Profiling the most elderly parkinson's disease patients: Does age or disease duration matter?

BACKGROUND: Despite our ageing populations, elderly patients are underrepresented in clinical research, and ageing research is often separate from that of Parkinson's disease (PD). To our knowledge, no previous study has focused on the most elderly ('old-old', age ≥ 85 years) patients with PD to reveal how age directly influences PD clinical progression.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the clinical characteristics and pharmacological profiles, including complications of levodopa treatment, disease progression, disabilities, and comorbidities of the old-old with those of comparable younger ('young-old', age 60-75 years) PD patients. In addition, within the old-old group, we compared those with a short disease duration (< 10 years at the time of diagnosis) to those with a long disease duration ≥10 years to investigate whether prognosis was related to disease progression or aging.
METHODS: This single-centre, case-control study compared 60 old-old to 92 young-old PD patients, matched for disease duration. Patients in the old-old group were also divided equally (30:30) into two subgroups (short and long disease duration) with the same mean age. We compared the groups based on several clinical measures using a conditional logistic regression.
RESULTS: By study design, there were no differences between age groups when comparing disease duration, however, the proportion of men decreased with age (p = 0.002). At a comparable length of PD duration of 10 years, the old-old PD patients predominantly had significantly greater postural instability and gait disturbance (p = 0.006), higher motor scope of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III, p<0.0001), and more advanced Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) stage (p<0.0001). The Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (NMSQuest) score was also significantly higher among the old-old (p<0.0001) compared to the young-old patients. Moreover, the distribution of NMS also differed between ages, with features of gastrointestinal problems (p<0.0001), urinary problems (p = 0.004), sleep disturbances and fatigue (p = 0.032), and cognitive impairment (p<0.0001) significantly more common in the old-old group, whereas sexual problems (p = 0.012), depression, and anxiety (p = 0.032) were more common in the young-old. No differences were found in visual hallucinations, cerebrovascular disease, and miscellaneous domains. While young-old PD patients received higher levodopa equivalent daily doses (p<0.0001) and developed a significant greater rate of dyskinesia (p = 0.002), no significant difference was observed in the rate of wearing-off (p = 0.378). Old-old patients also had greater disability, as measured by the Schwab and England scale (p<0.0001) and had greater milestone frequency specifically for dementia (p<0.0001), wheelchair placement (p<0.0001), nursing home placement (p = 0.019), and hospitalisation in the past 1 year (p = 0.05). Neither recurrent falls (p = 0.443) nor visual hallucinations (p = 0.607) were documented significantly more often in the old-old patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Age and disease duration were independently associated with clinical presentation, course, and progression of PD. Age was the main predictor, but disease duration also had a strong effect, suggesting that factors of the ageing process beyond the disease process itself cause PD in the most elderly to be more severe.

Introduction

One of the most considerable social transformations of the twenty-first century is the increase in the elderly population [1]. Many countries around the globe are currently facing a rapid growth in the number of aging citizens due to low birth rates, longer life expectancies, and the ageing of baby boomers, especially in developed and developing countries (Fig 1) [2,3].

Fig 1

Distribution of the global population in 2020 [4] and prevalence of global Parkinson’s disease in 2016, by age [5].

The total world population amounts to 7,794,798,729. Prevalence is expressed as the percentage of the population that is affected by the disease.

The age composition of Thailand’s population is on par with that of many developed countries; it is ranked as the third most rapidly ageing population in Asia, which now stands at about 13 million, accounting for 20% of the population [6]. This situation has resulted in a rise in chronic and degenerative diseases in countries worldwide. Indeed, in the 2015 global burden of disease, injuries, and risk factors study, neurological disorders were listed as the leading cause of disability globally. Amongst these, Parkinson’s disease (PD) has the fastest growing prevalence, disability rate, and mortality rate [7].

According to a recent framework, different older adult populations are classified as ‘young-old’, ‘old’, and ‘old-old’ [8-10]. The ‘young-old’ are the people in their 60s and early 70s who are active and healthy, the ‘old’ are the people in their 70s and 80s who have chronic illnesses and are slowing down with some bothersome symptoms, and the ‘old-old’ are the people aged 85 or older who are often sick, disabled, and perhaps even nearing death [11,12].

PD is the most common neurodegenerative movement disorder, and more than 10 million individuals worldwide are estimated to be living with the disease [13]. It is clear that age is the strongest risk factor for PD, with a nearly exponential increase in incidence in patients between the ages of 55 and 79 years (Fig 1) [Neurology. 2007 ">14-16]. However, the burden of PD in patients aged 85 years and older remains controversial [14] since they are excluded from the majority of studies [17]. Ageing is a complex phenomenon that affects all the cells of the body, including the dopaminergic neurons of the substantia nigra (SN), and those of the other brain regions specific to PD [18]. Therefore, the accumulation of age-related somatic damage combined with the failure of compensatory mechanisms is important for the manifestation of the clinical characteristics observed in ageing and PD, starting with mild parkinsonian signs that are common in the elderly population, identified in 45% of non-demented healthy elderly individuals [19].

Despite rising patient numbers, elderly patients are underrepresented in clinical research.

Moreover, ageing research is often far removed from that of PD, and it is imperative to bring these two areas together to further our understanding of how age directly influences PD clinical progression.

Data about the most elderly patients with PD is very rare since only a relatively small number of subjects older than 75 years have been included in PD trials. In order to evaluate age bias in PD research, the MEDLINE database was searched from 1999 to 2007, in a previous systemic review [20]. Seventy-nine studies, involving 19,156 patients, were identified for analysis; an estimated 85% of these patients were younger than 75 years, and 94% were younger than 80 years. Older people were excluded from the trials for a variety of reasons [17]. Twenty-three studies (29%) defined an upper age limit (74–86 years) as an exclusion criterion and patients with significant cognitive impairment were excluded from 29 trials (36%). In 12 (15%) and 13 (16%) studies, the presence of psychiatric disturbances and medical comorbidities, respectively, were exclusion criteria [20].

To the best of our knowledge, while several studies have investigated PD patients with late disease onset, few have focused on patients who are at an advanced age, the alone old-old. There is evidence that late-onset PD (LOPD; defined when PD onset is in the late 60s to 70s) patients show more rapid disease progression, greater motor impairment, and poorer response to levodopa compared with that observed in patients with early-onset disease [21-24]. However, data from LOPD patients might not be applicable to all advanced-age PD patients since some of the advanced-age patients have an early disease onset with longer disease duration, and the clinical repercussion of PD in the old-old might be different from that in the old or young-old.

The objective of our study was to compare the clinical characteristics and pharmacological profiles, including complications of levodopa treatment, progression of disease, disabilities, and comorbidities of the old-old with those of comparable young-old patients. Within the old-old group, additional comparison was performed between those with a short disease duration (< 10 years at the time of diagnosis) and those with a long disease duration (≥10 years) to investigate whether the effects observed were related to the disease process or aging.

Methods

This study was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (IRB. No. 134/62) before study initiation. Written informed consent for the collection of demographics and clinical data was obtained from all study participants. When individuals lacked decision-making capacity, informed consent was obtained from a family member or caregiver.

Participants

The patients included in this study were evaluated at the Chulalongkorn Centre of Excellence for Parkinson’s Disease and Related Disorders (www.chulapd.org) between June 2019 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of PD (according to the UK PD Brain Bank criteria) [25] and a record of age at diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included patients who (1) were missing record of exact age, (2) were missing record of the age of diagnosis, or (3) had insufficient clinical data. The patient’s actual birth date was also cross-checked against official state documents (such as birth certificate, marriage certificate, identification card, hospital card, and other identity documents), since actual birth dates are often unknown in some elderly individuals in Thailand [26].

Cut-off ages for PD patient age groups were empirically defined, based on the peak representative age ranges in PD and were 85 years or older, called the old-old, and between the ages of 60 and 75 years, called the young-old PD [27-31]. To investigate the influence of disease duration, patients of the old-old and young-old groups were also separated into two subgroups, according to duration of illness, into a ‘less than 10 years’ group, called the short duration group, and an ‘equal to or more than 10 years’ group, called the long duration group, based on a commonly used cut-off point from previously published studies [32,33]. Moreover, to address the role of age at onset (AAO), we repeated the analysis in which patients were divided in 2 groups, middle-onset PD (MOPD) group included patients with AAO between 50 and 69, and the LOPD group included patients with AAO ≥70 years. This cut- off was guided by the conclusion of a cluster analysis from Post el al [34]. Based on the available study subjects, we did not study those AAO of less than 50 years.

Procedures

Measurement of clinical variables

Demographic and clinical data extracted included gender, age, age-at-onset, disease duration, levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), presence of motor complications, Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) stage, annual outpatient visits frequency, and comorbidities. Data instruments included motor section of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III) [35], rated during the ‘on’ medication state, as well as the Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (NMSQuest) revised version, which is a self-completed validated questionnaire. Mean NMSQuest scores and frequencies in each domain were corrected to assess patient severity and, thus, to establish the ranking of prevalence for each domain [36]. PD motor subtypes were identified following the original classification methods into two subtypes: (1) tremor- dominant PD and (2) postural instability and gait difficulty (PIGD). Using the UPDRS, an average global tremor score and a mean score for the complex of PIGD were determined, and patients were assigned to a tremor group and a PIGD group based on the ratio of these scores [37,38]. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to assess comorbidities [39]. The CCI has been shown to be superior to similar scales for predicting mortality in PD patients [40,41].

Measurement of disease advancement

Disease advancement was assessed in two ways: (i) the Schwab and England (S&E-ADL) scale, which has been validated for use in PD as a measure of activities of daily living (ADLs, dependency was defined as a score of less than 80%) [42], and (ii) milestones of disease advancement that had been selected on the basis that each was likely to require additional medical attention. Well documented in previous reports [43,44], these were as follows: (1) regular falls separately analysed for ambulatory patients (i.e., H&Y stage 1–4), as a milestone of motor disability, (2) visual hallucinations, (3) dementia, confirmed by applying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V criteria (DSM-V) [45], and (4) placement in residential or nursing home care as a measure of global disability. Moreover, other disease milestones, such as hospital or emergency room visits within the past year, and wheelchair dependence were also included.

Information was collected from the patients and cross-checked against medical record charts (patients were followed-up regularly at 3-month intervals on average). When sensory or motor problems interfered with the patient providing information or completing the questionnaire, assistance was provided by close relatives or primary caregivers. All evaluations were carried out by one of the authors (SV) during the ‘on’ medication state (in the morning, 1–2 hours after taking medications).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviations (SDs), while categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Differences in the characteristics of interest were tested using independent samples t-test or chi-squared test, where appropriate. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlations between the variables and impact measures. Logistic regression was performed using the enter method to identify the variables most likely to predict disease progression. Age and disease duration were used as independent variables, and disease milestones were used as the dependent variables. Significance was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software, version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL).

Results

During the study period, 793 patients were diagnosed with PD in our clinic, of which 65 (8.21%) were classified as old-old PD patients. Five cases were excluded based on the following reasons: refusal to participate (n = 1), information was unavailable (n = 2), could not be contacted (n = 1), and died before interview (n = 1). After exclusions, the total number of old-old patients was 60. Ninety-two young-old PD cases were selected matched for disease duration from the data file for comparison.

Old-old and young-old PD cohorts: A general comparison

Patient characteristics

Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients with PD in the different age groups. Average age was 88.25 (SD, 3.11 years; range, 85–97 years) for the old-old patients and 66.40 (SD, 3.15 years; range, 60–75 years) for the young-old patients (p<0.0001). Average onset age was 77 years (SD, 6.73 years; range, 78–92 years) for the old-old and 56.30 years (SD, 5.33 years; range, 43–66 years) for the young-old group (p<0.0001). Disease duration for both the groups was similar (10.50 vs. 10.08, p = 0.856). The proportion of male patients decreased with age, with 56 (60.9%) in the young-old group and 24 (40%) in the old-old group (p<0.001). The rate of annual outpatient visits in old-old was significantly lower than that of young-old (2.80 vs. 3.29, p = 0.001).

Table 1

Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of old-old versus young-old PD patients.

	Age (yrs)		p-value
	60–75 (N = 92)	≥ 85 (N = 60)
Demographic variables
Current age, yrs, mean (±SD)	66.40 (±3.51)	88.25 (±3.11)	<0.0001*
Age of PD onset, yrs, mean (±SD)	56.30 (±5.33)	77.73 (±6.73)	<0.0001*
Disease duration, yrs, mean (±SD)	10.08 (±5.26)	10.50 (±6.63)	0.856
Gender, male, N (%)	56 (60.9%)	24 (40%)	0.002*
Annual outpatient visits, mean (±SD)	3.29 (±1.00)	2.80 (±0.75)	0.001*
Motor symptoms
Predominant subtype, N (%)
TD	40 (43.5%)	13 (21.7%)	0.006*
PIGD	52 (56.5%)	47 (78.3%)
Motor severity
UPDRS-III, mean (±SD)	27.86 (±14.27)	41.82 (±17.51)	<0.0001*
H&Y stage, mean (±SD)	2.84 (±0.87)	4.24 (±0.88)	<0.0001*
PI-H&Y(H&Y>3), N (%)	15 (16.3%)	48 (80%)	<0.0001*
Non motor symptoms, N (%)
NMSQuest total, mean (±SD)	8.16 (±2.80)	11.93 (±3.03)	<0.0001*
Domain, N (%)
Gastrointestinal tract	68 (73.9%)	54 (90%)	<0.0001*
Urinary tract	46 (50%)	44 (73.3%)	0.004*
Sexual function	53 (57.6%)	22 (36.7%)	0.012*
Cardiovascular issues	25 (27.2%)	24 (40%)	0.098
Sleep/fatigue	50 (54.3%)	71.1 (63.3%)	0.032*
Apathy/attention/memory	20 (21.7%)	49 (81.7%)	<0.0001*
Hallucination/delusion	28 (30.4%)	18 (30%)	0.955
Depression/anxiety	42 (45.7%)	17 (28.3%)	0.032*
Miscellaneous	48 (52.2%)	40 (66.7%)	0.077
TMSE, mean (±SD)	27.04 (±3.51)	17.48 (±7.78)	<0.0001*
Medications
LED, mg/d, mean (±SD)	890.79 (±546.79)	555 (±336.95)	<0.0001*
LED > 400	76 (82.6%)	31 (51.7%)	<0.0001*
Motor complication, N (%)
Dyskinesia	37 (40.2%)	10 (16.7%)	0.002*
Wearing-off	44 (47.8%)	33 (55%)	0.378
Disabilities
S&E-ADL, mean (±SD)	78.80 (±18.08)	46.5 (±22.83)	<0.0001*
S&E-ADL < 80%, N (%)	30 (32.6%)	49 (81.6%)	<0.0001*
Milestones, N (%)
Dementia	8 (8.7%)	34 (56.7%)	<0.0001*
Recurrent falls in ambulatory patient (N = 116), N (%)	21/85 (24.7%)	8/31 (25.8%)	0.904
Visual hallucination	33 (35.9%)	24 (40%)	0.607
Nursing home placement	3 (3.3%)	8 (13.3%)	0.019*
Wheelchair placement	11(12%)	32(53.3%)	<0.0001*
Hospitalization in past year, N (%)	14 (15.2%)	21 (35%)	0.05*
Comorbidity, N (%)
CVD	14 (15.2%)	21 (35%)	0.005*
Musculoskeletal	30 (32.6%)	39 (65%)	<0.001*
Hypertension	16 (17.4%)	12 (20%)	0.685
Diabetes mellitus	16 (17.4%)	13 (21.7%)	0.512
Cancer	2 (2.2%)	3 (5%)	0.340
CCI, mean (±SD)	1.0 (±1.16)	2.2 (±1.2)	<0.0001*

TD, tremor-dominant; PIGD, postural instability/gait difficulty; UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; H&Y, Hoehn & Yahr; NMSQuest, Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire; TMSE, Thai Mental State Examination; LED, levodopa equivalent dose; S&E-ADL, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living, CVD, cerebrovascular disease; CCI, Charlson Cormorbidity Index.

Motor features

The old-old group demonstrated a significantly higher frequency of PIGD as the predominant symptom (p = 0.006). When comparing the severity of motor symptoms, UPDRS-III scores and H&Y stages were also significantly higher in the old-old PD patients compared to the young-old patients (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively). H&Y stage 3 was used as a cut-off to determine postural instability. H&Y stage 3 or above was significantly more frequent among the old-old patients (p<0.0001).

Non-motor features

When considering NMS, the mean NMSQuest score was significantly greater amongst the old-old patients than the young-old patients (p < 0.0001). The most frequent NMS in the old-old group was gastrointestinal problems (90%), followed by cognitive deficits (81.7%), and urinary problems (73.3%). Gastrointestinal problems (73.9%), sexual problems (57.6%), and sleep disturbances and fatigue (54.3%) were the most common NMS among the young-old patients. Distribution of NMS also differed between the age groups, with features of gastrointestinal problems (p<0.0001), urinary problems (p = 0.004), sleep disturbances and fatigue (p = 0.032), and cognitive impairment (p<0.0001) significantly more common in the old-old patients, whereas sexual problems (p = 0.012), depression, and anxiety (p = 0.032) were more common in the young-old patients. No differences were found in visual hallucinations (p = 0.955), cardiovascular issues (p = 0.098), or miscellaneous domains (p = 0.077).

Dopaminergic medications

All patients in both groups were taking at least one PD medication (levodopa, a dopamine agonist, monoamine oxidase B inhibitor, or entacapone) regardless of age. When calculating the LEDD, the mean dosage in the old-old patients was 555 mg and in the young-old patients it was 890 mg (p<0.0001). The old-old group had a significantly lower rate of dyskinesia than the young-old group (16.7% vs. 40.2%, p = 0.002). However, wearing-off rate did not differ between the groups (p = 0.378).

Comorbidities

Old-old patients were more likely to have comorbid conditions than the young-old patients. The most common specific comorbidities were cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.005) and musculoskeletal disease (p<0.0001), whereas the prevalence of hypertension (p = 0.685), diabetes (p = 0.512), and cancer (p = 0.340) was not significantly different. Comorbidity severity as measured by CCI was also significantly higher in the old-old patients (2.2 ± 1.2 vs. 1.0 ± 1.16, p<0.0001).

Measures of disease advancement

Milestone frequency was generally higher in the old-old group. Significant differences were observed in the prevalence of dementia (p<0.0001), wheelchair placement (p<0.0001), nursing home placement (p = 0.019), and hospitalisation in the past year (p = 0.05). Neither recurrent falls (p = 0.904) nor visual hallucinations (p = 0.607) were documented significantly more often in the old-old patients. Old-old patients also had greater disability, as measured by the S&E-ADL scale (p<0.0001) and tended to have greater dependency, as recorded as a score of less than 80% on the S&E-ADL scale (81.7% vs. 32.6%, p<0.0001), compared to young-old patients.

Old-old PD patients with short and long disease duration: A general comparison

The 60 patients in the old-old groups were separated equally (30:30) into two subgroups, those with short disease duration (< 10 years) and those with long disease duration (≥ 10 years). Subgroups had the same mean age (p = 0.266), but a mean disease duration of 4.87 and 16.13 years, respectively (p<0.0001). Gender ratio did not differ significantly (p = 0.598).

Table 2 shows the demographic data and baseline clinical characteristics of both subgroups.

Table 2

Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics for old-old PD patients with disease duration <10 years versus those with disease duration ≥10 years.

	Disease duration		p-value
	<10 (N = 30)	≥ 10 (N = 30)
Demographic variables
Current age, yrs, mean (±SD)	87.80 (±3.01)	88.70 (±3.196)	0.266
Age of PD onset, yrs, mean (±SD)	82.93 (±3.0)	72.53 (±5.21)	<0.0001*
Disease duration, yrs, mean (±SD)	4.87 (2.69)	16.13 (±4.08)	<0.0001*
Gender, male, N (%)	11 (36.7%)	13 (43.3%)	0.598
Annual outpatient visits, mean (±SD)	3.00 (±0.78)	2.60 (±0.67)	0.039 *
Motor symptoms
Predominant subtype, N (%)
TD	10 (33.3%)	3 (10%)	0.028
PIGD	20 (66.7%)	27 (90%)
Motor severity
UPDRS-III, mean (±SD)	30.13 (±13.19)	53.5 (±12.94)	<0.0001*
H&Y, mean (±SD)	3.9 (±0.89)	4.58 (±0.72)	0.002*
Pi-H&Y(H&Y>3), N (%)	22 (73.3%)	27 (90%)	0.095
Non-motor symptoms, N (%)
NMSQuest total, mean (±SD)	10.57 (±2.64)	13.30 (±2.85)	<0.0001*
Domain, N (%)
Gastrointestinal	26 (86.7%)	28 (93.3%)	0.389
Urinary	17 (56.7%)	27 (90%)	0.004*
Sexual	10 (33.3%)	12 (40%)	0.592
CVS	10 (3.3%)	14 (46.7%)	0.292
Sleep/fatigue	21 (70%)	22 (73.3%)	0.774
Apathy/attention/memory	23 (76.7%)	26 (86.7%)	0.317
Hallucination/delusion	5 (16.7%)	13 (43.3%)	0.024*
Depression/anxiety	6 (20%)	11 (36.7%)	0.152
Miscellaneous	20 (66.7%)	22 (73.3%)	0.573
TMSE, mean (±SD)	18.97(±6.98)	16 (±8.35)	0.141
Medications
LEDD, mg/d, mean (±SD)	488.33(±267)	621.67(±387)	0.127
Motor complication, N (%)
Dyskinesia	2 (6.7%)	8 (26.7%)	0.083
Wearing-off	11 (36.7%)	22 (73.3%)	0.004*
Disabilities
S&E-ADL, mean (±SD)	55 (±22.1)	38 (±20.57)	0.003*
S&E-ADL ≥ 80%, N (%)	8 (26.7%)	3 (10%)	0.095
Milestones, N (%)
Dementia	15 (50%)	19 (63.3%)	0.297
Recurrent falls in ambulatory patient (N = 31), N (%)	6/22 (27.3%)	2/9 (22.2%)	0.771
Visual hallucination	8 (26.7%)	16 (53.3%)	0.035*
Nursing home placement	3(10%)	5(16.7%)	0.448
Wheelchair placement	12(40%)	20(66.7%)	0.038*
Hospitalization in past year, N (%)	9 (30%)	12 (40%)	0.417
Comorbidity, N (%)
CVD	9 (30%)	12 (40%)	0.417
Musculoskeletal	15 (50%)	24 (80%)	0.015*
Hypertension	5 (16.7%)	7 (23.3%)	0.519
Diabetes	7 (23.3%)	6 (20%)	0.754
Cancer	3 (10%)	0	0.076
CCI, mean (±SD)	2.13 (±1.22)	2.26 (±1.20)	0.672

TD, tremor-dominant; PIGD, postural instability/gait difficulty; UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; H&Y-S, Hoehn & Yahr staging; NMSQuest, Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire; TMSE, Thai Mental State Examination; LED, levodopa equivalent dose; S&E-ADL, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living, CVD, cerebrovascular disease; CCI, Charlson Cormorbidity Index.

The long disease duration group showed higher motor scores on the UPDRS-III scale (p<0.0001) and average H&Y staging (p = 0.002) than the short disease duration group; however, the frequency of the patients with H&Y stage 3 or higher was similar in both groups (p = 0.095). Tremor as a predominant symptom was found less frequently in the longer disease duration group (p = 0.028). The rate of annual outpatient visits in long disease duration group (2.60 times per person per annum; pppa) was significantly lower than that of short disease duration (3.00 pppa) (p = 0.039).

Patients with longer disease duration reported significantly higher mean NMSQuest scores than those with short disease duration (13.30 [± 2.85] vs. 10.57 [± 2.64], p<0.0001). More frequently reported problems by the patients with longer PD duration on the NMSQuest were in the domain of urinary problems (p = 0.004), followed by hallucinations and delusions (p = 0.024). There were no statistically significant differences in the remaining domains (gastrointestinal problems, p = 0.389; sexual problems, p = 0.592; cerebrovascular disease, p = 0.292, cognitive deficits, p = 0.317; sleep disturbances/fatigue, p = 0.774; depression/anxiety, p = 0.152; and miscellaneous, p = 0.573).

In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to LEDD (p = 0.127). Wearing-off was the most frequently reported motor complication in both groups, and, as expected, was associated with longer disease duration (p = 0.004). Dyskinesia was much less frequent, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.083).

There were no differences in comorbidity frequency or comorbidity severity (CCI, p = 0.672) between the short and long disease duration groups, except for musculoskeletal disease (p = 0.015).

Measurement of disease advancement

Concerns about disease milestones, visual hallucinations, and wheelchair-dependence were significantly more frequent in the long disease duration group (p = 0.035 and p = 0.038, respectively). Other advanced disease milestones were also more frequently reported in the long disease duration group, although these differences were not statistically significant.

MOPD and LOPD: A general comparison

S1 Table shows details of demographic and clinical characteristics of the PD regarding to AAO. 97 patients (63%) belonged in the MOPD group and 55 (37%) in the LOPD group. Current age was 67.63 ±6.05 and 88.07 ±3.97 years in the MOPD and LOPD group, respectively (p<0.0001), whereas disease duration for both the groups was similar (10.93 vs. 9.04, p = 0.054). Tremor or PIGD as the predominant motor symptom was not significantly different in MOPD and LOPD (p = 0.544). UPDRS-III scores and H&Y stages were significantly higher in the LOPD patients compared to the MOPD patients (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively).

Considering NMS, the mean NMSQuest score was significantly greater amongst the LOPD patients than the MOPD patients (p<0.0001). More frequently reported NMS by MOPD patients were in the domain of sexual function (p = 0.016), followed by depression and anxiety (p = 0.024). While features of gastrointestinal problems (p<0.0001) and cognitive impairment (p<0.0001) were significantly more reported in the LOPD patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the remaining domains.

When calculating the LEDD, the mean dosage in the MOPD patients was 559 mg and in the LOPD patients it was 871 mg (p<0.0001). Dyskinesia developed in 40% of the MOPD and 14.5% of the LOPD patients (p<0.001), while wearing-off rate did not differ between the groups (p = 0.701).

For disabilities and important clinical milestones, LOPD patients were more likely to have a greater disability, as measured by the S&E-ADL scale (p<0.0001) and tended to have higher milestone frequency. Specific milestones more common in LOPD than in MOPD patients were dementia (p<0.0001), wheelchair placement (p<0.0001), and hospitalisation in the past year (p = 0.011).

Our study extended these comparisons to the young-old patients with short and long disease duration. However, as to the available subjects, there was a significant different in age at examination (S2 Table).

Correlation and regression analyses

Correlation outcomes are shown in S3 Table. Pearson’s correlation revealed that age and disease duration were strongly correlated with several variables. In particular, there was a correlation between older age and higher UPDRS-III score (r = 0.471, p<0.0001), more advanced H&Y stage (r = 0.657, p<0.0001), higher NMSQuest score (r = 0.553, p<0.0001), lower Thai Mental State Examination (TMSE) score (r = -0.665, p<0.0001), lower LEDD (r = -0.283, p<0.0001), lower S&E-ADL score (r = -0.666, p<0.0001), and higher CCI score (r = 0.466, p<0.0001). Disease duration was also correlated with greater UPDRS-III score (r = 0.595, p<0.0001), more advanced H&Y stage (r = 0.402, p = 0.015), higher NMSQuest score (r = 0.399, p<0.0001), lower TMSE score (r = -0.236, p = 0.003), higher LEDD (r = 0.250, p = 0.002), and lower S&E-ADL score (r = -0.451, p<0.001). Advance disease duration showed no significant correlation with CCI score. Fig 2 shows a different perspective on the relationship between age, disease duration, and each disease variable.

Fig 2

Radar graph of absolute correlations between age, disease duration and disease variables.

UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; H&Y, Hoehn & Yahr; NMSQuest, Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire; TMSE, Thai Mental State Examination; LED, levodopa equivalent dose; S&E-ADL, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living; CCI, Charlson Cormorbidity Index.

A logistic regression model was created to predict the presence of advanced disease milestones using independent variables, including age and disease duration, as detailed in S4 Table. For specific disease milestones, a highly significant model resulted where the old-old PD patients were 15.7 times more likely to develop dementia, 9.8 times more likely to be wheelchair dependent, 3.1 times more likely to be hospitalised in the past year, and 4.6 times more likely to be in residential care than the young-old patients. Also, PD patients with 10-year disease duration or greater were 3.2 times more likely to develop dementia, 3.7 times more likely to be wheelchair dependence, 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised in the past year, and 3.7 times more likely to have visual hallucinations than the young-old patients. Fig 3 shows the odds ratio visualisation for differences in disease milestones by age and disease duration.

Fig 3

Radar graph of odds ratio visualization for disease milestones difference by age and disease duration.

Discussion

To better represent old-old patients, this study compared the profile of patients aged 85 years or older to those of patients in age groups with the highest prevalence rate (60–75 years). Unlike previous studies, we aimed to relate the role of ageing to clinical progression of the disease rather than to clinical onset or disease initiation, and to examine the role of disease duration in subgroup analysis. Overall, compared with young-old PD patients, old-old patients had more severe PD motor and non-motor phenotypes, global disability, higher prevalence of motor complications, and heavier comorbidity burden. Another important finding is that some of these specific features are even greater with longer disease duration, and not just in advanced age groups, but also in other age groups too.

In the old-old group, the proportion of male patients was significantly lower (male:female ratio 1:1.5) compared to that of the young-old group and the reported overall PD ratio (1.5–2.5 times higher prevalence in men [46-49]). As in the normal elderly as well as in patients with other chronic diseases, male life expectancy has been reported to be lower than female life expectancy [50,51]. Female gender may be a protective factor for longer life expectancy, possibly related to hormonal or other gender-specific factors [46,52]. Moreover, this difference might reflect differences in the pathophysiology of PD in younger versus older individuals, wherein environmental factors might play a weaker role in elderly men and oestrogen no longer has a protective role in elderly women.

The PIGD/Tremor predominant (TD) ratio increased with older age and longer disease duration. Previous studies support our findings that the PIGD-subtype propensity is influenced by age and medical comorbidities [53,54]. The common thread here is that older age and more medical comorbidities disproportionately give rise to more axial motor impairments that lead to postural instability and gait difficulty as predominant features [55]. Additionally, longitudinal studies have also shown that with disease progression, TD may transition to the PIGD subtype, suggesting that the motor subtype classification is not stable over time [56,57]. Moreover, there is evidence that PIGD is strongly related to the development of cognitive decline, worsening parkinsonian motor burden, and leading to greater levodopa resistance [53,58]. These results indicate PIGD phenotype to be, not a discrete subtype, but rather a new stage in the progression of PD from early brainstem-localized pathology towards a more widespread multisystem brain disorder influenced by several overlapping age‐related pathologies.

At the same disease duration, of approximately 10 years, the old-old patients had greater motor impairment, as rated by the UPDRS-III scale and H&Y stage, compared to the young-old patients. NMS assessed by the NMSQuest total score were also greater in the old-old patients. The mean score in the old-old PD patients was 11.92 (severe severity [36,59,60]), while the mean score in the young-old patients was 8.16 (moderate severity). We found that all patients had at least one NMS. The difference was evident for gastrointestinal, urinary, cognitive, and sleep and fatigue domains. We postulated that the convergence of deficits in multiple transmitter systems and pathways, including the cholinergic, noradrenergic, and serotonergic systems, which are also common in the ageing brain, may all be associated with the clinical expression of NMS. Gjerloff and colleagues investigated the parasympathetic involvement of acetylcholinesterase binding using 11C-donepezil positron emission tomography and reported early enteric cholinergic dysfunction in PD [61,62]. Dominant noradrenergic deficit has also been proposed to be the key to dysautonomia in PD [63,64]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that sleep dysfunction in PD is associated with reduced serotonergic function in the midbrain raphe, basal ganglia, and hypothalamus [65,66] and the pathophysiology of cognitive impairment in PD may be cortical dominant with cholinergic dysfunction [62,67-69]. Within the old-old group, patients with longer disease duration had worse NMSQuest score than those with a short disease duration; however, the frequency in each domain was not significantly higher with duration except for urinary problems and visual hallucinations/delusion. It is known that a range of NMS, most notably impaired sense of smell, sleep dysfunction, and dysautonomia are present in PD from the prodromal phase [70,71] to the final palliative stage [71].

As hypothesised, less aggressive treatment strategies were used in the old-old patients. We recognise that these treatment strategies reflect only one centre’s approach, but we suggest that they reflect a more generalised reluctance to use complex treatment and higher dosage in the old-old patients. Complex interactions between comorbidity, polypharmacy, altered pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics means there is much merit in this ‘start low and go slow’ approach [72-74]. In the same way, old-old patients had lower mean annual medical visits than the young-old age group. This might be because individuals aged 85 years and over, particularly those with longer disease duration, are frailer. This limits their ability to travel to clinic, or make them more likely to require either inpatient care or nursing home replacement where medical care is usually provided.

In the present study, the prevalence of wearing-off did not increase with age, but increased with increasing disease duration and disease severity, whereas dyskinesia was decreased in the old-old patients. The wearing-off rate for both the old-old (55%) and young-old (47.8%) groups in our study was similar to that reported in the DATATOP study [75], which reported high rates of wearing-off and dyskinesia in approximately 50% and 30% of patients after 2 years of levodopa treatment, respectively. The reported prevalence of motor complications in PD patients shows a wide range, from 3% to 94%, mostly 30%–74% [76-79], and it is generally believed that they usually develop in approximately 50% of patients on treatment with levodopa after 5 years [80,81]. Compared with those reported in other Asian populations, a Japanese cross-sectional multicentre study reported that the incidence of wearing-off was 21.3%, 59.4%, and 73.2% at the end of the 5th, 10th, and 15th year after disease onset [78]; in a Chinese multicentre registry survey, the incidence of wearing-off and dyskinesia was 46.5% and 10.3%, respectively [82]. In the present study, the rate of dyskinesia in the old-old patients (16.7%) was both lower than that in the young-old patients (40.2%) and that previously reported, which might be explained by lower levodopa dosage and perhaps reflects this group poorer capacity to exhibit maladaptive plastic responses. The STRIDE-PD analysis also supported this finding, showing that young age was associated with an increased risk of dyskinesia; however, since the age limit in the STRIDE-PD study was 30–70 years, our study further expands these findings to old-old patients [83].

We also assessed disabilities and important clinical milestones, which have been previously proposed to carry important prognostic information, and appear valuable as markers of neuropathological disease stage [43,44]. We explored whether advanced age or advanced disease duration contributed to a more advanced stage of the disease in the old-old patients. Based on logistic analysis, we found that age and disease duration were both independently associated with the occurrence of disease milestones. Age was a stronger predictor of dementia and wheelchair dependence, while advanced disease duration was a stronger predictor of visual hallucinations. The regular fall rate was surprisingly low in patients aged > 85 years. Since the rate of wheelchair dependence is very high in this age group, it is plausible that most of them were not ambulatory patients. In contrast, in the young-old group, who were mostly independently mobile, balance was often impaired, and falls were frequent. Therefore, we separately analysed the fall rate in ambulatory patients (H&Y stage 1–4), however, no significant differences were found. Another unexpected finding was that the prevalence of patients living at home (87%) was high. This finding contrasts with the Sydney multicentre study that 25% of all PD patients were admitted to a nursing home within 10 years of diagnosis [84], and Auyeung’s report that 27% were institutionalised within 10 years [85]. Previous studies have shown that residential care placement was related not only to the factors determining health status, such as age, comorbidity, and dependence on personal ADLs, but that living conditions, marital status, financial status, education, and culture also exert a significant influence [86]. In Thai culture, the elderly prefer to remain at home with support from formal caregivers and family members, which could explain the high prevalence of our patients living at home [87,88]. Our observation that there is a strong correlation between disease duration and visual hallucination concurs with that of Kempster et al., who found that the relationship between the clinical milestones and Lewy body pathology was strongest for the dementia and visual hallucinations milestones, while physical disability was not strongly correlated with cortical Lewy body deposition, and the link between residential care and falling milestones was weaker [43]. Other studies have suggested that α-synuclein, tau, and amyloid-β deposition in the limbic regions may have an additive effect in causing cognitive impairment in the elderly [89,90]. Four milestones, visual hallucinations, recurrent falls, dementia, and nursing home placement, have emerged as markers of advanced disease stage. Our observations have some practical applications in that wheelchair dependence could be useful as a clinical milestone for mobility disability in patients over 85 years of age, and hospitalisation for medical decisions rather than institutional placement could be considered as a milestone in the Thai elderly populations.

It is generally considered that ageing is the biggest risk factor for developing PD; however, not all individuals, including those over 80 years of age, are affected by PD with advancing age, and global prevalence of PD is only 1% to 2%. The mechanisms of aging and PD are complex and interrelated, sharing important biological features, including impairment of the neuronal repair system, mitochondrial dysfunction, neuronal protein aggregation, and metal toxicity, which resulting in increased levels of reactive oxygen species leading to cellular damage [15,91,92]. However, unlike ageing, PD involves factors or mechanisms that produces a regionally specific and more selective dopaminergic neuron loss in the SN [93]. Our study demonstrates that when PD is superimposed on the very old brain, the outcome is a more severe clinical expression and disability profile than that seen in younger patients. These distinctive phenotypes of PD in old-old patients are related to numerous age-related factors including the overlap between signs of senescence and parkinsonism, confounding comorbidities resulting in higher motor impairment, less aggressive treatment, and loss of therapeutic efficacy due to age-related alterations in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. A final explanation for the observed differences could be related to the different natural courses of pathological processes and cellular pathways in very elderly PD patients. First, younger PD cases show a clear typical pattern of Lewy body (LB) pathology, as predicted by Braak staging [94]. In these cases, there is a slow pathological progression of LB pathology that relates to slow clinical progression, which is consistent with the timing of the appearance of dementia in PD. In contrast, old-old PD patients have very high diffuse loads of LBs that either occur at the onset of clinical disease or rapidly infiltrate the brain. This greater plaque pathology, along with the overlapping AD pathology could support a more aggressive phenotype and rapid clinical progression of PD to a dementia syndrome [95]. Second, studies have shown that dopaminergic neuronal populations seem preferentially vulnerable to loss with ageing compared to the neuronal populations in many other brain regions including the regions related to other neurodegenerative disorders, such as the hippocampus [96-98]. Furthermore, the subregional pattern of striatal dopamine loss in normal ageing differs substantially from the pattern typically observed in PD [93,99]. The ventral SN is more severely affected in PD, while the dorsal subdivision is more severely affected in normal aging. When considering parkinsonian signs associated with the degeneration of the dorsal SN, another study reported that stooped posture, postural instability, and body bradykinesia, which were common amongst the old-old PD in our study, were independently associated with lower neuron density in this subdivision [100]. Also, the prevalence of non-dopaminergic lesions in elderly individuals has been increasingly reported.

This study aims to fill the gap in the literature concerning the profile of old-old Parkinson’s patients and to demonstrate whether the driving force in each characteristic is worsening of the disease pathophysiology with increasing duration or age-related processes of the advanced age. To address the role of AAO, we repeated our analysis using AAO of PD as a comparator, detailed in S1 and S2 Tables. In general, outcomes were similar to our other findings, as an inevitable consequence of variable-dependence around age, AAO and disease duration. Previous studies have suggested that AAO may contribute to the distinctive clinical-biochemical-pathological profile of patients with AAO ≤ 50 years (i.e., young-, early-, juvenile-onset PD; YOPD), while the different profile seen in patients with AAO > 50 years (middle- and late-onset PD) may be based on the make-up of the very old brain, including, rate of nigrostriatal degeneration, reduced compensatory mechanisms, and frequency of comorbidities [101,102]. To reflect this, and to avoid confusion due to different pathophysiology bases of YOPD, our studies specifically focused on those with AAO >50 years.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this study that require further discussion. First, our study was a single hospital-based study with a relatively small sample size. Since the old-old PD patients account for approximately 8.2% of PD cases, our results cannot be generalised to all old-old PD patients in the population, although we included all cases in our unit and collected data on all disease dimensions. As young-old patients were match selected to control the confounding effect of disease duration, enrolment could not be applied to the entire cohort. This could potentially create a bias in the study subjects, however proper matching was accomplished. Second, the common features of older age, such as a larger number of comorbidities and greater intake of medications compared to the younger individuals might lead to higher scores on clinical scales, particularly for NMS. Moreover, obtaining accurate data from the old-old can be more challenging, as cognitive, hearing, and visual impairments act as barriers. Therefore, we advocate the use of simplified explanations and protocols, fewer exclusion criteria, and easier physical access for the old-old PD patients in future studies. Another potential limitation is the restricted longitudinal data collection to six years due to restricted hospital electronic health records. The temporal relationship variables and disease outcomes, thus, can be limited. We strongly suggest that longitudinal studies would enable a robust overall evidence base in a future research.

Conclusions

While age is known to be the strongest risk factor of PD, old-old patients have often been excluded from PD studies. This study fills this knowledge gap and evaluates the differences in the disease and social factors between the old-old and young-old PD patients. We hope our findings have acknowledged the differential contribution of ageing and disease progression to various disease and social dimensions in old-old patients with PD and provide the rationale for better understanding and targeted management for this population of PD.

Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of middle-onset PD versus late-onset PD patient.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics for younger-old PD patients with those disease duration <10 years versus those ≥10 years.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlation of various variables with age and disease duration.

UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; H&Y, Hoehn & Yahr; NMSQuest, Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire; TMSE, Thai Mental State Examination; LED, levodopa equivalent dose; S&E-ADL, Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living, CCI, Charlson Cormorbidity Index. a Lower scores indicate greater disability.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Logistic regression model for disabilities and milestones.

Model summary. a Hosmer and Lemeshow test 0.403, Nagelkerke R square 0.099. b Hosmer and Lemeshow test 0.782, Nagelkerke R square 0.338. c Hosmer and Lemeshow test 0.406, Nagelkerke R square 0.126. d Hosmer and Lemeshow test 0.449, Nagelkerke R square 0.129. e Hosmer and Lemeshow test 0.034, Nagelkerke R square 0.044. f Hosmer and Lemeshow test 0.972, Nagelkerke R square 0.125.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-03548

Profiling the Most Elderly Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Does Age or Disease Duration Matter?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bhidayasiri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Karsten Witt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Virameteekul et al present a well conducted descriptive case control study comparing the characteristics of Parkinson’s disease in older patients, a group that is commonly not included in other studies of PD. These data are important and very interesting. Their analyses to separate the effects of age and disease duration are well presented.

Major comments:

Why was a random subset of young-old PD patients selected, rather than including the entire cohort? Their analyses could be conducted (with more power) with the entire group if that data is available.

The abstract states that the young-old patients were selected to be matched for disease duration; the manuscript reports that a random selection was made: this should be clarified.

In the discussion, the authors present what seems to be a systematic review of the literature and report the age of patients in prior studies. This analysis is interesting and would be more appropriate in the results. They also state that “the mean age in these studies was significantly lower than …” -- the authors should report the statistics.

The authors could exclude or separately analyze H&Y stage 5 patients in their assessment of fall rate, as these patients should be nonambulatory (as noted in their discussion).

The authors note in their methods that visits were conducted approximately every 3 months. It would be interesting to present summary statistics about the visit frequency in the results - was there a difference between the groups? Was there a relationship between visit frequency and age or disease severity, as older or more advanced patients may find it more difficult to travel to a clinic?

Minor:

Minor spelling error: “Demographic” in table 1

In the abstract and at end of the introduction (line 124), the long disease duration group should be noted as “≥10” rather than just “10”.

Figure 2: Is the absolute value of R being plotted (as R is negative for some variables)? If so this should be specified.

Reviewer #2: This is a cross-sectional study of Parkinson’s disease (PD) that concentrates on the disease characteristics of ‘old-old’ (≥ 85 years) patients. The authors remark that the very elderly have been under-represented in previous PD research.

Comments and criticisms:

1. While there is little that is new or unexpected in the findings of this study, the authors argue for some originality in their focus on the old-old age group.

2. The manuscript is quite long. INTRODUCTION begins with a paragraph on ageing in general. It would be better just to concentrate on ageing in relation to PD.

3. This is a study of PD in old-old age, rather than of older onset PD. There are patients here with PD onset in middle age but long disease courses. The short and long disease duration comparison for the old-old group helps to highlight this.

4. Both young-old and old-old patients are survivors of cohorts that were diagnosed with PD on average 10 years before. Can information be given about the size and outcome of the original cohorts? How many have died, or been lost to follow up? For old-old, this involves accounting for non-survivors who would have passed 85 years of age had they still been attending the clinic.

5. I can’t see criteria or references for subtyping of PD into postural instability-gait disturbance and tremor-dominant.

6. There is a tendency for readers to try to draw inferences about the longitudinal character of PD from cross-sectional or retrospective studies. This applies to quite a lot of PD research from the past. Point 4 above refers to one source of potential distortion. LIMITATIONS should discuss this issue.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

4 Jul 2021

Please see uploaded response letter if the format of tables is misplaced.

04 July 2021

Dr. Karsten Witt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Witt,

Re: Manuscript # PONE-D-21-03548: Profiling the Most Elderly Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Does Age or Disease Duration Matter?

We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their time and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have implemented their comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the manuscript are highlighted in red in the revised version. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each of the editors or reviewers’ comments.

As reviewer #1 comment on our manuscript regarding data policy. We have addressed this issue in the statistical analysis section (page 8, line 191-192), where it read: “Data were collected in Excel files, encrypted, anonymised, and stored on ChulaPD’s secure data server for analysis”

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Virameteekul et al present a well conducted descriptive case control study comparing the characteristics of Parkinson’s disease in older patients, a group that is commonly not included in other studies of PD. These data are important and very interesting. Their analyses to separate the effects of age and disease duration are well presented.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s interest and constructive comments of our manuscript.

Major comments:

1. Why was a random subset of young-old PD patients selected, rather than including the entire cohort? Their analyses could be conducted (with more power) with the entire group if that data is available.

Response:

Thank you for raising this point. In this study, young-old patients were selected to match for disease duration in order to analyse the influence of age (without confounding factor from disease duration). Moreover, some were excluded according to the exclusion criteria, therefore, we resorted to analysing data from 92 cases age between 60 and 75 years.

To define this issue, we included the following statement in the limitation section (page27, line523-525). “Furthermore, as the young-old patients were selected to control the confounding effect of disease duration, enrolment could not be applied to the entire cohort. Therefore, a bias in the study subjects could potentially have been created.”

2. The abstract states that the young-old patients were selected to be matched for disease duration; the manuscript reports that a random selection was made: this should be clarified.

Response:

Thank you for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. To address this concern, we have replaced the wording of “randomly selected” in results of the manuscript with “matched for disease duration” (see page 9, line 209-210), where it read, “Ninety-two young-old PD cases were selected, matched for disease duration from the data file for comparison”

Indeed in this sentence, as mention in point 1, we meant to say “ we matched for disease duration to accomplish our research question”. a limitation. (page27, line523-525)

“Furthermore, as the young-old patients were selected to control the confounding effect of disease duration, enrolment could not be applied to the entire cohort. Therefore, a bias in the study subjects could potentially have been created.”

3. In the discussion, the authors present what seems to be a systematic review of the literature and report the age of patients in prior studies. This analysis is interesting and would be more appropriate in the results. They also state that “the mean age in these studies was significantly lower than …” -- the authors should report the statistics.

Response:

This systemic review was actually conducted by Rajapakse A et al. to demonstrate the present of age bias in clinical trials of Parkinson’s disease. We agree with you that this work is really interesting, therefore we have included it in our manuscript. This is why we could not bring it in our result. However, to ensure the flow of the manuscript, we moved this part to the introduction and further clarified by adding “a previous systemic review” (page5, line105) and also inserted the reference. (reference number 20, see page5, line112 of the introduction of the manuscript).

20. Rajapakse A, Rajapakse S, Playfer J. Age bias in clinical trials of Parkinson's disease treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(12):2353-4.

We also omitted the sentence “The mean age in these studies was significantly lower than the age groups with the highest prevalence and incidence rates of PD given by published epidemiological studies from 1999 to 2007.”, as this might cause misunderstanding and the previous review did not provide any information regarding the statistics. To conclude, this paragraph has been rewritten as following (see page5, line103-112).

“Data about the most elderly patients with PD is very rare since only a relatively small number of subjects older than 75 years have been included in PD trials. In order to evaluate age bias in PD research, a previous systemic review searched the MEDLINE database for PD trials from 1999 to 2007 [20]. Seventy-nine studies, involving 19,156 patients, were identified for analysis; an estimated 85% of these patients were younger than 75 years, and 94% were younger than 80 years. Older people were excluded from the trials for a variety of reasons [15]. Twenty-three studies (29%) defined an upper age limit (74–86 years) as an exclusion criterion and patients with significant cognitive impairment were excluded from 29 trials (36%). In 12 (15%) and 13 (16%) studies, the presence of psychiatric disturbances and medical comorbidities, respectively, were exclusion criteria [20].”

4. The authors could exclude or separately analyze H&Y stage 5 patients in their assessment of fall rate, as these patients should be non-ambulatory (as noted in their discussion).

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have re-analysed the fall rate separately for ambulatory patients (i.e., H&Y stage 1-4). Then we have modified the results in the table 1 and 2 as below (see the Disabilities sub-section of Table1; page12 and Table 2; page17) and also revised the text to emphasize this point as following “(1) regular falls separately analysed for ambulatory patient (i.e., H&Y stage 1-4), as a milestone of motor disability” (see page8, line179 in the method of the manuscript), “Neither recurrent falls (p=0.904) nor visual hallucinations (p=0.607) were documented significantly more often in the old-old patients.” (page14, line 267 in the results), and “Therefore, we separately analysed the fall rate in ambulatory patients only (H&Y stage 1-4), however, no significant differences were found.” (page24, line 459-460 in the discussion section)

Table 1: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of old-old versus younger-old PD patient (Disabilities sub-section)

Disabilities

S&E-ADL, mean (�SD) 78.80 (�18.08) 46.5 (�22.83) <0.0001*

S&E-ADL < 80%, N (%) 30 (32.6%) 49 (81.6%) <0.0001*

Milestones, N (%)

Dementia 8 (8.7%) 34 (56.7%) <0.0001*

Recurrent falls in ambulatory patient (N=116), N (%) 21/ 85 (24.7%) 8/ 31 (25.8%) 0.904

Visual hallucination 33 (35.9%) 24 (40%) 0.607

Nursing home placement 3 (3.3%) 8 (13.3%) 0.019*

Wheelchair placement 11(12%) 32(53.3%) <0.0001*

Hospitalization in past year, N(%) 14 (15.2%) 21 (35%) 0.05*

Table 2: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics for old-old PD patients with those disease duration <10 years versus those ≥10 years (Disabilities sub-section)

Disabilities

S&E-ADL, mean (�SD) 55 (�22.1) 38 (�20.57) 0.003*

S&E-ADL ≥ 80%, N (%) 8 (26.7%) 3 (10%) 0.095

Milestones, N (%)

Dementia 15 (50%) 19 (63.3%) 0.297

Recurrent falls in ambulatory patient (N=31), N (%) 6/ 22 (27.3%) 2/ 9(22.2%) 0.771

Visual hallucination 8 (26.7%) 16 (53.3%) 0.035*

Nursing home placement 3(10%) 5(16.7%) 0.448

Wheelchair placement 12(40%) 20(66.7%) 0.038*

Hospitalization in past year, N (%) 9 (30%) 12 (40%) 0.417

5. The authors note in their methods that visits were conducted approximately every 3 months. It would be interesting to present summary statistics about the visit frequency in the results - was there a difference between the groups? Was there a relationship between visit frequency and age or disease severity, as older or more advanced patients may find it more difficult to travel to a clinic?

Response: We welcome the opportunity of presenting the data on number of outpatient visits in our manuscript. As requested, this information has been added in the Table 1, 2, and text (Results section- page10, line 220-221, and page15, line285-287, as well as Discussion section- page 23, line 421-425) where it read,

Table 1: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of old-old versus younger-old PD patient

Age (yrs) p-value

60-75 (N = 92) ≥ 85 (N = 60)

Demographic variables

Current age, yrs, mean (�SD) 66.40 (�3.51) 88.25 (�3.11) <0.0001*

Age of PD onset, yrs, mean (�SD) 56.30 (�5.33) 77.73 (�6.73) <0.0001*

Disease duration, yrs, mean (�SD) 10.08 (�5.26) 10.50 (�6.63) 0.856

Gender, male, N (%) 56 (60.9%) 24 (40%) 0.002*

Annual outpatient visits,

mean (�SD) 3.29 (�1.00) 2.80 (�0.75) 0.001*

Table 2: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics for old-old PD patients with those disease duration <10 years versus those ≥10 years

Disease duration p-value

<10 (N = 30) ≥ 10 (N = 30)

Demographic variables

Current age, yrs, mean (�SD) 87.80 (�3.01) 88.70 (�3.196) 0.266

Age of PD onset, yrs, mean (�SD) 82.93 (�3.0) 72.53 (�5.21) <0.0001*

Disease duration, yrs, mean (�SD) 4.87 (2.69) 16.13 (�4.08) <0.0001*

Gender, male, N (%) 11 (36.7%) 13 (43.3%) 0.598

Annual outpatient visits, mean (�SD) 3.00 (�0.78) 2.60 (�0.67) 0.039 *

Results section- page 10, line 220-221

“The rate of annual outpatient visits in old-old was significantly lower than that of young-old (2.80 vs. 3.29, p=0.001).”

Page 15, line 285-287

“The rate of outpatient visits in long disease duration group (2.60 times per person per annum; pppa) was significantly lower than that of short disease duration (3.00 pppa).”

Discussion section- page 23, line 421-425

“In the same way, old-old patient had fewer mean annual medical visits than the young-old age group. This might be because individuals aged 85 years and over, particularly those with longer disease duration, are frailer. This limits their ability to travel to clinic, or make them more likely to require either inpatient care or nursing home placement where medical care is usually provided in situ.”

Minor comments:

6. Minor spelling error: “Demographic” in table 1

Response: We have corrected this spelling error

7. In the abstract and at end of the introduction (line 124), the long disease duration group should be noted as “≥10” rather than just “10”.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made this change according to your suggestion.

8. Figure 2: Is the absolute value of R being plotted (as R is negative for some variables)? If so this should be specified.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made this change according to your suggestion

Reviewer #2: This is a cross-sectional study of Parkinson’s disease (PD) that concentrates on the disease characteristics of ‘old-old’ (≥ 85 years) patients. The authors remark that the very elderly have been under-represented in previous PD research.

1. While there is little that is new or unexpected in the findings of this study, the authors argue for some originality in their focus on the old-old age group.

Response: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this concern. While the reviewer is correct that the findings may not be unexpected, they have not been systematically conducted in the literature as evident by a systemic review (reference number 20). Moreover, late-onset PD patients as reported in the literature (reference number 21-24) are not identical to advanced-age PD patients as some of the advanced-age patients may have an early disease onset with longer disease duration. We are hoping that our study has provided a number of new findings to better understand different factors that potentially contribute to the outcomes of old-old PD patients. The following information has been included in the introduction to address this concern (page 5, line 114- 125):

“To the best of our knowledge, while several studies have investigated PD patients with late disease onset, few have focused on patients who are at an advanced age, not to mention the old-old. There is evidence that late-onset PD (LOPD; defined when PD onset is in the late 60s to 70s) patients show more rapid disease progression, greater motor impairment, and poorer response to levodopa compared with that observed in patients with early-onset disease [21-24]. However, data from LOPD patients might not be applicable to all advanced-age PD patients since some of the advanced-age patients have an early disease onset with longer disease duration, and the clinical repercussion of PD in the old-old might be different from that in the old or young-old. Therefore, it seems that elderly PD patients are underrepresented in clinical research. Moreover, ageing research is often far removed from that of PD, and it is imperative to bring these two areas together to further our understanding of how age directly influences PD clinical progression.”

2. The manuscript is quite long. INTRODUCTION begins with a paragraph on ageing in general. It would be better just to concentrate on ageing in relation to PD.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have shortened the introduction and removed the below text in the original manuscript.

“On the global level, the numbers of old-old are expanding at the fastest rate, and, by 2050, are expected to make up 4.5 percent of total populations, compared to 1.9 percent in 2012 [9]. The age composition of Thailand’s population is on par with that of many developed countries; it is ranked as the third most rapidly ageing population in Asia, which now stands at about 13 million, accounting for 20% of the population [10]. By 2030, Thailand’s ageing population is expected to increase to 26.9% of the total population, equivalent to a quarter of the overall population [11]. This situation has resulted in a rise in chronic and degenerative diseases in countries worldwide. Indeed, in the 2015 global burden of disease, injuries, and risk factors study, neurological disorders were listed as the leading cause of disability globally. Amongst these, Parkinson’s disease (PD) has the fastest growing prevalence, disability rate, and mortality rate [12].”

3. This is a study of PD in old-old age, rather than of older onset PD. There are patients here with PD onset in middle age but long disease courses. The short and long disease duration comparison for the old-old group helps to highlight this.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for raising this important point in which additional analysis was undertaken to compare the old-old PD patients with short and long disease duration. Findings are shown in table 2 with supported text in the result sub-section: Old-old PD patients with short and long disease duration as following (page14-18).

Table 2: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics for oldest-old PD patients with those disease duration <10 years versus those ≥10 years

Disease duration p-value

<10 (N = 30) ≥ 10 (N = 30)

Demographic variables

Current age, yrs, mean (�SD) 87.80 (�3.01) 88.70 (�3.196) 0.266

Age of PD onset, yrs, mean (�SD) 82.93 (�3.0) 72.53 (�5.21) <0.0001*

Disease duration, yrs, mean (�SD) 4.87 (2.69) 16.13 (�4.08) <0.0001*

Gender, male, N (%) 11 (36.7%) 13 (43.3%) 0.598

Annual outpatient visits, mean (�SD) 3.00 (�0.78) 2.60 (�0.67) 0.039 *

Motor symptoms

Predominant subtype, N (%)

TD 10 (33.3%) 3 (10%) 0.028

PIGD 20 (66.7%) 27 (90%)

Motor severity

UPDRS-III, mean (�SD) 30.13 (�13.19) 53.5 (�12.94) <0.0001*

H&Y, mean (�SD) 3.9 (�0.89) 4.58 (�0.72) 0.002*

Pi-H&Y(H&Y>3), N (%) 22 (73.3%) 27 (90%) 0.095

Non motor symptoms, N (%)

NMSQuest total, mean (�SD) 10.57 (�2.64) 13.30 (�2.85) <0.0001*

Domain, N (%)

Gastrointestinal 26 (86.7%) 28 (93.3%) 0.389

Urinary 17 (56.7%) 27 (90%) 0.004*

Sexual 10 (33.3%) 12 (40%) 0.592

CVS 10 (3.3%) 14 (46.7%) 0.292

Sleep/ fatigue 21 (70%) 22 (73.3%) 0.774

Apathy/attention/memory 23 (76.7%) 26 (86.7%) 0.317

Hallucination/ delusion 5 (16.7%) 13 (43.3%) 0.024*

Depression/ anxiety 6 (20%) 11 (36.7%) 0.152

Miscellaneous 20 (66.7%) 22 (73.3%) 0.573

TMSE, mean (�SD) 18.97(�6.98) 16 (�8.35) 0.141

Medications

LEDD, mg/d, mean (�SD) 488.33(�267) 621.67(�387) 0.127

Motor complication, N (%)

Dyskinesia 2 (6.7%) 8 (26.7%) 0.083

Wearing-off 11 (36.7%) 22 (73.3%) 0.004*

Disabilities

S&E-ADL, mean (�SD) 55 (�22.1) 38 (�20.57) 0.003*

S&E-ADL ≥ 80%, N (%) 8 (26.7%) 3 (10%) 0.095

Milestones, N (%)

Dementia 15 (50%) 19 (63.3%) 0.297

Recurrent falls in ambulatory patient (N=31), N (%) 6/ 22 (27.3%) 2/ 9 (22.2%) 0.771

Visual hallucination 8 (26.7%) 16 (53.3%) 0.035*

Nursing home placement 3(10%) 5(16.7%) 0.448

Wheelchair placement 12(40%) 20(66.7%) 0.038*

Hospitalization in past year, N (%) 9 (30%) 12 (40%) 0.417

Comorbidity, N (%)

CVD 9 (30%) 12 (40%) 0.417

Musculoskeletal 15 (50%) 24 (80%) 0.015*

Hypertension 5 (16.7%) 7 (23.3%) 0.519

Diabetes 7 (23.3%) 6 (20%) 0.754

Cancer 3 (10%) 0 0.076

CCI, mean (�SD) 2.13 (�1.22) 2.26 (�1.20) 0.672

“Old-old PD patients with short and long disease duration: A general comparison

The 60 patients in the old-old groups were separated equally (30:30) into two subgroups, those with short disease duration (< 10 years) and those with long disease duration (≥ 10 years). Subgroups had the same mean age (p=0.266), but a mean disease duration of 4.87 and 16.13 years, respectively (p<0.0001). Gender ratio did not differ significantly (p=0.598).

The long disease duration group showed higher motor scores on the UPDRS-III scale (p<0.0001) and average H&Y staging (p=0.002) than the short disease duration group; however, the frequency of the patients with H&Y stage 3 or higher was similar in both groups (p=0.095). Tremor as a predominant symptom was found less frequently in the longer disease duration group (p=0.028). The rate of outpatient visits in the long disease duration group (2.60 times per person per annum; pppa) was significantly lower than that of the short disease duration group (3.00 pppa).

Nonmotor features

Patients with longer disease duration reported significantly higher mean NMSQuest scores than those with short disease duration (13.30 [� 2.85] vs. 10.57 [� 2.64], p<0.0001). More frequently reported problems by the patients with longer PD duration on the NMSQuest were in the domain of urinary problems (p=0.004), followed by hallucinations and delusions (p=0.024). There were no statistically significant differences in the remaining domains (gastrointestinal problems, p=0.389; sexual problems, p=0.592; cerebrovascular disease, p=0.292, cognitive deficits, p=0.317; sleep disturbances/fatigue, p=0.774; depression/anxiety, p=0.152; and miscellaneous, p=0.573).

In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to LEDD (p=0.127). Wearing-off was the most frequently reported motor complication in both groups, and, as expected, was associated with longer disease duration (p=0.004). Dyskinesia was much less frequent, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.083).

Comorbidities

There were no differences in comorbidity frequency or comorbidity severity (CCI, p=0.672) between the short and long disease duration groups, except for musculoskeletal disease (p=0.015).

Measurement of disease advancement

Concerns about disease milestones, visual hallucinations, and wheelchair-dependence were significantly more frequent in the long disease duration group (p=0.035 and p=0.038, respectively). Other advanced disease milestones were also more frequently reported in the long disease duration group, although these differences were not statistically significant.”

4. Both young-old and old-old patients are survivors of cohorts that were diagnosed with PD on average 10 years before. Can information be given about the size and outcome of the original cohorts? How many have died, or been lost to follow up? For old-old, this involves accounting for non-survivors who would have passed 85 years of age had they still been attending the clinic.

Response: It would have been interesting to explore this aspect since longitudinal study is indeed able to investigate the trends and relationship between the variables more thoroughly. Unfortunately, the limitations on the availability of data prior to electronic health record era prevent the secondary use when conducting research. We defined this point as a limitation, where it reads, “Finally, further potential limitation is the restricted collection of longitudinal data to a 6-year period according to hospital electronic health records. The temporal relationship variables and disease outcomes, thus, can be limited. We strongly suggest that longitudinal studies would enable a robust overall evidence base in a future research.” (page 27, line 531-535)

5. I can’t see criteria or references for subtyping of PD into postural instability-gait disturbance and tremor-dominant.

Response: As requested, references has been added (reference number 34, 35)

Stebbins GT, Goetz CG, Burn DJ, Jankovic J, Khoo TK, Tilley BC. How to identify tremor dominant and postural instability/gait difficulty groups with the movement disorder society unified Parkinson's disease rating scale: comparison with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. Mov Disord. 2013;28(5):668-70.

Thenganatt MA, Jankovic J. Parkinson Disease Subtypes. JAMA Neurol.2014;71(4):499–504. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.6233

6. There is a tendency for readers to try to draw inferences about the longitudinal character of PD from cross-sectional or retrospective studies. This applies to quite a lot of PD research from the past. Point 4 above refers to one source of potential distortion. LIMITATIONS should discuss this issue.

Response: We agree that this is a potential limitation of the study. We have added the following sentences as a limitation (page 27, line 531-535)

“Finally, further potential limitation is the restricted collection of longitudinal data to a 6-year period according to hospital electronic health records. The temporal relationship variables and disease outcomes, thus, can be limited. We strongly suggest that longitudinal studies would enable a robust overall evidence base in a future research.”

I would like to confirm that all authors have read the manuscript; the paper has not been previously published, and is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. There is also no ghost writing by anyone not named on the author list.

There is no conflict of interest on all authors and we will take full responsibility for the data, the analyses and interpretation, and the conduct of the research. We had full access to all of the data; and that we had the right to publish any and all data, separate and apart from the attitudes of the sponsor.

Thank you very much for consideration our manuscript for publication. Please let me know if there are any questions.

We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into helping us improve our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Roongroj Bhidayasiri

Corresponding author:

Roongroj Bhidayasiri, MD., FRCP., FRCPI.

Chulalongkorn Center of Excellence on Parkinson Disease and Related Disorders

Chulalongkorn University Hospital

1873 Rama 4 Road

Bangkok 10330

Thailand

Tel: +662-256-4000 ext. 70701

Fax: +662-256-4630

Email address: rbh@chulapd.org

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-PONE-D-21-03548.doc.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-03548R1

Profiling the Most Elderly Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Does Age or Disease Duration Matter?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bhidayasiri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Karsten Witt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have largely addressed my comments. However, the two groups of differing age with matched disease duration creates a major confound of age of onset in the interpretation of their results that should be addressed:

Major comments:

The selection of participants of two age groups with matched disease duration means that the two groups differ not only in age but also in age of onset. The authors’ interpretation of the differences in the two populations as being related to age is possible, but cannot be separated, then, from the age of onset and an equally valid interpretation would be that PD patients with later age of onset (rather than old-old) are more severe, have more non motor symptoms, etc than earlier age on onset (rather than young-old), as has been shown previously. This is fundamental to the analysis and interpretation of the results and should be addressed more than simply discussing in the limitations section. The authors could match for disease duration, and age of onset separately, e.g. The subgroup analysis that, in the old old group, the longer duration (hence younger age of onset) subgroup is more severe than the shorter duration subgroup is helpful; but would not address the alternate interpretation of the differences between the young-old and old-old group.

Minor comments:

Line 72: grammatical error needing clarification, are there 13 million elderly adults comprising 20% of the population?

Reviewer #2: Generally a satisfactory revision.

My Point 5: I think the subtyping criteria should be clearly stated in METHODS, not just referenced elsewhere.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Oct 2021

17 September 2021

Dr. Karsten Witt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Witt,

Re: Manuscript # PONE-D-21-03548R1: Profiling the Most Elderly Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Does Age or Disease Duration Matter?

We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their time and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have implemented their comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the manuscript are highlighted in red in the revised version. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each of the editors or reviewers’ comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors have largely addressed my comments. However, the two groups of differing age with matched disease duration creates a major confound of age of onset in the interpretation of their results that should be addressed:

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have gone through your comments carefully and tried our best to address them one by one. We hope the manuscript has been improved accordingly.

Major comments:

The selection of participants of two age groups with matched disease duration means that the two groups differ not only in age but also in age of onset. The authors’ interpretation of the differences in the two populations as being related to age is possible, but cannot be separated, then, from the age of onset and an equally valid interpretation would be that PD patients with later age of onset (rather than old-old) are more severe, have more non motor symptoms, etc than earlier age on onset (rather than young-old), as has been shown previously. This is fundamental to the analysis and interpretation of the results and should be addressed more than simply discussing in the limitations section. The authors could match for disease duration, and age of onset separately, e.g. The subgroup analysis that, in the old old group, the longer duration (hence younger age of onset) subgroup is more severe than the shorter duration subgroup is helpful; but would not address the alternate interpretation of the differences between the young-old and old-old group.

Response: Thank you for raising this point. In this study, the primary objective is to fill the gap in the literature concerning the profile of old-old Parkinson’s (i.e., age ≥ 85 years old). The secondary objective is to demonstrate whether the driving force in each characteristic is worsening of the disease pathophysiology with increasing duration or age-related processes of the advanced age.

However, aside from age and disease duration, as reviewer mentioned, age at onset may have several important clinical correlations. The authors used PubMed to search relevant literature using term “Parkinson’s disease” with additional search term “late onset”. These terms were restricted to the title of the article. Duplicates were removed and all articles published in English language (n=79) were review. Among these, 37 studies have specially analyzed characteristics in patients with Late Onset PD (LOPD) compare with Middle Onset PD (MOPD), and/or Young Onset PD (YOPD) matched for disease duration. A final explanation for observe differences in these studies could related to the old age of the old-age onset cohort, independent of onset age. To test this hypothesis, our subjects composed of old-old patients matched for age at the time of data collection but with different disease duration, i.e., the longer duration (MOPD) and shorter disease duration (LOPD).

Furthermore, while there is still a lack of consensus in the age definition of early- and late-onset PD, several studies divided them into 3 distinct groups YOPD, MOPD and LOPD, and compared them with respect to the differences in clinical presentation, treatment, disease progression, biochemical profile, and nigrostriatal function. They found that the YOPD (≤ 50 years) group differs from MOPD and LOPD group in many aspects, whereas MOPD and LOPD patients are more similar (1, 2). This would imply that age of onset can contribute to the distinctive clinical-biochemical-pathological profile of YOPD from those in MOPD and LOPD, while the clinical impairment in LOPD may similarly be based in the make-up of the very old brain, including rate of nigrostriatal degeneration, reduced compensatory mechanisms, and frequency of comorbidities etc. This is also stated in previous studies (reference number 100, 101). To reflect this, and to avoid confusion due to the different pathophysiology bases of the YOPD, our studies specifically focused on MOPD and LOPD (>50 years).

To address reviewer’s concern, although we reported the results using age at examination as a predictor variable (Table 1), we repeated the analysis using age at onset of PD as a comparator and details provided in the supplementary material (see S1 table). In general, findings were similar, and based on the make-up of the very old brain as mentioned earlier. To clarify this point, we also included the following statement in the methods, result and discussion of the manuscript read as follows:

Page 7: Line 160-164

Moreover, to address the role of age at onset (AAO), we repeated the analysis in which patients were divided in 2 groups, middle-onset PD (MOPD) group included patients with AAO between 50 and 69, and the LOPD group included patients with AAO ≥70 years. This cut- off was guided by the conclusion of a cluster analysis from Post el al (3). Based on the available study subjects, we did not study those AAO of less than 50 years.

Page 19: Line 327 to Page 20: Line 353

MOPD and LOPD: a general comparison

Supplementary Data 1. shows details of demographic and clinical characteristics of the PD regarding to AOA. 97 patients (63%) belonged in the MOPD group and 55 (37%) in the LOPD group. Current age was 67.63 �6.05 and 88.07 �3.97 years in the MOPD and LOPD group, respectively (p<0.0001), whereas disease duration for both the groups was similar (10.93 vs. 9.04, p=0.054). Tremor or PIGD as the predominant motor symptom was not significantly different in MOPD and LOPD (p=0.544). UPDRS-III scores and H&Y stages were significantly higher in the LOPD patients compared to the MOPD patients (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively).

Considering NMS, the mean NMSQuest score was significantly greater amongst the LOPD patients than the MOPD patients (p < 0.0001). More frequently reported NMS by MOPD patients were in the domain of sexual function (p=0.016), followed by depression and anxiety (p=0.024). While features of gastrointestinal problems (p<0.0001) and cognitive impairment (p<0.0001) were significantly more reported in the LOPD patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the remaining domains.

When calculating the LEDD, the mean dosage in the MOPD patients was 559 mg and in the LOPD patients it was 871 mg (p<0.0001). Dyskinesia developed in 40% of the MOPD and 14.5% of the LOPD patients (p<0.001), while wearing-off rate did not differ between the groups (p=0.701).

For disabilities and important clinical milestones, LOPD patients were more likely to have a greater disability, as measured by the S&E-ADL scale (p<0.0001) and tended to have higher milestone frequency. Specific milestones more common in LOPD than in MOPD patients were dementia (p<0.0001), wheelchair placement (p<0.0001), and hospitalisation in the past year (p=0.011).

Page 28: Line 554 to Page 29: Line 566

This study aims to fill the gap in the literature concerning the profile of old-old Parkinson’s patients and to demonstrate whether the driving force in each characteristic is worsening of the disease pathophysiology with increasing duration or age-related processes of the advanced age. To address the role of AAO, we repeated our analysis using AAO of PD as a comparator, detailed in Supplementary data 1 and 2. In general, outcomes were similar to our other findings, as an inevitable consequence of variable-dependence around age, AAO and disease duration. Previous studies have suggested that AAO may contribute to the distinctive clinical-biochemical-pathological profile of patients with AAO ≤ 50 years (i.e., young-, early-, juvenile-onset PD; YOPD), while the different profile seen in patients with AAO > 50 years (middle- and late-onset PD) may be based on the make-up of the very old brain, including, rate of nigrostriatal degeneration, reduced compensatory mechanisms, and frequency of comorbidities (4, 5). To reflect this, and to avoid confusion due to different pathophysiology bases of YOPD, our studies specifically focused on those with AAO >50 years.

S1 table: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of Middle Onset PD versus Late Onset PD patient (Submitted as supplementary data 1)

Furthermore, our study extended the analysis to the young-old with short and long disease duration, however, as to available study subjects, there were significant different in both age of onset and age at examination. See the supplementary material (S2 table) We also included the following statement in the methods and result section as following.

Page 7: Line 160-164

To investigate the influence of disease duration, patients of the old-old and young-old groups were also separated into two subgroups, according to duration of illness, into a ‘less than 10 years’ group, called the short duration group, and an ‘equal to or more than 10 years’ group, called the long duration group, based on a commonly used cut-off point from previously published studies (6, 7).

Page 20: Line 356-358

Our study extended these comparisons to the young-old patients with short and long disease duration. However, as to the available subjects, there was a significant different in age at examination (Supplementary Data 2).

S2 table: Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics for younger-old PD patients with those disease duration <10 years versus those ≥10 years (Submitted as supplementary data 2)

Minor comments:

Line 72: grammatical error needing clarification, are there 13 million elderly adults comprising 20% of the population?

Response:

- We have corrected this grammatical error in line 72.

- The data source was the “Policy Mapping on Ageing in Asia and the Pacific Analytical Report”. We already provided the following citations to support this statement (Reference number 4)

4. HelpAge International. 2015. Policy Mapping on Ageing in Asia and the Pacific Analytical Report. Chiang Mai: HelpAge International East Asia/Pacific Regional Office.

Reviewer #2: Generally a satisfactory revision.

My Point 5: I think the subtyping criteria should be clearly stated in METHODS, not just referenced elsewhere

Response: Thank you for your nice reminder. We already provided an explanation in METHODS, Subsection Measurement of clinical variables as following (see page 8, line 174-179).

“PD motor subtypes were identified following the original classification methods into two subtypes: (1) tremor- dominant PD and (2) postural instability and gait difficulty (PIGD), using the UPDRS, an average global tremor score and a mean score for the complex of PIGD were determined, and patients were assigned to a tremor group and a PIGD group based on the ratio of these scores (8, 9).”

I would like to confirm that all authors have read the manuscript; the paper has not been previously published, and is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. There is also no ghost writing by anyone not named on the author list.

There is no conflict of interest on all authors and we will take full responsibility for the data, the analyses and interpretation, and the conduct of the research. We had full access to all of the data; and that we had the right to publish any and all data, separate and apart from the attitudes of the sponsor.

Thank you very much for consideration our manuscript for publication. Please let me know if there are any questions.

We are grateful to the editors and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into helping us improve our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author:

Roongroj Bhidayasiri, MD., FRCP., FRCPI.

Chulalongkorn Center of Excellence on Parkinson Disease and Related Disorders

Chulalongkorn University Hospital

1873 Rama 4 Road

Bangkok 10330

Thailand

Tel: +662-256-4000 ext. 70701

Fax: +662-256-4630

Email address: rbh@chulapd.org

References

1. Mehanna R, Moore S, Hou JG, Sarwar AI, Lai EC. Comparing clinical features of young onset, middle onset and late onset Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2014;20(5):530-4.

2. Schirinzi T, Di Lazzaro G, Sancesario GM, Summa S, Petrucci S, Colona VL, et al. Young-onset and late-onset Parkinson's disease exhibit a different profile of fluid biomarkers and clinical features. Neurobiol Aging. 2020;90:119-24.

3. Post B, Speelman JD, de Haan RJ. Clinical heterogeneity in newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. 2008;255(5):716-22.

4. Diederich NJ, Moore CG, Leurgans SE, Chmura TA, Goetz CG. Parkinson Disease With Old-Age Onset: A Comparative Study With Subjects With Middle-Age Onset. Archives of Neurology. 2003;60(4):529-33.

5. Levy G, Louis ED, Cote L, Perez M, Mejia-Santana H, Andrews H, et al. Contribution of aging to the severity of different motor signs in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol. 2005;62(3):467-72.

6. Hely MA, Morris JGL, Traficante R, Reid WGJ, O’Sullivan DJ, Williamson PM. The Sydney multicentre study of Parkinson’s disease: progression and mortality at 10 years. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 1999;67(3):300.

7. Hassan A, Wu SS, Schmidt P, Malaty IA, Dai YF, Miyasaki JM, et al. What are the issues facing Parkinson's disease patients at ten years of disease and beyond? Data from the NPF-QII study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012;18 Suppl 3:S10-4.

8. Stebbins GT, Goetz CG, Burn DJ, Jankovic J, Khoo TK, Tilley BC. How to identify tremor dominant and postural instability/gait difficulty groups with the movement disorder society unified Parkinson's disease rating scale: comparison with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. Mov Disord. 2013;28(5):668-70.

9. Thenganatt MA, Jankovic J. Parkinson Disease Subtypes. JAMA Neurology. 2014;71(4):499-504.

Submitted filename: ResponseReviewer-PONE-D-21-03548R1-17Sep2021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Dec 2021

Profiling the Most Elderly Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Does Age or Disease Duration Matter?

PONE-D-21-03548R2

Dear Dr. Bhidayasiri,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Karsten Witt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

6 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-03548R2

Profiling the Most Elderly Parkinson’s Disease Patients: Does Age or Disease Duration Matter?

Dear Dr. Bhidayasiri:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Karsten Witt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE