SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Non-motor subtypes in candidates for subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord · 2025-07-18

DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2025.107945PMID: 40768869

Check source for accessMulticenter Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

IntroductionPatients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) vary markedly in terms of non-motor symptoms (NMS) as the disease progresses. To improve PD management and clinical-trial assessment, we aimed to determine NMS endotypes in a cohort of patients with advanced PD.MethodsWe conducted an ancillary cluster analysis of the 2013-2018 cohort (n = 722) of PREDISTIM. In this French multicenter interventional cohort, consecutive candidates for subthalamic deep brain stimulation undergo thorough assessment of motor symptoms (MS) and NMS at the inclusion visit. The NMS data are based on the MDS-UPDRS, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and several psychiatric scales: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS). Cluster analysis with 17 NMS was conducted to identify groups with homogenous NMS profiles.ResultsThree distinct NMS clusters were identified. The largest had mild MS. The smallest had moderate MS and the most severe NMS, including cognitive and psychiatric dysfunction. The middle-large group had moderate MS and NMS but was distinguished by having the worst sleeping problems. The clusters did not differ in onset age or patient age and may be underpinned by disparate patterns of anatomical brain damage.ConclusionThe mainly-motor (Cluster 1), mainly non-motor (Cluster 3), and intermediate (Cluster 2) NMS endophenotypes must be replicated in an independent cohort but may help stratify patients for management (pharmacological, deep-brain stimulation, and non-pharmacological treatments) and inclusion and assessment in clinical trials.

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.