Kenneth Marek1, John Seibyl2, Shirley Eberly2, David Oakes2, Ira Shoulson2, Anthony E Lang2, Chris Hyson2, Danna Jennings2. 1. From the Institute for Neurodegenerative Disorders (K.M., J.S., D.J.), University of Rochester (S.E., D.O.), Rochester, NY; Georgetown University (I.S.), Washington, DC; University of Toronto (A.E.L.); and Western University (C.H.), London, Ontario, Canada. kmarek@indd.org. 2. From the Institute for Neurodegenerative Disorders (K.M., J.S., D.J.), University of Rochester (S.E., D.O.), Rochester, NY; Georgetown University (I.S.), Washington, DC; University of Toronto (A.E.L.); and Western University (C.H.), London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and imaging characteristics of those PRECEPT (Parkinson Research Examination of CEP-1347 Trial) subjects with a scan without evidence of dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD) to those with dopamine transporter (DAT) deficit scans at study baseline and during a 22-month follow-up. METHODS: Baseline (n = 799) and 22-month follow-up (n = 701) [(123)I] β-CIT SPECT scans were acquired. The percent change in [(123)I] β-CIT striatal binding ratio, the percentage of subjects requiring dopaminergic therapy, the change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score, and the PRECEPT Study investigators' diagnosis at study termination were compared between SWEDD and DAT deficit subjects. RESULTS: SWEDD subjects (n = 91) compared with DAT deficit subjects (n = 708) showed reduced UPDRS score at baseline (18.7 [SD 8.5] vs 25.5 [SD 10.5], p < 0.05) and minimal change in both [(123)I] β-CIT striatal binding ratio (-0.2% [SD 12.2] vs -8.5% [SD 11.9], p < 0.0001) and UPDRS score (0.5 [SD 6.9] vs 10.5 [SD 8.9], p < 0.0001) at follow-up assessments. At PRECEPT termination, the diagnosis by study investigators was changed from Parkinson disease (PD) to other disorders not associated with DAT deficit in 44% (95% confidence interval 34.2, 54.7) of SWEDD subjects compared with 3.6% (95% confidence interval 2.3, 5.1) of DAT deficit subjects. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that subjects identified as having a SWEDD, with DAT imaging within the normal range, have minimal evidence of clinical or imaging PD progression. These data strongly suggest that SWEDD subjects are unlikely to have idiopathic PD.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and imaging characteristics of those PRECEPT (Parkinson Research Examination of CEP-1347 Trial) subjects with a scan without evidence of dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD) to those with dopamine transporter (DAT) deficit scans at study baseline and during a 22-month follow-up. METHODS: Baseline (n = 799) and 22-month follow-up (n = 701) [(123)I] β-CIT SPECT scans were acquired. The percent change in [(123)I] β-CIT striatal binding ratio, the percentage of subjects requiring dopaminergic therapy, the change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score, and the PRECEPT Study investigators' diagnosis at study termination were compared between SWEDD and DAT deficit subjects. RESULTS: SWEDD subjects (n = 91) compared with DAT deficit subjects (n = 708) showed reduced UPDRS score at baseline (18.7 [SD 8.5] vs 25.5 [SD 10.5], p < 0.05) and minimal change in both [(123)I] β-CIT striatal binding ratio (-0.2% [SD 12.2] vs -8.5% [SD 11.9], p < 0.0001) and UPDRS score (0.5 [SD 6.9] vs 10.5 [SD 8.9], p < 0.0001) at follow-up assessments. At PRECEPT termination, the diagnosis by study investigators was changed from Parkinson disease (PD) to other disorders not associated with DAT deficit in 44% (95% confidence interval 34.2, 54.7) of SWEDD subjects compared with 3.6% (95% confidence interval 2.3, 5.1) of DAT deficit subjects. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that subjects identified as having a SWEDD, with DAT imaging within the normal range, have minimal evidence of clinical or imaging PD progression. These data strongly suggest that SWEDD subjects are unlikely to have idiopathic PD.
Authors: Nin P S Bajaj; Vamsi Gontu; James Birchall; James Patterson; Donald G Grosset; Andrew J Lees Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Christopher H van Dyck; John P Seibyl; Robert T Malison; Marc Laruelle; Sami S Zoghbi; Ronald M Baldwin; Robert B Innis Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Clifford W Shults; David Oakes; Karl Kieburtz; M Flint Beal; Richard Haas; Sandy Plumb; Jorge L Juncos; John Nutt; Ira Shoulson; Julie Carter; Katie Kompoliti; Joel S Perlmutter; Stephen Reich; Matthew Stern; Ray L Watts; Roger Kurlan; Eric Molho; Madaline Harrison; Mark Lew Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2002-10
Authors: Anna De Rosa; Claudia Carducci; Carla Carducci; Silvio Peluso; Maria Lieto; Andrea Mazzella; Francesco Saccà; Vincenzo Brescia Morra; Sabina Pappatà; Vincenzo Leuzzi; Giuseppe De Michele Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Ralph Buchert; Carsten Buhmann; Ivayla Apostolova; Philipp T Meyer; Jürgen Gallinat Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Zeynep Idil Seckin; Jennifer L Whitwell; Rene L Utianski; Hugo Botha; Farwa Ali; Joseph R Duffy; Heather M Clark; Mary M Machulda; Lennon G Jordan; Hoon-Ki Min; Val J Lowe; Keith A Josephs Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Michelle E Fullard; Sharon X Xie; Ken Marek; Matthew Stern; Danna Jennings; Andrew Siderowf; Allison W Willis; Alice S Chen-Plotkin Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 10.338