4.5 Article

Gender differences in non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson's disease: A 2-years follow-up study on previously untreated patients

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 850-854

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.04.023

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Non motor symptoms; Gender; Gender differences; Dopaminergic therapy; Progression

资金

  1. University of Salerno, FARB [ORSA127397]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We recently showed specific sex-related patterns of non motor symptoms (NMS) in early, drug-naive PD patients. However, to date studies investigating gender-related effects of dopaminergic treatment on NMS in early PD are lacking. Methods: In the present study, we first report a prospective assessment of gender-related differences in the spectrum of NMS before (baseline) and after starting dopaminergic therapy (2-year follow-up) in a large cohort of newly diagnosed PD patients. Differences in NMS frequency between baseline and follow-up were evaluated by McNemar test. Spearman's rank test was employed to explore interactions between NMS and drug treatment. Results: One-hundred and thirty four PD patients (86M and 48W) were included in the present study. At 2-year follow-up, Sadness/blues presented a significant percentage reduction as compared to baseline in both sexes, while Urgency, Daytime sleepiness, Weight change and Sex drive presented a significant percentage increase only in men. At follow up men complained of a greater number of NMS as compared to women. Occurrence of Weight change was related to therapy in both sexes. Male gender was found to be a risk factor for developing Dribbling and Nocturia, irrespective of therapy and clinical features. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study showed that mood symptoms improved after the introduction of therapy in both sexes, while men appeared to be more prone to develop some NMS possibly linked to dopaminergic treatment. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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