We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Parkinson's disease (PD) patients frequently report a family history of PD and this may provide etiological clues to PD. It has also been suggested that a report of a negative family history is reliable. We studied the prevalence of PD in relatives of PD patients to assess the reliability of family history and to evaluate possible explanations of “familial PD”(fPD).
Methods:
81 of 650 (12.5%) PD probands (all PD patients seen at clinic in 4 years) reported a positive family history of PD. Each fPD proband was matched with non-familial PD (nfPD) proband by gender and year of birth. Screening and follow-up questionnaires were mailed to relatives to obtain information concerning pedigree and presence of neurodegenerative disease. Available family members (regardless of disease status) were examined.
Results:
On examination, 8 persons, said to be “normal” by probands, relatives and themselves, had definite or possible PD (5 fPD, 3 nfPD). The prevalence rate of PD among first and second degree living relatives of probands varied significantly between fPD and nfPD groups (6269/100 000 versus 1190/100 000; p < 0.001). The weighted prevalence (taking into account the proportions of fPD and nfPD within the clinic) was 1822/100 000, a value more than 5 times higher than reported prevalence rates of PD in the general population (p < 0.001). The prevalence rate was greater in first degree relatives than second degree.
Conclusions:
“Familial parkinsonism” cannot be explained merely by size of or advanced age within families. Significant numbers of previously unrecognized PD patients may be identified despite a “negative” family history. That is, the patient's report of an absence of familial parkinsonism is frequently inaccurate. The prevalence rate in relatives of PD patients appears to be higher than the general population – regardless of the family history reported by a PD patient. We believe our study suggests that genetic influences or early life environmental exposures are likely to be of etiological importance in PD.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.