4.7 Article

Development of excessive daytime sleepiness in early Parkinson disease

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 162-168

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001737

关键词

-

资金

  1. Western Norway Health Authority [911218, 911792]
  2. Research Council of Norway [177966]
  3. Norwegian Parkinson Disease Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the frequency, development, and risk factors of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in a cohort of originally drug-naive patients with incident Parkinson disease (PD) during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Methods: One hundred fifty-three drug-naive patients with early PD derived from a population-based incident cohort and 169 control participants were assessed for EDS and reevaluated after 1, 3, and 5 years on medication. EDS was diagnosed according to the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Cutoff score above 10 was applied. Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data were used to examine associated and risk factors for EDS. Results: Patients reported EDS more often than control participants at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up. The frequency of EDS in PD increased from 11.8% at baseline to 23.4% after 5 years. Associated factors were male sex, the use of dopamine agonists, and higher Montgomery-angstrom sberg Depression Rating Scale and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-activities of daily living scores. Main risk factor for developing EDS was an increased Epworth Sleepiness Scale score at baseline. Conclusion: EDS is more frequent in PD even before treatment initiation compared with control participants and increases in occurrence with disease progression. The main risk factor for developing EDS with time is an early predisposition for sleepiness. In addition, the use of dopamine agonists was associated with the development of EDS. These findings necessitate caution in patients with PD and early increased sleep propensity and when using dopamine agonists.

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