Statin usage, vascular diagnosis and vascular risk factors in Parkinson's disease

Background and aims: Vascular disease is a common comorbidity in Parkinson’s disease patients. Statins are potentially neuroprotective for Parkinson’s disease through non-vascular mechanisms. We investigated prevailing statin use in a Parkinson’s disease cohort. Methods and results: Data on diagnostic indication for statins, anti-Parkinson therapy, vascular risk factors, and statin prescription, were obtained from electronic medical record review for consecutive Parkinson’s disease patients. The ASsessing cardiac risk using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system was used to calculate future cardiovascular risk and identify those warranting statin use. Of 441 patients included, 59.9% were male, with a mean age of 68.9 years (standard deviation 10.3). One hundred and seventy-four (39.5%) patients had at least one diagnostic indication for statin use, of whom 136 (78.2%) were prescribed a statin. In the 267 (60.5%) cases without a diagnostic indication, 54 (20.2%) were excluded owing to age limitations defined in ASsessing cardiac risk using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Of the remaining 213, 62 (29.1%) had an ASsessing cardiac risk using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network score in the recommended range for statin therapy, of whom 15 (24.1%) were prescribed statins. Conclusion: There is suboptimal implementation of statin therapy in Parkinson’s disease patients. Given the possible neuroprotective effects of statins in Parkinson’s disease in addition to reducing cardiovascular risk, reasons for suboptimal implementation warrant further investigation

Developing and validating Parkinson's disease subtypes and their motor and cognitive progression

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Equating scores of the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test and sniffin' sticks test in patients with Parkinson's disease

Background Impaired olfaction is an important feature in Parkinson's disease (PD) and other neurological diseases. A variety of smell identification tests exist such as “Sniffin’ Sticks” and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). An important part of research is being able to replicate findings or combining studies in a meta-analysis. This is difficult if olfaction has been measured using different metrics. We present conversion methods between the: UPSIT, Sniffin’ 16, and Brief-SIT (B-SIT); and Sniffin’ 12 and Sniffin’ 16 odour identification tests. Methods We used two incident cohorts of patients with PD who were tested with either the Sniffin’ 16 (n = 1131) or UPSIT (n = 980) and a validation dataset of 128 individuals who took both tests. We used the equipercentile and Item Response Theory (IRT) methods to equate the olfaction scales. Results The equipercentile conversion suggested some bias between UPSIT and Sniffin’ 16 tests across the two groups. The IRT method shows very good characteristics between the true and converted Sniffin’ 16 (delta mean = 0.14, median = 0) based on UPSIT. The equipercentile conversion between the Sniffin’ 12 and 16 item worked well (delta mean = 0.01, median = 0). The UPSIT to B-SIT conversion showed evidence of bias but amongst PD cases worked well (mean delta = −0.08, median = 0). Conclusion We have demonstrated that one can convert UPSIT to B-SIT or Sniffin’ 16, and Sniffin’ 12 to 16 scores in a valid way. This can facilitate direct comparison between tests aiding future collaborative analyses and evidence synthesis

Nonmotor symptoms in patients without evidence of dopaminergic deficit

No abstract available