SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Nonmotor symptom burden grading as predictor of cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease.

Brain Behav · 2021-03-01

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2086PMID: 33645912

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

BackgroundIdentifying predictors of incident cognitive impairment (CI), one of the most problematic long-term outcomes, in Parkinson's disease (PD) is highly relevant for personalized medicine and prognostic counseling. The Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) provides a global clinical assessment of a range of NMS, reflecting NMS burden (NMSB), and thus may assist in the identification of an "at-risk" CI group based on overall NMSB cutoff scores.MethodsTo investigate whether specific patterns of PD NMS profiles predict incident CI, we performed a retrospective longitudinal study on a convenience sample of 541 nondemented PD patients taking part in the Nonmotor Longitudinal International Study (NILS) cohort, with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), NMSS, and Scales for Outcomes in PD Motor Scale (SCOPA Motor) scores at baseline and last follow-up (mean 3.2 years) being available.ResultsPD patients with incident CI (i.e., MMSE score ≤ 25) at last follow-up (n = 107) had severe overall NMSB level, significantly worse NMSS hallucinations/perceptual problems and higher NMSS attention/memory scores at baseline. Patients with CI also were older and with more advanced disease, but with no differences in disease duration, dopamine replacement therapy, sex, and comorbid depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that a comprehensive baseline measure of NMS and in particular hallucinations and perceptual problems assessed with a validated single instrument can be used to predict incident CI in PD. This approach provides a simple, holistic strategy to predict future CI in this population.

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.