4.7 Article

Selective cognitive impairment and hyposmia in p.A53T SNCA PD vs typical PD

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 90, 期 10, 页码 E864-E869

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005063

关键词

-

资金

  1. PPMI study
  2. Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
  3. AbbVie
  4. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals
  5. Biogen Idec
  6. BioLegend
  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  8. Eli Lilly Co.
  9. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd.
  10. GE Healthcare
  11. Genentech
  12. GlaxoSmithKline
  13. Lundbeck
  14. Merck
  15. MesoScale Discovery
  16. Piramal
  17. Pfizer
  18. Sanofi Genzyme
  19. Servier
  20. Takeda
  21. Teva
  22. UCB
  23. MULTISYN European Program [FP7-HEALTH.2013.1.2-1, 602646]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo evaluate nonmotor symptoms in early SNCA/p.A53T Parkinson disease (PD) (A53T PD) compared to typical PD (tPD).MethodsThe presence of hyposmia, neuropsychiatric, dysautonomic, and sleep disturbances was assessed by standardized questionnaires and validated scales in 18 patients with A53T PD and 18 patients with tPD, matched for age, sex, and disease duration. All patients were enrolled into the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative study.ResultsThe levodopa equivalent daily dose was higher in the A53T PD (p = 0.018) group vs the tPD group. Scores on the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (p = 0.001), Benton Judgement of Line Orientation test (p = 0.001), Letter Number Sequencing Test (p = 0.002), and phonemic verbal fluency (p = 0.002) were lower in the A53T PD group vs the tPD group. In contrast, overall cognition, verbal memory, and semantic fluency were similar between groups.ConclusionThe observed selective cognitive impairment reflecting frontal-parietal network dysfunction, together with impaired olfaction, define a set of nonmotor dysfunctions related to A53T PD. These results have implications for the prognosis of patients with A53T PD. Moreover, as the archetypal -synucleinopathy, such results may give insights into tPD.

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