Using data from the PRIAMO study, we investigated non-motor symptoms (NMS) versus frontal lobe dysfunction in patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD); 808 patients with PD and 118 with atypical parkinsonisms (AP) were consecutively enrolled at 55 Centers in Italy. Twelve categories of NMS were investigated. Cognitive impairment was defined as a Mini-Mental Status Evaluation score ≤ 23.8 and frontal lobe dysfunction as a Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) score ≤ 3.48. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictor of frontal lobe dysfunction in 524 PD patients, and a generalized linear model was used for each of the six FAB items. Not only the total FAB scores but also the single FAB items were lower in AP versus PD (p ≤ 0.005). Age (OR = 1.05), cognitive impairment (OR = 9.54), lack of cardiovascular symptoms (OR = 3.25), attention or memory problems (OR = 0.59) and treatment with L: -DOPA (OR = 5.58) were predictors of frontal lobe dysfunction. MMSE was negatively associated with all FAB items (β ≤ -0.16) and age with all FAB items but prehension behavior (β ≤ -0.01). Previous use of L: -DOPA was negatively associated with verbal fluency (β = -0.32) possibly acting as surrogate marker of disease duration. Cognitive impairment is a predictor of frontal lobe dysfunction. Among NMS, lack of attention or memory problems were negatively associated with frontal impairment. Further studies are nonetheless needed to better identify the predictors of frontal impairment in PD patients.

Frontal assessment battery scores and non-motor symptoms in parkinsonian disorders.

LOPIANO, Leonardo
2012-01-01

Abstract

Using data from the PRIAMO study, we investigated non-motor symptoms (NMS) versus frontal lobe dysfunction in patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD); 808 patients with PD and 118 with atypical parkinsonisms (AP) were consecutively enrolled at 55 Centers in Italy. Twelve categories of NMS were investigated. Cognitive impairment was defined as a Mini-Mental Status Evaluation score ≤ 23.8 and frontal lobe dysfunction as a Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) score ≤ 3.48. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictor of frontal lobe dysfunction in 524 PD patients, and a generalized linear model was used for each of the six FAB items. Not only the total FAB scores but also the single FAB items were lower in AP versus PD (p ≤ 0.005). Age (OR = 1.05), cognitive impairment (OR = 9.54), lack of cardiovascular symptoms (OR = 3.25), attention or memory problems (OR = 0.59) and treatment with L: -DOPA (OR = 5.58) were predictors of frontal lobe dysfunction. MMSE was negatively associated with all FAB items (β ≤ -0.16) and age with all FAB items but prehension behavior (β ≤ -0.01). Previous use of L: -DOPA was negatively associated with verbal fluency (β = -0.32) possibly acting as surrogate marker of disease duration. Cognitive impairment is a predictor of frontal lobe dysfunction. Among NMS, lack of attention or memory problems were negatively associated with frontal impairment. Further studies are nonetheless needed to better identify the predictors of frontal impairment in PD patients.
2012
33
585
593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10072-011-0807-x
R. Marconi;A. Antonini;P. Barone;C. Colosimo;T. P. Avarello;E. Bottacchi;A. Cannas;M. G. Ceravolo;R. Ceravolo;G. Cicarelli;R. M. Gaglio;L. Giglia;F. Iemolo;M. Manfredi;G. Meco;A. Nicoletti;M. Pederzoli;A. Petrone;A. Pisani;F. E. Pontieri;R. Quatrale;S. Ramat;R. Scala;G. Volpe;S. Zappulla;A. R. Bentivoglio;F. Stocchi;G. Trianni;P. D. Dotto;D. D. Gaspari;L. Grasso;F. Morgante;G. Santangelo;G. Fabbrini;L. Morgante;P. R. I.; L. Lopiano (Collaborator)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Frontal.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 246.75 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
246.75 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/115393
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact