Background: Currently available treatment options for Parkinson's disease are symptomatic and do not alter the course of the disease. Recent studies have raised the possibility that cardiovascular risk management may slow the progression of the disease. Objectives: We estimated the effect of baseline cardiovascular risk factors on the progression of Parkinson's disease, using measures for PD-specific motor signs and cognitive functions. Methods: We used data from 424 de novo Parkinson's disease patients and 199 age-matched controls from the observational, multicenter Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study, which included follow-up of up to 9 years. The primary outcome was the severity of PD-specific motor signs, assessed with the MDS-UPDRS part III in the “OFF”-state. The secondary outcome was cognitive function, measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, and Letter-Number Sequencing task. Exposures of interest were diabetes mellitus, hypertension, body mass index, cardiovascular event history and hypercholesterolemia, and a modified Framingham risk score, measured at baseline. The effect of each of these exposures on disease progression was modeled using linear mixed models, including adjustment for identified confounders. A secondary analysis on the Tracking Parkinson's cohort including 1,841 patients was performed to validate our findings in an independent patient cohort. Results: Mean age was 61.4 years, and the average follow-up was 5.5 years. We found no statistically significant effect of any individual cardiovascular risk factor on the MDS-UPDRS part III progression (all 95% confidence intervals (CIs) included zero), with one exception: in the PD group, the estimated effect of a one-point increase in body mass index was 0.059 points on the MDS-UPDRS part III per year (95% CI: 0.017 to 0.102). We found no evidence for an effect of any of the exposures on the rate of change in cognitive functioning in the PD group. Similar results were observed for the Tracking Parkinson's cohort (all 95% CIs overlapped with PPMI), but the 95% CI of the effect of body mass index on the MDS-UPDRS part III progression included zero. Conclusions: Based on this analysis of two large cohorts of de novo PD patients, we found no evidence to support clinically relevant effects of cardiovascular risk factors on the clinical progression of Parkinson's disease.

Background: Both patients and physicians may choose to delay initiation of dopamine replacement therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) for various reasons. We used observational data to estimate the effect of earlier treatment in PD. Observational data offer a valuable source of evidence, complementary to controlled trials. Method: We studied the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative cohort of patients with de novo PD to estimate the effects of duration of PD treatment during the first 2 years of follow-up, exploiting natural interindividual variation in the time to start first treatment. We estimated the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III (primary outcome) and several functionally relevant outcomes at 2, 3, and 4 years after baseline. To adjust for time-varying confounding, we used marginal structural models with inverse probability of treatment weighting and the parametric g-formula. Results: We included 302 patients from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative cohort. There was a small improvement in MDS-UPDRS Part III scores after 2 years of follow-up for patients who started treatment earlier, and similar, but nonstatistically significant, differences in subsequent years. We found no statistically significant differences in most secondary outcomes, including the presence of motor fluctuations, nonmotor symptoms, MDS-UPDRS Part II scores, and the Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale. Conclusion: Earlier treatment initiation does not lead to worse MDS-UPDRS motor scores and may offer small improvements. These findings, based on observational data, are in line with earlier findings from clinical trials. Observational data, when combined with appropriate causal methods, are a valuable source of additional evidence to support real-world clinical decisions.