4.6 Article

-amyloid and postural instability and gait difficulty in Parkinson's disease at risk for dementia

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 296-301

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.25213

关键词

Parkinson's disease; -amyloid; dopamine; PET; MDS-UPDRS

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 NS015655, R01 NS070856]
  2. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  3. Department of Veterans Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although motor impairments in Parkinson's disease (PD) are attributed to nigrostriatal dopaminergic denervation, postural instability and gait difficulty (PIGD) features are less responsive to dopaminergic medications. PIGD features are a risk factor also for the development of dementia in PD (PDD). These observations suggest that nondopaminergic mechanisms may contribute to axial motor impairments. The aim was to perform a correlative PET study to examine the relationship between neocortical -amyloid deposition ([11C]-Pittsburgh Compound B), nigrostriatal dopaminergic denervation ([11C]-dihydrotetrabenazine), and PIGD feature severity in PD patients at risk for dementia. This was a cross-sectional study of 44 PD patients (11 female and 33 male; 69.5 +/- 6.6 years of age; 7.0 +/- 4.8 years motor disease duration; mean H & Y stage: 2.7 +/- 0.5) who underwent PET, motor feature severity assessment using the Movement Disorder Society revised UPDRS, and the Dementia Rating Scale (DRS). Linear regression (R2adj = 0.147; F4,39 = 2.85; P = 0.036) showed that increased PIGD feature severity was associated with increased neocortical [11C]-Pittsburgh Compound B binding ( = 0.346; t39 = 2.13; P = 0.039) while controlling for striatal [11C]-dihydrotetrabenazine binding, age, and DRS total score. Increased neocortical -amyloid deposition, even at low-range levels, is associated with higher PIGD feature severity in PD patients at risk for dementia. This finding may explain why the PIGD motor phenotype is a risk factor for the development of PDD. (c) 2012 Movement Disorder Society

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

4.6
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