of the disorder.},
  language  = {en}
}