4.7 Article

Clinical phenotype and risk of levodopa-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 263, 期 5, 页码 888-894

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8075-6

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Dyskinesia; Clinical phenotype; Tremor-dominant; Akinetic-rigid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is unclear whether patients with different clinical phenotypes of Parkinson's disease (PD) differ in their risk of developing levodopa-induced dyskinesia. We evaluated the possible association between clinical phenotypes and risk of levodopa-induced dyskinesia in PD patients using a case-control design. The FRAGAMP study is a large Italian multicenter study. Patients affected by PD diagnosed according to the Gelb's criteria were enrolled and underwent a face-to-face interview. Clinical scales were used to evaluate motor and cognitive impairment. Presence of dyskinesia was assessed by the item 32 of the UPDRS section IV. On the basis of the most prominent motor symptoms at onset PD, patients were classified as tremor-dominant, akinetic-rigid, or mixed type. 485 PD patients (292 men; mean age 65.6 +/- A 9.8) were enrolled in the study of whom 128 (26.4 %) presented levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Of the 485 patients, 311 (64.1 %) were classified as tremor-dominant, 104 (21.4 %) as Akinetic-Rigid and 70 (14.4 %) as mixed type. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed a significant negative association between tremor-dominant phenotype and levodopa-induced dyskinesia (adjusted OR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.23-1.00; p value 0.05). When analysis was stratified by age at onset a stronger negative association was found among the late onset (> 50 years) PD patients (OR 0.28; 95 % CI 0.11-0.70; p value 0.007) while no association was found among patients with an early onset. Our findings support the hypothesis that the occurrence of resting tremor as an initial manifestation of PD may predict a lower probability of developing levodopa-induced dyskinesia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据