| Literature DB >> 33361612 |
Michael F Salvatore1, Isabel Soto1, Helene Alphonso2, Rebecca Cunningham3, Rachael James1, Vicki A Nejtek1.
Abstract
Up to 23% of newly diagnosed, non-demented, Parkinson's disease (PD) patients experience deficits in executive functioning (EF). In fact, EF deficits may occur up to 39-months prior to the onset of motor decline. Optimal EF requires working memory, attention, cognitive flexibility, and response inhibition underlying appropriate decision-making. The capacity for making strategic decisions requires inhibiting imprudent decisions and are associated with noradrenergic and dopaminergic signaling in prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex. Catecholaminergic dysfunction and the loss of noradrenergic and dopaminergic cell bodies early in PD progression in the aforementioned cortical areas likely contribute to EF deficits resulting in non-strategic decision-making. Thus, detecting these deficits early in the disease process could help identify a significant portion of individuals with PD pathology (14-60%) before frank motor impairment. A task to evaluate EF in the domain of non-strategic decision-making might be useful to indicate the moderate loss of catecholamines that occurs early in PD pathology prior to motor decline and cognitive impairment. In this review, we focus on the potential utility of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) for this purpose, given significant overlap between in loss of dopaminergic and noradrenergic cells bodies in early PD and the deficits in catecholamine function associated with decreased EF. As such, given the loss of catecholamines already well-underway after PD diagnosis, we evaluate the potential utility of the IGT to identify the risk of therapeutic non-compliance and a potential companion approach to detect PD in premotor stages.Entities:
Keywords: Iowa gambling task; Parkinson’s disease; decision-making; therapeutic compliance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33361612 PMCID: PMC8150623 DOI: 10.3233/JPD-202449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Parkinsons Dis ISSN: 1877-7171 Impact factor: 5.568
Fig. 1Impact of catecholamine cell body loss in Parkinson’s disease on noradrenergic and dopaminergic signaling in cortical and subcortical regions and executive functions. A schematic of Parkinson’s progression is presented by the arrow, wherein intact functions (green color) in executive function (EF) are subserved by an intact population of cell bodies to the left of the arrow for each cell body region depicted; locus ceruleus (LC), substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc), and ventral tegmental area (VTA). As loss of these neurons begins at the early (and likely prodromal) stages of the disease (depicted in color by transition between green and red in the Parkinson’s progression arrow), progressively less neurotransmitter (norepinephrine (NE) and dopamine (DA)) is released in the targeted cortical (prefrontal (PFC) and orbitofrontal (OFC)) and subcortical (caudate, putamen, amygdala (AMY), and nucleus accumbens (NAc)) regions. In turn, these deficits in NE and DA release lead to deficits in EF, including decreased ability to inhibit choices that lead to disadvantageous outcomes, impaired attention to relevant stimuli associated with advantageous outcomes, impairment in recognizing reward saliency, and perseveration in decision-making that leads to disadvantageous outcomes.
Fig. 2Flow Diagram of Literature Search.
Clinical Investigations of the IGT Used in PD Patients on DRT Except One De Novo Study (Poletti et al.)
| Reference | Study Design | Group Description | Years of PD Diagnosis | Hoehn & Yahr | IGT Total Scores |
| (mean ± SD) | (mean ± SD) | ||||
| Biars et al. [ | Case control | PD+ICD ( | 13.2 + /–7.1 | not reported | No significant group differences |
| PD ( | 11.9 + /–7.1 | ||||
| Evens et al. [ | Case Control | PD-w/DBS ( | 7.37 + /–4.26 | 2.39 + /–0.59 | Significant differences between both PD DBS groups vs. HC; no PD group differences |
| PD- nonDBS ( | 15.27 + /–5.37 | 3.17 + /–0.51 | |||
| HC ( | n/a | ||||
| Poletti et al. [ | Case control | PD-de novo ( | not reported | not reported | No significant group differences |
| HC ( | |||||
| Gescheidt et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 6.33 + /–2.87 | 1.97 + /–0.55 | No significant group differences |
| HC ( | |||||
| Gescheidt et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 11.32 + /–6.42 | 1.68 + /–0.58 | PD had lower scores, but statistics inconclusive |
| HC ( | |||||
| Czernecki et al. [ | Crossover ON/OFF | PD-ON/OFF ( | 14.9 + /–1.2 | ON–2.2 + /–0.1 | No significant group differences in 1st IGT test. Significant differences in 2nd IGT test |
| Mimura et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | not reported | Stage 2 –3 | No significant group differences |
| Euteneur et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 7.1 + /–6.1 | Stage 1–3 | No significant group differences |
| Castrioto et al. [ | Crossover, ON/OFF/DBS | PD-ON/OFF/DBS ( | 10.3 + /–3.8 | not reported | PD in pre-DBS OFF state had significantly lower scores than HC |
| HC ( | |||||
| Delazer et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 5.25 + /–6.38 | 1.8 + /–0.6 | PD and PDD groups performed similarly. Both had significantly lower IGT scores than HC. |
| PDD-ON ( | 8 + /–4.83 | 2.5 + /–0.6 | |||
| HC ( | |||||
| Kobayakawa et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 6.3 + /–3.4 | 1.9 + /–0.6 | PD group had significantly lower IGT scores in last half but not first half |
| Kobayakawa et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 5.6 + /–2.7 | 1.4 + /–0.6 | PD group had significantly lower scores than HC |
| HC ( | |||||
| Kobayakawa et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 6.4 + /–3.4 | 1.52 + /–0.75 | PD group had significantly lower scores than HC |
| Ibarrexte-Bilboa et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 3.06 + /–1.6 | 1.73 + /–0.4 | PD group had significantly lower scores than HC |
| HC ( | |||||
| Pagonabarraga et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 8.4 + /–5 | 2.2 + /–0.6 | PD group had significantly lower scores than HC |
| HC ( | |||||
| Mapelli et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 4.8 + /–3.4 | not reported | PD group had significantly lower scores than HC |
| HC ( | |||||
| Xi et al. [ | Case control | PD-ON ( | 4.33 + /–5.05 | 1.97 + /–0.67 | PD group had significantly lower scores than HC |
| HC ( |
PD, Parkinson’s disease; HC, Healthy Control; PDD, Parkinson’s disease with dementia; ICD, impulse control disorder; DRT+, dopamine replacement therapy+concomittant meds; DBS, deep brain stimulation.