Abstract
Apathy is thought to be an important clinical feature of Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, its prevalence ranges greatly across studies because of differing definitions, assessment tools, and patient inclusion criteria. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the presentation of apathy in PD is related to mood disorder and/or cognitive impairment. This study sought to examine the prevalence of a pure apathy syndrome in PD, distinct from both depression and anxiety, and reveal its associated cognitive profile. A retrospective study was performed on 177 PD patients who had completed measures of apathy [Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES)] and mood functioning [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)] and had undergone extensive neuropsychological assessment, using measures of intellectual functioning, memory, executive function, attention, language, visual processing, and cognitive speed; 14.7% of the sample indicated clinically significant levels of apathy, but this nearly always co-presented with depression and/or anxiety, with cases of “pure” apathy very rare (2.8%). On extensive cognitive assessment, patients with mood disorder performed worse on a measure of non-verbal intellectual functioning, but patients with additional apathy or apathy only demonstrated no further losses. The syndrome of apathy in PD greatly overlaps with that of depression and anxiety, suggesting that apathy in PD may be in large an epiphenomenon of mood disorder, with no specific neuropsychological features.
Highlights
Apathy is thought to be a non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s disease (PD)
The first aim of this study was to reveal the prevalence of apathy in PD
Initial assessment of self-rated apathy in our sample of 177 patients revealed a prevalence rate of 14.7%. This rate is at the lower end of previous estimates
Summary
Apathy is thought to be a non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s disease (PD) It severely affects daily function (Isella et al, 2002; Pedersen et al, 2010; Leroi et al, 2012) and quality of life (Benito-León et al, 2012) and is a harbinger of dementia (Dujardin et al, 2009). Prevalence rates remain greatly debated, with figures ranging from 12% to 70% across different studies and even differing significantly across two extant meta-analyses (den Brok et al, 2015; Mele et al, 2019) This variation is caused by several important factors, including differing conceptualisations, assessment tools, and patient inclusion criteria
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.