SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Risk of Parkinson disease Following Gout: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan

· 2020-04-03

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-19373/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Abstract Background and Purpose The progressive neurodegenerative disorder Parkinson disease (PD) is well-established as the second most common neurodegenerative disease. Associations between the sequential risk of PD and gout have been addressed in other studies, but findings have been inconclusive. Accordingly, we executed the present study with the purpose of assessing PD risk in patients with gout. Methods From Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified the data of patients newly diagnosed as having gout between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2000. A cohort of patients without gout, matched for sex and age, was constructed for comparison. Hazard ratios (HRs) and the incidence rate of subsequent PD were calculated for both cohorts and separately for male and female groups. The gout and comparison cohorts consisted of 7900 patients each. Results The HR for PD was not significantly higher in the gout cohort compared with the control cohort(HR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–1.31, P = .268), even after adjustment for age, urbanization, monthly income, sex, and comorbidities. We did not observe gender differences in the gout–PD association (male: HR 1.01, 95% CI, 0.88–1.36, P = .400; female: HR 1.11, 95% CI, 0.84–1.46, P = .466). Conclusions Our study identified no association between gout and PD in Taiwan.

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.