SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparison of clinical features in pathologically confirmed PSP and MSA patients followed at a tertiary center.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2015-05-21

DOI: 10.1038/npjparkd.2015.7PMID: 28725681

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background/objectivesThe clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and multiple system atrophy (MSA) remains challenging due to heterogeneity of the diseases.AimsHere we compared the clinical features of PSP and MSA to gain insight into their diagnosis and prognosis, particularly the prognostic value of down-gaze palsy latency in PSP progression.MethodsWe reviewed clinical features of pathologically confirmed 10 PSP and 13 MSA patients, incidentally matched in age-at-onset, gender, and disease duration, followed at Columbia University Medical Center during 1994-2009.ResultsThe final antemortem diagnosis was incorrect in 30% of PSP (all lacking down-gaze palsy) and 23% of MSA patients. Falls in the first year of the disease, pyramidal involvement and freezing of gait during the course were similar between PSP and MSA. Ataxia and apraxia were in 50% of the PSP patients. Parkinsonism responsive to levodopa treatment was in 30% of the PSP (all with resting tremor) and 50% of the MSA patients. Dysautonomia in MSA could occur as early as 3 years preceding the motor symptoms, with 46% within the first year of the motor onset, but 15% did not have dysautonomia in life. The latency of down-gaze palsy and urogenital dysfunction and MMSE scores at first visit in PSP, and the latency of falls and wheelchair confinement in MSA were all associated with the disease progression.ConclusionsWe confirmed most of the previously published characterizations, and identified for the first time the prognostic value of down-gaze palsy latency in PSP progression.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.