Does the 5–2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5–2-1-positive patients in 7 countries

Irene A. Malaty, Pablo Martinez-Martin, K. Ray Chaudhuri, Per Odin, Matej Skorvanek, Joohi Jimenez-Shahed, Michael J. Soileau, Susanna Lindvall, Josefa Domingos, Sarah Jones, Ali Alobaidi, Yash J. Jalundhwala, Prasanna L. Kandukuri, Koray Onuk, Lars Bergmann, Samira Femia, Michelle Y. Lee, Jack Wright, Angelo Antonini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations


Background: The burden of Parkinson’s disease (PD) worsens with disease progression. However, the lack of objective and uniform disease classification challenges our understanding of the incremental burden in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (APD) and suboptimal medication control. The 5–2-1 criteria was proposed by clinical consensus to identify patients with advancing PD. Our objective was to evaluate the screening accuracy and incremental clinical burden, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and humanistic burden in PD patients meeting the 5–2-1 screening criteria. Methods: Data were drawn from the Adelphi Parkinson’s Disease Specific Program (DSP™), a multi-country point-in-time survey (2017–2020). People with PD who were naive to device-aided therapy and on oral PD therapy were included. Patients meeting the 5–2-1 screening criteria had one or more of the three clinical indicators of APD: (i) ≥5 doses of oral levodopa/day, OR (ii) “off” symptoms for ≥2 h of waking day, OR (iii) ≥1 h of troublesome dyskinesia. Clinician assessment of PD stage was used as the reference in this study. Clinical screening accuracy of the 5–2-1 criteria was assessed using area under the curve and multivariable logistic regression models. Incremental clinical, HCRU, and humanistic burden were assessed by known-group comparisons between 5 and 2-1-positive and negative patients. Results: From the analytic sample (n = 4714), 33% of patients met the 5–2-1 screening criteria. Among physician-classified APD patients, 78.6% were 5–2-1 positive. Concordance between clinician judgment and 5–2-1 screening criteria was > 75%. 5–2-1-positive patients were nearly 7-times more likely to be classified as APD by physician judgment. Compared with the 5–2-1-negative group, 5–2-1-positive patients had significantly higher clinical, HCRU, and humanistic burden across all measures. In particular, 5–2-1-positive patients had 3.8-times more falls, 3.6-times higher annual hospitalization rate, and 3.4-times greater dissatisfaction with PD treatment. 5–2-1-positive patients also had significantly lower quality of life and worse caregiver burden. Conclusions: 5–2-1 criteria demonstrated potential as a screening tool for identifying people with APD with considerable clinical, humanistic, and HCRU burden. The 5–2-1 screening criteria is an objective and reliable tool that may aid the timely identification and treatment optimization of patients inadequately controlled on oral PD medications.

Original languageEnglish
Article number35
JournalBMC Neurology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2022


  • 5–2-1 criteria
  • Advanced Parkinson’s disease
  • Screening performance, clinical burden


Dive into the research topics of 'Does the 5–2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5–2-1-positive patients in 7 countries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this