SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Low skull bone density is associated with poor motor prognosis in women with Parkinson's disease.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2022-11-15

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.1053786PMID: 36457758

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Parkinson's disease (PD) and osteoporosis are degenerative diseases that have shared pathomechanisms. To investigate the associations of skull bone density with nigrostriatal dopaminergic degeneration and longitudinal motor prognosis in female patients with PD. We analyzed the data of 260 drug-naïve female PD patients aged ≥50 years old who were followed-up for ≥3 years after their first visit to the clinic with baseline dopamine transporter (DAT) imaging. We measured skull bone density as a surrogate marker for systemic bone loss by calculating the Hounsfield unit (HU) in computed tomography scans. A Cox proportional hazard model was built to compare the rates of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) or wearing-off according to skull HU. Longitudinal changes in levodopa-equivalent dose (LED) during a 3-year follow-up were assessed using a linear mixed model. A lower skull HU was associated with lower baseline DAT availability in striatal subregions; however, this relationship was not significant after adjusting for age, disease duration, body mass index, and white matter hyperintensities. After adjusting for confounding factors, a lower skull HU was significantly associated with an increased risk of LID development (hazard ratio = 1.660 per 1 standard deviation decrease, p = 0.007) and wearing-off (hazard ratio = 1.613, p = 0.016) in younger (p < 0.001). This study suggests that baseline skull bone density would be closely linked to motor prognosis in drug naïve women with 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.