Am I missing the point here?

According to the article at:
http://disability.ulitzer.com/node/2251066
(thanks to Diego24 for this)
the results show a reduction of "off" time at 12 weeks of LCIG of 1.91 hours per day compared to levodopa-carbidopa IR tablets. Even ignoring the cost, this does not seem to me to be too spectacular, especially given its invasiveness.

Perhaps it's my type of Parkinson's, but I've always been confused by the use of "on" and "off" time as a measure of efficacy. When I have no drugs in my system I can still function. Some things I can do at a near normal pace (e.g. walking), other things I'm very slow at (e.g. dressing where I'm, perhaps, 10 times slower). After I've taken the drugs, there is very little improvement in the things I'm good at, but a big improvement in what I'm bad at (e.g. dressing goes from being 10 times slower to only 3 times slower). But in no way am I "normal": the motor symptoms, although reduced, remain; the tremor remains and the non-motor symptoms, such as constipation, remain. So, for me, the question is not really what is the "off" time?, what is the "on" time?; but, rather, what is the quality of the "off"? what is the quality of the "on"?

As far as LCIG is concerned the article says nothing about quality except in terms of dyskinesias: "off" decreased by 1.91 hours, "on" (by the definition given in the article, I think excluding dyskinesias) increased by 1.86 hours. This implies that dyskinesias increased by 0.05 hours.

The article goes on to describe treatment-emergent adverse events. These occurred in 95% of LCIG and 100% of tablet taking patients. But within these numbers are some that relate to LCIG only: complication of device insertion (51%), post-operative wound infection (17%) etc..

John