Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Autonomic dysregulation in Parkinson's disease (PD) can precede motor deficits and is associated with reduced quality of life, disease progression, and increased mortality. Objective markers of autonomic involvement in PD are limited. Corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is a rapid ophthalmic technique that can quantify small nerve damage in a range of peripheral and autonomic neuropathies. Here we investigated whether CCM can be used to assess autonomic symptoms in PD. Based on the scale for outcomes in Parkinson's disease for autonomic symptoms (SCOPA-AUT), patients with PD were classified into those without autonomic symptoms (AutD-N), with single (AutD-S), and multiple (AutD-M) domain autonomic dysfunction. Corneal nerve fiber pathology was quantified using CCM, and the relationship with autonomic symptoms was explored. The study enrolled 71 PD patients and 30 control subjects. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL), and CNBD/CNFD ratio were lower in PD patients with autonomic symptoms compared to those without autonomic symptoms. Autonomic symptoms correlated positively with CNFD (r = -0.350, p = 0.004), and were not related to Levodopa equivalent daily dose (r = 0.042, p = 0.733) after adjusting for age, disease severity, disease duration or cognitive function. CCM parameters had high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing patients with PD with and without autonomic symptoms. PD patients with autonomic symptoms have corneal nerve loss, and CCM could serve as an objective ophthalmic imaging technique to identify patients with PD and autonomic symptoms.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.