SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Parkinson's Disease-Related Biomarkers That May Appear in Amphetamine Abusers.

Biomed Res Int · 2021-10-19

DOI: 10.1155/2021/3081891PMID: 34712729

Open accessresearch-article; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative disorders. Amphetamine addiction may cause serious of psychotic and physical damage to humans. There is some evidence that shows that amphetamine may increase the risk of PD. Thus, this study is aimed at comparing the PD serum biomarkers between amphetamine addicts and PD patients and utilizing them as diagnostic biomarkers for the early detection of PD incidence among amphetamine addicts. In the current study, nineteen amphetamine addicts, aged p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001, respectively). The results of amphetamine addicts were comparable to PD levels. However, there are no significant differences between all studied groups concerning complement C4 level. Moreover, albumin levels were significantly decreased and CRP/Albumin ratio levels were significantly increased in amphetamine addicts (p = 0.01 and p = 0.041, respectively) in contrast with controls. These findings indicate that the increased level of these inflammatory biomarkers (SAP and CRP) in the amphetamine addicts may give a potential possibility of their serum level to be used as screening markers to detect PD development in the amphetamine addict. It may be useful to evaluate the changes in easily accessible and cost-effective parameters such as the serum CRP/albumin ratio.

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.