SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Ethnic Differences in Atypical Parkinsonism-is South Asian PSP Different?

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2024-08-07

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.14182PMID: 39113437

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

BackgroundProgressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a progressive atypical parkinsonian condition that results in severe disability. There are few studies of PSP in patients of non-white European ancestry.ObjectivesWe aim to perform deep phenotyping in a South Asian PSP cohort to uncover possible ethnic differences in disease characteristics.MethodsConsecutive PSP patients had their clinical records reviewed for clinical features operationalized in the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-PSP diagnostic criteria and relevant investigations, including imaging and genetic tests. Clinical variables were summarized by descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for survival analysis.ResultsTwenty-seven patients, comprising Indians (78%), Pakistanis (11%) and Sri Lankans (11%) were included. Mean age of symptom onset was 63.8 ± 7.0 years and 22% of patients had an early age of onset (ConclusionsWe present a South Asian cohort of PSP patients with a higher than previously reported percentages of early-onset disease, family history and atypical clinical manifestations. These patients do not fit easily into the PSP phenotypes defined by the current MDS criteria. Dedicated clinicopathological and genetic tests are needed in this population to dissect the pathogenesis of clinically-defined PSP.

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.