Longitudinal Risk Factors For Developing Depression in Parkinson’s Disease

Introduction

Although classified as a movement disorder, recent research has emphasized the challenges to patients and their caregivers that arise from the non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD)[1]. Depression is one such symptom, which is often found to have high comorbidity with PD and has been garnering recognition as one of the most debilitating symptoms to PD patients[2]. Estimates of depression’s prevalence in PD vary from 2.7% to 90%[3], however, meta-analyses have found prevalence across studies to be around 23%[4]. Comorbid depression in PD has been found to be associated with a faster cognitive decline and motor deterioration[5,6]. Additionally, depressive symptoms have been found to account for a large amount of the variance in quality of life scores among PD patients[2].

These findings underlie the importance of detecting depression early to enable clinicians to ameliorate any negative outcomes on patients and their caregivers, whether by initiating antidepressant therapy or offering additional support resources[7]. Previous research has found that younger age, earlier onset of symptoms, female gender, increasing severity of motor symptoms, autonomic symptoms, olfactory deficiency, and a history of psychiatric symptoms are associated with depression during the course of PD[8–11], however, these findings are not consistent across studies[7]. Cross-sectional analyses have also shown that poorer scores on measures of sleep quality and impairment in activities of daily living are also associated with depression[12,13]. However, there is still significant disagreement as to the clinical correlates of depression in PD, and research into risk factors that predict future onset of PD depression is limited[7].

We investigated these variables to test if they were associated with a baseline prevalence of depression using two longitudinal cohorts of Parkinson’s disease - the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study and the PD Biomarker Program (PDBP).Then we extended our findings to identify factors predicting the development of sustained depressive symptoms in initially non-depressed patients. The use of a Cox regression model to analyze the longitudinal trajectory of depression is rare and provides a unique opportunity to gain greater insight into the progression of PD.

Methods

Results

Detailed demographics and baseline clinical variables are described in Table 1. Notable differences included the percent of patients on various medications and duration of diagnosis, which is due to PPMI primarily recruiting de novo PD patients. Another notable difference was that the median follow-up for PPMI was longer than in PDBP (7 years vs 3 years).

Table 2 shows the results of our logistic regression analysis at baseline. In PPMI, the only risk factor for depression was pRBD. The recruitment approach of PPMI necessitated medication-naive patients, as such we were unable to assess antiparkinson medication’s association with depression at baseline. In PDBP, younger age, a greater duration of diagnosis, greater severity of motor symptoms, increased difficulty with daily activities, antidepressant use, and at least mild difficulties with constipation were all independently associated with depression.

Figure 1 and Supplemental Table 1 illustrate that depression became increasingly common with disease progression in both cohorts. Figure 1 shows that using any measure of depression, the majority of patients developed clinically significant depressive symptoms during the course of each study. Supplemental figure 1 illustrates this relationship using the additional UPDRSd measure of depression. Across all measures of depression, there was a significant positive association between time since baseline and scores on depression screening inventories (Supplemental Table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Kaplan-Meier curve showing the probability that an initially non-depressed patient will remain non-depressed, illustrating depression as a progressive symptom of PD.

The different appearance in the two Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves was likely due to baseline differences of disease durations, as when we shifted the KM curve in PPMI’s baseline to year 3 (the mean difference of disease duration), the two KM curves were similar. (Supplemental Figure 2).

Table 3 shows the results of cohort-level analysis results of the multivariable Cox models and a random-effects meta-analysis. In the Cox model, we adjusted for MoCA score and antidepressant status at each visit. There were three significant baseline predictors for the development of depression across the cohorts; pRBD, UPDRS part II score, and hyposmia. There was heterogeneity between cohorts with regard to constipation, but not with any of the other predictors.

Discussion

Given the widespread association of depression with a variety of clinical outcomes, the importance of identifying high-risk patients early on cannot be overstated. We analyzed longitudinal data from 874 participants and implemented a cox regression model which established that a patient’s degree of impairment in activities of daily living and the presence of a probable REM sleep disorder (pRBD) can both be used to predict the onset of depression in non-depressed patients. We also found that pRBD, age, diagnosis duration, impairment in daily activities, severity of motor symptoms, mild constipation, and antidepressant use are among the baseline risk factors for depression. Moreover, we identified heterogeneity in depression risk associated with constipation, indicating potential differences in depression between different stages of Parkinson’s. This emphasizes the need for screening instruments that can identify at-risk patients based on the constellation of their symptoms and clinical variables, as well as the stage of their disease. Our study represents only a first step in the creation of such instruments and further research into the predictive factors of depression in PD is required. It is worth emphasizing that we adjusted for MoCA score, thus accounting for any confounding effect that cognitive decline may have had on the onset of depression. We also included antidepressant status as a time-dependent covariate, which functions as the best available marker of a history of depression at baseline, as well as a marker of physician-diagnosed depression as the study progressed.

Among the covariates that were significant longitudinal predictors, UPDRS part II score is perhaps the most subjective measure of a patient’s symptoms. Rather than assessing any individual symptom, the UPDRS part II assesses a patient’s experience of living with Parkinson’s disease by focusing on their constellation of symptoms. Interestingly, UPDRS part III score was not related with future depression, even when we removed UPDRS part II score from the model. This may indicate that UPDRS part II’s predictive ability comes not from a quantification of motor symptom severity, but from the patient’s more subjective appraisal of their symptom severity. From a clinical perspective, it is also understandable that individuals who report a greater baseline difficulty with their daily activities will likely face mounting difficulties as their disease progresses. There is also a potential effect from recall bias, as an individual with a poorer perception of health status will likely report greater difficulty in their daily activities and be more likely to develop depressive symptoms. Prior research has also established that depression exerts an indirect effect on the quality of life via activities of daily living[26], offering another possible explanation for this finding. Self-report measures such as the UPDRS Part II are also subject to recall bias. Furthermore, the UPDRS part II score was only associated with depression at baseline in PDBP, but was associated with future depressive symptoms in both cohorts. Given PPMI’s status as a de novo cohort, this would indicate that impairment in activities of daily living is an especially important factor as Parkinson’s disease progresses.

The remaining longitudinal risk factors, pRBD, hyposmia and constipation, have been identified as symptoms that may precede the onset of Parkinson’s by several years. The potential mechanism for their status as prodromal symptoms is thought to be due to the olfactory bulb, vagus nerve, and brainstem as being induction sites for Lewy pathology before it begins moving into the substantia nigra and cortex[27]. Given these factors’ longitudinal association with depression, this may provide support for depression being a primary symptom related to the physiological progression of the disease, rather than a secondary symptom developing as a response to worsening symptoms. However, despite there being ample research on these symptoms before the onset of motor symptoms, less is known about how these symptoms can be used to understand the progression of Parkinson’s disease[10,11]. Previous studies have associated pRBDs with PD depression in a cross-sectional manner[28], however, methodological limitations prevent the isolation of this effect from the confounding effects of cognitive and functional deficits. Including measures of functional and cognitive status in our models allows us to draw more meaningful conclusions about the effects of pRBD. With regard to hyposmia, there are cross-sectional findings supporting a relationship between olfactory dysfunction and non-motor severity in both the prodromal and symptomatic phases of Parkinson’s [10], however our study extends these findings to establish hyposmia as a predictive factor specifically towards the future development of depression. Constipation was a significant predictor in both cohorts, however it was not significant in the meta-analysis, likely due to heterogeneity between cohorts. Given that the main sources of heterogeneity between the two cohorts were medication status and disease duration, it is likely that one of these factors is responsible for this heterogeneity. Thus, it is possible that constipation is a stronger predictor either earlier in the course of Parkinson’s disease or while the patient is naive to antiparkinson medication or a mixture of the two. Regardless, this finding may point to potential heterogeneity in predictive factors for depression in the early and late stages of Parkinson’s and underlies the need for further research into symptoms of autonomic dysfunction.

The PPMI and PDBP cohorts do represent different subsets of the population of individuals with Parkinson’s disease, so there is some limitation in our ability to harmonize data between the two. For example, there was a notably larger proportion of PPMI patients who had depression at baseline. This may indicate that people with PD are less likely to join a study later in their disease course if they are suffering from depression. There was also not a single baseline risk factor that was common between the two cohorts. Initially, we suspected this may be due to heterogeneity between the two cohorts. However, our meta-analysis found no evidence of heterogeneity between any covariates except for constipation, indicating that our risk factors are similarly associated with depression throughout the course of the disease. This does not exclude the possibility that certain factors exhibit stronger associations at different stages of the disease, but these findings ultimately provide only putative indications of there being variation between the early and late stages of PD. The possibility of there being variation in depression risk factors between the early and late stages of PD represents an interesting topic for further study, especially since it may provide some explanation as to the disagreement in prevalence and risk factors between studies. Additionally, there were several measures which differed between our two cohorts. The most significant was the difference in depression-specific scales; the GDSS was used in PPMI while the HDRS was used in PDBP. Prior studies have raised concerns about there only being a moderate correlation between the GDSS and HDRS[29], however other analyses of the two scales have found they both exhibit good sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of depression in PD[24]. The presence of pRBD was also assessed with different methods, however both have been found to have good sensitivity and specificity for screening purposes[30]. Our longitudinal analysis model was also limited in that it only accounts for the first onset of an event, thus we can’t identify which patients will remain depressed and how their risk factors may differ. We did attempt to mitigate this limitation by only preserving depression events that were sustained for at least a year and we did find that overall depressive symptoms did increase over time.

Our study also had several strengths which are worth considering. A strength of our baseline analysis relative to other studies was the adjustment for a variety of demographic and clinical variables. This is especially important when analyzing outcomes with multifaceted causes such as depression, as many of its risk factors are interrelated, and examining one in isolation often fails to paint a complete picture. The longitudinal model allows for a robust method of identifying associations with future depression. This is particularly important to identifying at-risk patients early in their disease so they can receive timely management of their symptoms. Despite differences in measurement and populations between the two cohorts, we still had significant results without heterogeneity, pointing to the generalizability of our findings.