SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

White matter hyperintensities and risk of levodopa-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease.

Ann Clin Transl Neurol · 2020-02-07

DOI: 10.1002/acn3.50991PMID: 32032471

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

ObjectiveTo investigate whether the burden of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) is associated with the risk of developing levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) in Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsAccording to the Clinical Research Center for Dementia of South Korea WMH visual rating scale, 336 patients with drug-naïve early stage PD (follow-up >3 years) were divided into two groups of PD with minimal WMHs (PD-WMH-; n = 227) and moderate-to-severe WMHs (PD-WMH+; n = 109). The Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for the development of LID in the PD-WMH + group compared with the PD-WMH- group, while adjusting for age at PD onset, sex, striatal dopamine depletion, and PD medication dose. Additionally, we assessed the effects of WMH burden rated by the Scheltens scale and regional WMH distribution on the development of LID.ResultsPatients in the PD-WMH + group were older and had more severe parkinsonian motor signs despite comparable striatal dopamine transporter availability than those in the PD-WMH- group. Patients in the PD-WMH + group had a higher risk of developing LID (hazard ratio, 2.66; P InterpretationThe present study demonstrates that the burden of WMHs is associated with occurrence of LID in patients with PD, suggesting comorbid WMHs as a risk factor for LID.

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.