Kristina Kulcsarova1, Joaquim Ribeiro Ventosa2, Eva Feketeova2, Milan Maretta2, Norbert Lesko2, Miroslav Benca2, Vladimir Han2, Laura Gombosova3, Janette Baloghova4, Miriam Slavkovska2, Maria Brosmanova2, Zuzana Vancova5, Jan Lepej6, Miroslava Rabajdova7, Lubos Ambro8, Stefan Toth9, Filip Kudela10, Igor Kudela10, Lujza Strigacova10, Veronika Roskovicova10, Zuzana Gdovinova2, Matej Skorvanek2. 1. Department of Neurology, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic; Department of Neurology, University Hospital L. Pasteur, Rastislavova 43, 04190, Kosice, Slovak Republic. Electronic address: kristina.kulcsarova@student.upjs.sk. 2. Department of Neurology, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic; Department of Neurology, University Hospital L. Pasteur, Rastislavova 43, 04190, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 3. 1st Department of Internal Medicine, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic; 1st Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital L. Pasteur, Rastislavova 43, 04190, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 4. Department of Dermatovenerology, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic; Department of Dermatovenerology, University Hospital L. Pasteur, Rastislavova 43, 04190, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 5. 1st Department of Psychiatry, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic; 1st Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital L. Pasteur, Rastislavova 43, 04190, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 6. Institute of Nuclear and Molecular Medicine, Rastislavova 43, 04253, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 7. Department of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 8. Department of Experimental Medicine, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 9. Department of Histology and Embryology, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic. 10. Department of Neurology, P. J. Safarik University, Trieda SNP 1, 04011, Kosice, Slovak Republic.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: MDS research criteria for prodromal Parkinson's disease (pPD) were published in 2015 and updated in 2019. We aimed to determine the difference in pPD patient detection rates in two cohorts recruited via gastrointestinal symptoms (PARCAS study) and the presence of a probable REM sleep behaviour disorder (PDBIOM study) using the original and updated criteria. METHODS: We evaluated all risk and prodromal markers, except genetic testing, plasma urate and physical inactivity, in both cohorts and DaT scan, diabetes mellitus type II and cognitive deficit in the PARCAS cohort. Thresholds of 50% probability for possible pPD and 80% for probable pPD were used. RESULTS: PPD status as identified by the original/updated criteria showed differences for probable pPD (n = 8/9; original/updated criteria) and possible pPD (n = 9/13) in the PARCAS cohort (total n = 158), as well as for probable pPD (n = 19/21) and possible pPD (n = 6/3) in the PDBIOM cohort (total n = 48). A high concordance rate was found between the two criteria sets (p < 0.001 for all groups). CONCLUSION: All probable pPD cases remained in the same category after evaluation with both criteria; three possible pPD cases based on the original criteria exceeded the threshold for probable pPD based on the updated criteria, and five possible new pPD cases were detected, with only one shift in the opposite direction. The updated MDS pPD research criteria tend to identify more patients as positive, yet their accuracy needs to be determined in prospective studies.
INTRODUCTION: MDS research criteria for prodromal Parkinson's disease (pPD) were published in 2015 and updated in 2019. We aimed to determine the difference in pPD patient detection rates in two cohorts recruited via gastrointestinal symptoms (PARCAS study) and the presence of a probable REM sleep behaviour disorder (PDBIOM study) using the original and updated criteria. METHODS: We evaluated all risk and prodromal markers, except genetic testing, plasma urate and physical inactivity, in both cohorts and DaT scan, diabetes mellitus type II and cognitive deficit in the PARCAS cohort. Thresholds of 50% probability for possible pPD and 80% for probable pPD were used. RESULTS: PPD status as identified by the original/updated criteria showed differences for probable pPD (n = 8/9; original/updated criteria) and possible pPD (n = 9/13) in the PARCAS cohort (total n = 158), as well as for probable pPD (n = 19/21) and possible pPD (n = 6/3) in the PDBIOM cohort (total n = 48). A high concordance rate was found between the two criteria sets (p < 0.001 for all groups). CONCLUSION: All probable pPD cases remained in the same category after evaluation with both criteria; three possible pPD cases based on the original criteria exceeded the threshold for probable pPD based on the updated criteria, and five possible new pPD cases were detected, with only one shift in the opposite direction. The updated MDS pPD research criteria tend to identify more patients as positive, yet their accuracy needs to be determined in prospective studies.
Authors: Cameron Miller-Patterson; Jesse Y Hsu; Lana M Chahine; James F Morley; Allison W Willis Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 5.625