Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:44:36.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Descriptive Epidemiology of Parkinson’s Disease through Proxy Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Daniel Strickland ,
John M. Bertoni  and
Ronald F. Pfeiffer
Daniel Strickland*
Affiliation:
Department of Preventive and Societal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha
John M. Bertoni
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Creighton University College of Medicine, Omaha
Ronald F. Pfeiffer
Affiliation:
Section of Neurology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Neurology, University of Tennessee, Memphis
*
Epidemiology Section, Department of Preventive and Societal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 600S., 42nd Street, Omaha, Nebraska USA 68198-4350
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background and Objective: In preparation for analytic study we undertook to describe areas of relative excess and deficit of Parkinson’s Disease (PD) in Nebraska and tested two methodologic tools for inexpensive assessment of descriptive epidemiology of PD. Methods: In lieu of large-scale population screening and diagnosis, we obtained sales information of anti-PD drugs in the state in 1988 – 1990 as well as listings of all people dying from 1984 to 1993 who had Parkinson’s Disease mentioned anywhere on their death certificate. The anti-PD drug sales data are intended as a proxy for prevalence, while the death certificate data are intended as a proxy for incidence. Results: Sales divided by population over age 54 indicates where anti-PD drug sales differ from expected. We found high correlation of drug sales rates with several farming exposures. Age-adjusted death rates, however, showed a low degree of association with sales or farming variables. This may be attributable to differences in death certificate completion or in underlying incidence versus prevalence. Conclusions: These techniques provide a useful tool for delineating possible differences in incidence and prevalence. While not as accurate as full community survey with expert diagnosis, they are not as expensive, and can be followed by local cluster investigations and individual-level etiologic studies to test hypotheses resulting from the initial study.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 1996 , pp. 279 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1996

References

1.Snow, B, Wiens, M, Hertzman, C, Caine, D.A community survey of Parkinson’s disease. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 141: 418–422.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Anderson, DW, Schoenberg, BS, Haerer, AF.Prevalence surveys of neurologic disorders: methodologic implications of the Copiah county study. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 339–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Mayeux, R, Denaro, J, Hemenegildo, N, et al. A population-based investigation of Parkinson’s disease with and without dementia. Arch Neurol 1992; 49: 494–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Sethi, K, Meador, KJ, Loring, D, Meador, MP.Neuroepidemiology of Parkinson’s disease: analysis of mortality data for the U.S.A. and Georgia. Intern J Neuroscience 1989; 46: 87–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.de Pedro-Cuesta, J, Stawirz, L.Parkinson’s disease incidence: magnitude, comparability, time trends. Acta Neurol Scand 1991; 84: 382–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.de Pedro-Cuesta, J.Parkinson’s disease occurrence in Europe. Acta Neurol Scand 1991; 84: 357–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Caradoc-Davies, TH, Weatherall, M, Dixon, GS, Caradoc-Davies, G, Hantz, P.Is the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease in New Zealand really changing? Acta Neurol Scand 1992; 86: 40–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Svenson, LW, Piatt, GH, Woodhead, SE.Geographic variations in the prevalence rates of Parkinson’s disease in Alberta. Can J Neurol Sci 1993; 20: 307–311.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Langston, JW, Ballaro, P, Tetrud, JW.Chronic Parkinsonism in humans due to a product of mepridine-analog synthesis. Science 1983; 219: 979–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Langston, JW, Irwin, I.MPTP: current concepts and controversies. Clin Neuropharmacol 1986; 9: 485–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Barbeau, A, Roy, M, Cloutier, T, Plasse, L, Paris, S.Environmental and genetic factors in the etiology of Parkinson’s Disease. Adv Neurol 1986; 45: 299–306.Google Scholar
12.Barbeau, A, Roy, M, Bernier, G, Campanella, G, Paris, S.Ecogenetics of Parkinson’s Disease: prevalence and environmental aspects in rural areas. Can J Neurol Sci 1987; 14: 36–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Zayed, J, Ducic, S, Campanella, G, et al. Facteurs environnementaux dans l’étiologie de la maladie de Parkinson. Can J Neurol Sci 1990; 17: 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Rajput, AH, Uitti, RJ, Stern, W, Laverty, W.Early onset Parkinson’s disease and childhood environment. Adv Neurol 1986; 45: 295–297.Google Scholar
15.Rajput, AH, Uitti, RJ, Stern, W, et al. Geography, drinking water chemistry, pesticides and herbicides and the etiology of Parkinson’s Disease. Can J Neurol Sci 1987; 14: 414–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Koller, W, Vetere-Overfield, B, Gray, C, et al. Environmental risk factors in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1990; 40: 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Stern, M, et al. The epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study of young-onset and old-onset patients. Arch Neurol 1991; 48: 903–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Semchuk, KM, Love, EJ, Lee, RG.Parkinson’s disease and exposure to rural environmental factors: a population based case-control study. Can J Neurol Sci 1991; 18: 279–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Semchuk, KM, Love, EJ, Lee, RG.Parkinson’s disease and exposure to agricultural work and pesticide chemicals. Neurology 1992; 42: 1328–1335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Semchuk, KM, Love, EJ, Lee, RG.Parkinson’s disease: a test of the multifactorial etiologic hypothesis. Neurology 1993; 43: 1173–1180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Butterfield, PG, Valanis, BG, Spencer, PS, Lindeman, CA, Nutt, JG.Environmental antecedents of young-onset Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1993; 43: 1150–1158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Hubble, JP, Cao, T, Hassanein, RES, Neuberger, JS, Koller, WC.Risk factors for Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1993; 43: 1693–1697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Hertzman, C, Wiens, M, Snow, B, Kelly, S, Caine, D.A case-control study of Parkinson’s Disease in a horticultural region of British Columbia. Mov Disord 1994; 9: 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Census of agriculture (1987). Geographic area series, vol 1 part 27 (Nebraska). Bureau of the Census. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, June 1989.Google Scholar
25.U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of population: 1990, vol 1, Characteristics of the population. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1992.Google Scholar
26.Spalding, RF.Assessment of statewide groundwater quality data from domestic wells in rural Nebraska. Nebraska Dept of Health internal report 1991.Google Scholar
27.Tanner, CM, Chen, B, Wang, W, et al. Environmental factors and Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study in China. Neurology 1989; 39: 660–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Ho, SC, Woo, J, Lee, CM.Epidemiologic study of Parkinson’s disease in Hong Kong. Neurology 1989; 39: 1314–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.de Pedro-Cuesta, J, Petersen, IJ, Vassilopoulos, D, Micheli, F, Garcia-Inesta, A.Epidemiologic assessment of levodopa use by populations. Acta Neurol Scand 1991; 83: 328–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed