Gait alterations in Parkinson's disease at the stage of hemiparkinsonism-A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Progressive gait impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD) leads to significant disability. Quantitative gait parameters analysis provides valuable information about fine gait alterations.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse change of gait parameters in patients with early PD at the stage of hemiparkinsonism and after 1 year of follow up, taking into account clinical asymmetry.
METHODS: Consecutive early PD outpatients with strictly unilateral motor features underwent clinical and neuropsychological assessment at the study entry and after 1 year of follow up. Gait was assessed with GAITRite walkway using dual-task methodology. Spatiotemporal gait parameters (step time and length, swing time and double support time) and their coefficients of variation (CV), gait velocity and heel-to-heel base support were evaluated.
RESULTS: We included 42 PD patients with disease duration of 1.3 years (±1.13). Progression of motor and non-motor symptoms, without significant cognitive worsening, was observed after 1 year of follow up. Significant shortening of the swing time, prolongation of the double support and increase of their CVs were observed during all task conditions similarly for most parameters on symptomatic and asymptomatic bodysides, except for CV for the swing time under the combined task.
CONCLUSION: Alterations of the swing time and double support time are already present even at the asymptomatic body side, and progress similarly, or even at faster pace, at this side, despite dopaminergic treatment These parameters deserve further investigation in larger, prospective studies to address their potential to serve as markers of progression in interventional disease modifying trials with early PD patients.

Introduction

Progressive gait disturbance is a major determinant of physical independence of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), an important risk factor for falls [1-3], and a significant indicator of reduced health-related quality of life [4]. While distinctive pattern of shuffling gait in later stages of PD is well known since the first description of the disease, gait alterations in early PD are subtle. Analysis of quantitative data obtained using different types of sensors for gait recording provides valuable information on gait alterations that might prove useful as markers of disease progression. Common pattern of gait impairment specific to early PD includes reduced amplitude of arm swing, increased interlimb asymmetry, reduced smoothness of locomotion and increased cadence [1]. Even in prodromal stage of PD, asymptomatic carriers of LRRK2-G2019S mutation experienced gait alterations such as subclinical arm swing asymmetry and increased variability under dual task condition detected with wearable sensors [5]. However, these are not universal findings. An altered but symmetric gait pattern was observed in our de novo drug naïve PD patients with unilateral motor symptoms, possibly reflecting an activation of compensatory mechanisms for coping with balance problems at the earliest disease stage [6].

Data from prospective studies addressing natural history of gait impairment in early PD are scarce. In an incident PD cohort with patients in Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages 1–3 a subtle deterioration of pace and rhythm was observed over 18 months of follow up despite optimal dopaminergic treatment [7], while asymmetry was revealed only after up to 6 years of follow up [8]. In another study, increased step number and step time variability were observed in early PD patients at normal-paced walking compared to healthy subjects over time [9]. However, none of these studies addressed PD patients with strictly unilateral motor features at study entry.

Our aim was to analyse changes in gait parameters in patients with early PD at the stage of hemiparkinsonism over 1 year of follow up, taking into account overt clinical asymmetry of motor features.

Material and methods

Subjects

Study included consecutive outpatients with PD diagnosis according to the Step 1 of the UK PD Society Brain Bank diagnostic criteria [10] at the H&Y stage 1 with strictly unilateral motor symptoms [11]. Patients were recruited at the Clinic of Neurology, Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, from January 2012 to December 2013. Patients suffering from other concomitant neurological disorders, dementia, with history of psychosis requiring neuroleptic treatment, atypical and secondary parkinsonism or other diseases and conditions potentially affecting gait (for example, orthopaedic and rheumatology diseases) were not included in the study. Additionally, we excluded patients that fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder.

All patients underwent clinical, neuropsychological and gait assessment at the study entry (t0) and after 1 year of follow up (t2).

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local Ethics Committee of Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade. All subjects gave written informed consent before the study inclusion.

Clinical assessment

At study entry, data on the disease history were collected, including the first symptom noted by the patients. Disease severity was assessed with MDS-UPDRS, including non-motor and motor aspects of experiences of daily living [12], and levodopa equivalent daily dose was calculated [13]. The neuropsychological assessment, performed by experienced neuropsychologist, included the assessment of global cognitive functioning (mini-mental state examination–MMSE) and Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination–revised (ACE-R) and cognitive domains: (a) memory—Rey auditory verbal learning test (RAVLT); (b) language—Boston naming test (BNT); (c) executive and working memory—phonemic and semantic fluency, digit ordering test; digit span backward; trail making test (TMT) and Stroop colour-word test; d) attention—digit span forward from Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and e) visuospatial—Hooper visual organization test [14-16]. We used Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and Apathy Scale to evaluate severity of symptoms of depression, apathy and anxiety [17].

Experimental protocol of gait recording

Gait was measured on GAITRite instrumented walkway with 5.5 m active area with built-in sensors reactive on pressure (CYR Systems, Havertown, PA) employing four test conditions. During gait recording patients were in their optimal “on” condition. First, patients walked 1.5 m before stepping on the walkway and finished their walk at least 1.5 m after the end of the walkway active surface, at their preferred walking speed (“basic gait condition”). Then, three additional test conditions were performed including a motor task (basic gait + motor task), a mental task (basic gait + mental task), and a combined motor and mental task (basic gait + motor task + mental task). The motor task consisted of walking with glass filled with water at subject’s normal pace, aiming not to spill the water during the walk. The mental task comprised of concurrent walking and serial “7” subtraction, starting from randomly chosen numbers 90, 95, 100 or 105. Combined motor and mental task comprised of simultaneous walking while carrying the glass filled with water and performing subtraction as described above. Patients performed 6 passes, 3 times down the corridor and back for each test condition. They were walking for each test condition approximately 50 m (6 x 8–9 m), 200 m in total [18, 19]. Data from the activated sensors were collected. The GAITRite software enabled the calculation of temporo-spatial gait parameters, and the data were subsequently exported for further statistical analysis [20].

Assessment of gait data

Spatiotemporal parameters of gait including velocity, heel-to-heel base support, step time, step length, swing time, double support time, and coefficients of variability (CVs) for step time, step length, swing time and double support time were analysed for all test conditions [21]. Averages of each parameter for each test condition were calculated separately for left and right leg with an exception of gait velocity and heel-to-heel base support that are measures derived from parameters from both legs. Then, as patients had unilateral motor features at t0, we stratified recordings into those obtained from symptomatic bodyside and those obtained from asymptomatic body side before the statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis

We used independent samples T-test to compare gait parameters obtained from clinically symptomatic and asymptomatic bodyside at t0. The comparisons of relevant variables (clinical data and gait parameters) at t0 and t1 were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for nonparametric data and the Paired Sample T-Test for parametric data. Delta (Δ) values ((t1-t0/t0)*100) were calculated to analyse change (in percentages) of gait parameters over time at the symptomatic and the asymptomatic bodyside and were compared using T-test for independent samples (parametric) or Man Whitney U test (nonparametric data). To compare differences in Delta values across the task conditions Related-samples Friedman’s Two-Way Analysis of variance by Ranks was used. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL), and p values <0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Forty-two patients diagnosed with PD were tested at study entry (t0) and retested after 1 year (t1). Enrolled patients were more often male (61.9%) with mean age of 59 years (±9.75), disease duration of 1.5 years (±1.13) and levodopa equivalent daily dose of 131.6 mg (±190.72) at t0. Thirty-two (76.2%) PD patients reported an isolated initial symptom on the arm, 5 patients (11.9%) on the leg and 5 patients (11.9%) both on the arm and on the leg. Among 10 patients with the affection of the leg, 3 (7.1%) reported gait difficulties, while others reported tremor or stiffness. More severe symptoms in non-motor and motor aspects of experiences of daily living, as well as higher scores on motor examination and higher LED were observed in patients with PD at t1 compared to t0. A total of 17 patients (40.5%) progressed from H&Y stage 1 to 2. None progressed to more advanced motor stages or developed motor complications (neither dyskinesia, nor motor fluctuations), with the exception of painful dystonia (2 patients at t0 and 5 patients at t1). There was no statistically significant decline in global cognitive functioning, memory, learning, language, attention and visuospatial abilities (Table 1).

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients and at one year follow up.

	Baseline	Follow up	P
N	42	42
Gender (N, % male)	26 (61,9%)	26 (61,9%)
LEDD	131.65 ± 190.72	340.73 ± 136.20	<0.001
UPDRS I	4.76 ± 3.47	6.49 ± 4.48	0.014
UPDRS II	5.49 ± 3.45	7.56 ± 4.19	<0.001
UPDRS III	15.24 ± 4.33	22.00 ± 8.04	<0.001
UPDRS IV	0.10 ± 0.49	0.17 ± 0.54	0.538
UPDRS total	25.58 ± 9.33	36.49 ± 13.84	<0.001
Hoehn and Yahr stage	1.21 ± 0.25	1.57 ± 0.41	<0.001
HDRS	5.02 ± 4.40	7.02 ± 5.85	0.022
HARS	4.71 ± 5.23	5.39 ± 4.83	0.434
Apathy scale	10.66 ± 8.05	11.20 ± 7.67	0.646
ACE-R total	91.83 ± 6.05	92.51 ± 5.71	0.412
MMSE	28.66 ± 1.20	28.32 ± 1.56	0.224
RAVLT delayed recall	7.683 ± 3.19	8.29 ± 2.74	0.206
Digit forward	8.32 ± 1.98	7.95 ± 1.91	0.217
Digit backward	6.38 ± 4.92	5.60 ± 1.77	0.314
TMT	47.51 ± 21.03	44.32 ± 16.99	0.307
Stroop III	42.76 ±19.84	41.08 ± 13.68	0.676
Phonemic fluency	26.89 ± 25.75	39.24 ± 10.52	0.003
Categorial fluency	18.81 ± 5.93	19.44 ± 5.63	0.462
BNT total	58.00 ± 2.66	58.05 ± 2.82	0.885
Hooper	19.70 ± 5.57	20.47 ± 4.71	0.526

Abbreviations: LEDD levodopa equivalent daily dose, UPDRS sponsored revision of the unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale, HDRS Hamilton’s scale of depression, HARS Hamilton’s anxiety scale, ACER Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination-revised, MMSE mini-mental state examination test, RAVLT Ray’s auditory verbal learning test, TMT trail making test, BNT Boston’s naming test, Hooper Hooper’s test of visual organization.

Gait assessment

At t0, there were no differences in any of the gait parameters at the symptomatic bodyside compared to the asymptomatic bodyside suggesting a lack of asymmetry of quantitative gait parameters at this stage (see S1 Table).

Over time, no changes were found in the average gait velocity (basic gait 1.142 ± 0.033 vs. 1.149 ± 0.032 m/s; p = 0.758; motor task 1.097 ± 0.034 vs. 1.085 ± 0.037 m/s; p = 0.632; mental task 0.959 ± 0.036 vs. 0.969 ± 0.037 m/s; p = 0.647; combined task 0.912 ± 0.035 vs. 0.918 ± 0.034 m/s; p = 0.772), the average heel-to-heel base support (basic gait 9.6 ± 2.5 vs. 9.8 ± 2.8 cm; p = 0.441; motor task 9.4 ± 2.4 vs. 9.7 ± 3.1 cm; p = 0.441; mental task 10.1 ± 3.1 vs. 10.3 ± 3.2 cm; p = 0.441; combined task 9.7 ± 2.8 vs. 9.9 ± 3.2 cm; p = 0.441), and the step length and step time (for each bodyside) for all test conditions (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2

Gait parameters at baseline and after one year follow up of symptomatic leg at study entry.

Gait parameters	BASIC GAIT			MOTOR TASK			MENTAL TASK			COMBINED TASK
	Baseline	Follow up	p	Baseline	Follow up	p	Baseline	Follow up	p	Baseline	Follow up	p
Step time (s)	0.56 ± 0.04	0.55 ± 0.05	0.289	0.56 ± 0.57	0.56 ± 0.07	0.543	0.62 ± 0.08	0.61 ± 0.10	0.56	0.63 ± 0.08	0.62 ± 096	0.513
Step length (cm)	61.92 ± 8.87	61.09 ± 8.58	0.338	59.59 ± 8.86	57.92 ± 9.29	0.089	55.94 ± 9.03	55.35 ± 9.09	0.49	54.00 ± 8.37	53.79 ± 8.18	0.826
Swing time (s)	0.39 ± 0.03	0.38 ± 0.03	<0.001	0.39 ± 0.03	0.37 ± 0.04	<0.001	0.42 ± 0.04	0.39 ± 0.06	<0.001	0.42 ± 0.04	0.39 ± 0.05	<0.001
Double support time (s)	0.32 ± 0.06	0.35 ± 0.08	0.008	0.34 ± 0.08	0.39 ± 0.12	0.001	0.40 ± 0.11	0.43 ± 0.14	0.04	0.42 ± 0.13	0.46 ± 0.14	0.039
CV step time	4.48 ± 2.29	6.16 ± 9.73	0.255	4.12 ± 1.59	6.95 ± 12.63	0.155	6.50 ± 3.02	8.90 ± 9.45	0.11	6.86 ± 4.49	8.80 ± 8.36	0.187
CV step length	4.44 ± 1.57	4.49 ± 6.01	0.873	4.69 ± 2.48	4.96 ± 3.05	0.513	7.38 ± 4.03	7.62 ± 6.77	0.84	7.22 ± 4.61	6.19 ± 2.77	0.131
CV swing time	5.12 ± 2.64	8.13 ± 5.23	0.001	5.29 ± 3.41	10.71 ± 7.79	<0.001	6.92 ± 3.65	10.55 ± 6.89	<0.001	7.48 ± 4.91	9.49 ± 5.50	0.082
CV double support time	9.60 ± 4.00	16.31 ± 13.69	0.006	8.85 ± 2.96	20.19 ± 27.54	0.01	13.73 ± 7.18	17.64 ± 15.23	0.15	13.67 ±7.61	25.13 ± 32.59	0.035

Values are shown as mean ± SD.

Abbreviation: CV–coefficient of variation.

Table 3

Gait parameters at baseline and after one year follow up in asymptomatic leg at study entry.

	BASIC GAIT			MOTOR TASK			MENTAL TASK			COMBINED TASK
Gait parameters	Baseline	Follow up	p	Baseline	Follow up	p	Baseline	Follow up	p	Baseline	Follow up	p
Step time (s)	0.55 ± 0.05	0.54 ± 0.05	0.393	0.55 ± 0.06	0.55 ± 0.07	0.91	0.60 ± 0.08	0.60 ± 0.11	0.73	0.61 ± 0.09	0.61 ± 0.11	0.713
Step length (cm)	62.65 ± 8.36	61.69 ± 8.13	0.241	60.05 ± 7.89	58.53 ± 8.71	0.091	57.04 ± 8.68	56.15 ± 8.83	0.3	54.68 ± 7.94	54.54 ± 7.75	0.874
Swing time (s)	0.39 ± 0.03	0.37 ± 0.03	<0.001	0.39 ± 0.03	0.36 ± 0.04	<0.001	0.41 ± 0.03	0.38 ± 0.05	<0.001	0.40 ± 0.04	0.38 ± 0.05	0.002
Double support time (s)	0.32 ± 0.06	0.36 ± 0.11	0.005	0.34 ± 0.08	0.38 ± 0.12	0.002	0.39 ± 0.11	0.44 ± 0.16	0.02	0.42 ± 0.13	0.45 ± 0.14	0.125
CV step time	4.54 ± 2.05	6.59 ± 10.41	0.194	3.98 ± 1.38	6.76 ± 9.24	0.064	7.45 ± 6.37	9.17 ± 10.90	0.38	6.59 ± 3.81	7.93 ± 10.03	0.421
CV step length	4.26 ± 1.86	4.44 ± 1.88	0.63	4.42 ± 1.99	4.96 ± 2.91	0.158	6.76 ± 3.06	7.82 ± 10.80	0.53	6.49 ± 2.74	5.91 ± 2.89	0.122
CV Swing time	5.26 ± 3.27	9.13 ± 6.64	0.001	4.75 ± 1.92	10.62 ± 7.74	<0.001	6.47 ± 2.66	11.14 ± 6.51	<0.001	6.41 ± 3.13	11.22 ± 5.93	<0.001
CV Double support time	9.93 ± 4.19	20.64 ± 22.84	0.003	9.01 ± 3.57	20.15 ± 28.81	0.018	12.63 ± 5.06	19.56 ± 26.70	0.11	13.16 ± 7.21	18.26 ± 11.02	0.004

Values are shown as mean ± SD.

Abbreviation: CV—coefficient of variation.

Significant shortening of the swing time and prolongation of the double support time at the initially symptomatic bodyside were observed during all test conditions at t1 compared to t0 (Table 2). The CV for swing time increased during basic gait condition, motor task and mental task conditions, while the CV for double support time increased during basic gait condition, motor task and combined task (Table 2). Similarly, spatial-temporal parameters recorded at initially asymptomatic bodyside suggested shortening of the swing time and increase of its CV during all test conditions at t1 compared to t0. The prolongation of the double support time was observed during all test conditions with an exception of combined task, while the CV of double support time was prolonged during each test condition with an exception of mental task condition (Table 3).

Delta values of change of these gait parameters were similar over all task conditions, e.g. additional tasks did not have an effect on further change of gait parameters. At self-paced walking (basic gait) we noticed shortening of swing time of 5.5% ± 6.2% at the symptomatic and 6.2% ± 6.9% at the asymptomatic bodyside, as well as prolongation of double support time of 9.2% ± 18.4% at the symptomatic and 12.5% ± 23.5% at the asymptomatic side (Fig 1, panel A and B). Meanwhile, their corresponding CVs increased markedly. During basic gait, swing time CV increased for 73.7% ±113.8% at the symptomatic, and for 101.1% ± 169.5% at the asymptomatic side, while double support time CV increased for 104.5% ± 243.9% at the symptomatic and 108.7% ± 157.4% at the asymptomatic side. The observed changes in the swing time, double support time and their corresponding CVs over 1 year follow up did not differ between initially symptomatic and asymptomatic bodysides during most test conditions. Significant difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic bodyside was noted only for the change in CV for the swing time under the combined task condition (54.2% ± 92.0% vs. 93.6% ± 111.5%, p = 0.046, respectively).

Fig 1

Swing time and double support time and their respective coefficient of variations.

A. Change of swing time (%) and the respective coefficient of variation over 1 year. B. Change of double support time (%) and the respective coefficient of variation over 1 year.

Discussion

First five years of PD treatment are traditionally considered as a “honey moon” period when excellent control of symptoms can be easily achieved [21]. However, our patients displayed significant motor worsening as well as more severe depression symptoms over 1 year follow up despite optimal dopaminergic treatment without complications of dopaminergic therapy. Extensive neuropsychological battery did not show significant cognitive decline in any cognitive domains. Lack of asymmetry of gait parameters at study entry, despite overt clinical asymmetry, suggests preclinical gait changes that can be attributed to symptom onset mostly at upper extremity in majority of our patients (more than ¾ of participants).

Alterations of many gait parameters in mild to moderate PD were reported in comparison to healthy controls, including lower cadence and longer stride time, as well as shorter swing time [22]. Patients with early PD (H&Y stage 1–2) exhibited significantly slower walking speed and shorter stride length, which significantly correlated with balance parameters [23]. In contrast, our study did not show worsening of the most robust parameters, such as velocity, heel-to-heel base support, step length and step time, possibly because patients were assessed in the earlier disease stage (unilaterally affected patients with disease duration 1.5 years (±1.13), suggesting that these parameters become altered later over the disease course.

Step length shortening during a cognitive task was an independent predictor of future executive/attention decline in early PD [24]. In our study, absence of shortening of step length and overall similar change of parameters during different task conditions is presumably due to preserved cognitive strategies in our early PD patients. Thus, dual task methodology seems unable to elicit more robust gait changes compared those observed during normal paced gait in early PD at the stage of hemiparkinsonism. Rather, analysing segments of gait cycle revealed shortening of swing time and prolongation of double support time, accompanied by significant increase in variability of these parameters in our patients. These changes over time were observed both on symptomatic and on the asymptomatic bodyside at study entry, whereas swing time variability under dual task condition exhibited even greater increase at the initially asymptomatic bodyside, suggesting possible breakdown of compensatory mechanisms as patients progress to the bilateral stage of the disease.

Interestingly, in a group of de novo PD patients (H&Y stage 1.88 ± 0.40), where decrement in stride length was shown, levodopa trial shortened stride time, resulting in the increment of cadence, presumably as compensatory mechanism for slow walking [25]. Our study included patients under optimal dopaminergic treatment, but revealed that gait impairment progressed despite dopaminergic therapy, suggesting that it is, at least to some extent, levodopa resistant. Alternatively, “ceiling effect” of levodopa, such early in disease course, can be suspected. Levodopa-resistant gait characteristics were assessed previously in early PD [26]. Low baseline CSF Aβ42, and to a lesser extent Aβ40, predicted worsening of gait variability in the first 3 years following diagnosis of PD suggesting amyloid pathology as possible contributing underlying mechanism [26].

Finally, our study has limitations. While in part our findings could be attributed to depression which was shown to affect gait parameters, in particular swing time variability [27], we excluded patients with major depression, and, while depressive symptoms have worsened over follow up, overall Hamilton depression rating scale score remained well below proposed threshold for depression (5.02 ± 4.40 vs. 7.02 ± 5.85; p = 0.022). Additionally, we did not take into account weight changes nor level of exercise as potential factors that could had had some impact on our findings. Our study sample was relatively small and relevance of these results needs to be confirmed in larger studies with longer follow up. In particular, it would be interesting to obtain the “real world” findings from wearable sensors in PD patients at earliest disease stage. Nevertheless, taking into account affected body side during data analysis provides an insight into fine details of gait alterations occurring at the stage of hemiparkinsonism.

In conclusion, presented data suggest that changes of the swing time and double support time are already present very early at the disease course, while large majority of patients still do not complain of them, and even at the asymptomatic body side. These alterations progress similarly, or even at faster pace, at initially unaffected bodyside, despite optimal dopaminergic treatment. These parameters might prove useful as biomarkers of disease progression in interventional disease modifying trials with patients with early PD.

Gait parameters at baseline of symptomatic leg vs. asymptomatic leg at study entry.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Mar 2022

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: https://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,

Federica Provini

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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Reviewers' comments:

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

**********

The authors have investigated the progression of various gait impairment parameters from baseline (t0) to 1 year (t1) in a sample of 42 Parkinson’s Disease (PD) patients with early onset PD and strictly unilateral parkinsonian features at t0 (H&Y=1). Gait assessment was performed using the GAITRite walkway, while patients were given specific predefined instructions to perform specific tasks (basic walking, motor task, mental task, combination). This is an original and interesting topic, with authors presenting original research, whose results has not been presented elsewhere. Authors have described experiments and statistics in sufficient detail and conclusions support the presented results. The article is well-presented and well-written and highlights the differences with previously published similar research.

I would like to make the following points:

1) In line 146, it is mentioned that: “Progression of motor and non-motor symptoms, decreased functioning in activities of daily living and higher LED were observed in patients with PD at t1 compared to t0”: how were the clinical assessment of non-motor symptoms and ADL performed? From what is written in the methodology section, I assume this information was extracted from the UDPRS I & II, but could the authors please be more specific in the Methodology?

2) In lines 148-150, it is mentioned that “None progressed to more advanced motor stages or developed motor complications (neither dyskinesia, nor motor fluctuations)”, which means that UDPRS IV should be zero (0) for t0 and t1. However, in table 1, it seems that UDPRS IV is not zero neither in t0 nor in t1, could the authors please elaborate a little more on this?

3) I would suggest adding the measurement units wherever applicable e.g. in table 2 presenting step time or step length.

4) I would suggest adding a citation for the GAITRite walkway in order to certify its use as a validated tool for gait assessment.

5) In line 209, could the authors please be a little more detailed on what does psychiatric worsening mean? Are they referring to the worsening in depressive symptoms?

6) In the discussion part, the authors mention that despite what has been observed in other studies assessing early PD patients, in this current study no worsening has been shown in gait parameters like velocity or stride length (lines 215-218). Would the authors consider the level of exercise or changes in weight between t0 and t1 as factor that might have contributed to these results?

7) In line 256, it is mentioned that patients did not complain of gait impairment, even when parkinsonism became bilateral at t1 (H&Y=2): was there any particular question assessing the subjective patient’s impression on gait impairment or an objective measurement that led the authors to this conclusion? Maybe the relevant questions in UDPRS about gait impairment?

8) In line 232, it is mentioned that “swing time variability under dual task condition exhibited even greater increase at the initially asymptomatic bodyside”, while in line 257, it is mentioned that “These alterations progress similarly, or even at faster pace, at initially affected bodyside”: could the authors please specify whether the increase was greater in the symptomatic or asymptomatic side during the combined task?

9) In line 181, it is mentioned that “spatial-temporal parameters recorded at initially asymptomatic bodyside suggested shortening of the swing time and its CV during all test conditions at t1 compared to t0”: did the authors mean that CV was increased and not shortened?

**********

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.

6 May 2022

Dear Prof. Provini,

In the separate file, "Response to Reviewers" find enclosed the list of changes against each point that has been raised by the Reviewer and Editor, as requested. We hope our manuscript is now improved.

Sincerely,

Vladana Markovic

Submitted filename: Markovic et al Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 May 2022

Gait alterations in Parkinson’s disease at the stage of hemiparkinsonism – a longitudinal study

PONE-D-22-04031R1

Dear Dr. Markovic,

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,

Federica Provini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

12 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-04031R1

Gait alterations in Parkinson’s disease at the stage of hemiparkinsonism – a longitudinal study

Dear Dr. Marković:

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. Federica Provini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE