Application of longitudinal item response theory models to modeling Parkinson’s disease progression

• Published in: CPT: pharmacometrics and systems pharmacology Vol. 11; no. 10; pp. 1382 - 1392
• Main Authors: Zou, Haotian, Aggarwal, Varun, Stebbins, Glenn T., Müller, Martijn L. T. M., Cedarbaum, Jesse M., Pedata, Anne, Stephenson, Diane, Simuni, Tanya, Luo, Sheng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.10.2022; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Clinical trials; Datasets; Disease Progression; Humans; Item response theory; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Movement disorders; Observational studies; Parameter estimation; Parkinson Disease; Parkinson's disease; Patients; Severity of Illness Index
• DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12853
• ISSN: 2163-8306

The Movement Disorder Society revised version of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‐UPDRS) parts 2 and 3 reflect patient‐reported functional impact and clinician‐reported severity of motor signs of Parkinson’s disease (PD), respectively. Total scores are common clinical outcomes but may obscure important time‐based changes in items. We aim to analyze longitudinal disease progression based on MDS‐UPRDS parts 2 and 3 item‐level responses over time and as functions of Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) stages 1 and 2 for subjects with early PD. The longitudinal item response theory (IRT) modeling is a novel statistical method addressing limitations in traditional linear regression approaches, such as ignoring varying item sensitivities and the sum score balancing out improvements and declines. We utilized a harmonized dataset consisting of six studies with 3573 subjects with early PD and 14,904 visits, and mean follow‐up time of 2.5 years (±1.57). We applied both a unidimensional (each part separately) and multidimensional (both parts combined) longitudinal IRT models. We assessed the progression rates for both parts, anchored to baseline H&Y stages 1 and 2. Both the uni‐ and multidimensional longitudinal IRT models indicate significant worsening time effects in both parts 2 and 3. Baseline H&Y stage 2 was associated with significantly higher baseline severities, but slower progression rates in both parts, as compared with stage 1. Patients with baseline H&Y stage 1 demonstrated slower progression in part 2 severity compared to part 3, whereas patients with baseline H&Y stage 2 progressed faster in part 2 than part 3. The multidimensional model had a superior fit compared to the unidimensional models and it had excellent model performance.