SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association between serum lipid levels over time and risk of Parkinson's disease.

Sci Rep · 2022-12-05

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25180-8PMID: 36470916

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

The role of serum lipids in Parkinson's disease (PD) remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the association between time-varying serum lipid levels and the risk of PD. This study included an assessment of the complete lipid profiles of 200,454 individuals from the 2002-2019 Korean National Health Insurance Health Screening Cohort. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate the association between serum lipid levels over time and the risk of PD. Individuals in the lowest tertile of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol had a 1.17 times [hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.31] and 1.19 times (HR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06-1.34) higher risk of PD than those in middle tertile, respectively. Individuals in the highest high-density lipoprotein cholesterol tertile had a 0.89 times (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79-1.00) lower risk of PD than those in middle tertile, but the association was less robust in sensitivity analyses. Serum triglyceride levels were not related to the risk of PD. Our results suggest that the serum total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels over time are inversely associated with the risk of PD. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings and reveal the underlying mechanisms.

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.