4.5 Article

Evolution of neuropsychological profile in motor subtypes of multiple system atrophy

Journal

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 67-73

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.12.010

Keywords

Multiple system atrophy; Cognitive deficits; Depression; Apathy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Cognitive deficits and neuropsychiatric symptoms occur in parkinsonian and cerebellar subtypes of Multiple System Atrophy (MSA-P and MSA-C). These symptoms have been investigated mainly in cross-sectional studies. The present 1-year follow-up study aimed at evaluating the evolution of cognitive and neuropsychiatric profile in patients with MSA-C and MSA-P. Methods: Twenty-nine patients with MSA-P, 21 with MSA-C and 30 healthy subjects (HCs) underwent a neuropsychological battery and questionnaires assessing depression and apathy (T0). After 1 year (T1), patients with MSA-C and MSA-P underwent the same neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric tools employed at T0. Results: At T0, MSA-P and MSA-C groups were more depressed and apathetic and performed worse on tests assessing repetition abilities, executive and attentive functions than HCs. MSA-P and MSA-C groups did not differ on cognitive variables and neuropsychiatric scales. At T1, a significant worsening in spatial planning and psychomotor speed in MSA-C group and a significant worsening in memory, spatial planning, repetition abilities and functional autonomy in MSA-P group were found. The prevalence of apathy increased in both subtypes, whereas the prevalence of depression was reduced in MSA-C and relatively consistent in MSA-P. Conclusions: The finding revealed a wide-ranging worsening of cognitive functions in MSA-P and a significant decline in processing speed in MSA-C. These results underline the relevance of evaluating cognitive and psychiatric features of MSA over the course of the disease in the daily clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available