Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundBlood uric acid level indicates an emerging biomarker in Parkinson's disease (PD). This study aimed to evaluate longitudinal uric acid levels among different kinds of glucocerebrosidase (GBA) mutations and to compare it among sporadic PD, genetic cohort Parkinson's disease (GENPD), genetic cohort unaffected (GENUN), and healthy control (HC) patients.MethodsWe conducted a study on 654 individuals from the Parkinson's progression markers initiative (PPMI) database. Baseline characteristics, uric acid levels, movement disorder society unified Parkinson's disease rating scale III (MDS-UPDRS III), Hoehn and Yahr Parkinson stage (H&Y stage), and DaT scan specific binding ratio (SBR) data were obtained. Different GBA mutations were collected and categorized into three groups. Longitudinal measurements of uric acid and MDS-UPDRS III score were evaluated during 3-years of follow-up.ResultGENPD cohort exhibited a greater MDS-UPDRS III score, H&Y stage, and lower SBR in the right caudate, left caudate, and right putamen compared to sporadic PD. Baseline uric acid level was similar among all groups and different GBA variants. After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, the uric acid level was significantly lower in the GENPD group than in HC during year 2 (P-value: 0.009). No significant longitudinal differences were detected for the MDS-UPDRS III score and three groups of GBA mutations.ConclusionThis is the first study to assess uric acid levels and MDS-UPDRS III scores among different GBA mutation variants within 3 years of follow-up. We found similar clinical characteristics among different subtypes of GBA mutations.
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.