SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Predicting cognitive decline with non-clinical markers in Parkinson's disease (PRECODE-2).

J Neurol · 2019-02-28

DOI: 10.1007/s00415-019-09250-yPMID: 30820739

Open accessresearch-article; Multicenter Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

ObjectivesTo investigate whether baseline [123I]FP-CIT SPECT and CSF markers can predict cognitive impairment (CI) in PD patients, and provide a profile of those most at risk.Methods262 de novo PD patients from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative database were stratified into two CI groups at the 36-month follow-up: MoCA-defined diagnosis: PD patients who had a MoCA score ResultsAt the 36-month follow-up, 108/262 (41.2%) PD patients had CI as defined by the MoCA, of which 40/108 (37.0%) had neuropsychological test-defined CI. Baseline CSF Aβ42 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.996, confidence interval [CI]: 0.992-0.999, p = 0.025), CSF total tau ([HR]: 1.023, [CI]: 1.002-1.044, p = 0.031) and caudate [123I]FP-CIT SPECT uptake ([HR]: 0.332, [CI]: 0.115-0.960, p = 0.042) were predictors of CI. Patients with reduced CSF Aβ42 ( 45.0 pg/mL) and reduced caudate [123I]FP-CIT SPECT uptake (ConclusionWe report a characteristic profile (reduced CSF Aβ42, increased CSF total tau and reduced caudate [123I]FP-CIT SPECT uptake) that enables identification of early PD patients at risk of developing CI. These findings confirm previous reports of low CSF Aβ42, elevated CSF total tau and reduced dopaminergic integrity being associated with cognitive decline in PD.

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.