Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Aug 4;15(8):e0236728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236728

The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms before the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in a nationwide cohort: A comparison to patients with cerebral infarction

Szabolcs Szatmári Jr 1,2,3, András Ajtay 2,3, Ferenc Oberfrank 4, Balázs Dobi 3,5, Dániel Bereczki 2,3,*
Editor: Kenji Hashimoto6
PMCID: PMC7402492  PMID: 32750069

Abstract

Objectives

Psychiatric symptoms (PS) can be non-motor features in Parkinson’s disease (PD) which are common even in the prodromal, untreated phase of the disease. Some PS, especially depression and anxiety recently became known predictive markers for PD. Our objective was to explore retrospectively the prevalence of PS before the diagnosis of PD.

Methods

In the framework of the Hungarian Brain Research Program we created a database from medical and medication reports submitted for reimbursement purposes to the National Health Insurance Fund in Hungary, a country with 10 million inhabitants and a single payer health insurance system. We used record linkage to evaluate the prevalence of PS before the diagnosis of PD and compared that with patients with ischemic cerebrovascular lesion (ICL) in the period between 2004–2016 using ICD-10 codes of G20 for PD, I63-64 for ICL and F00-F99 for PS. We included only those patients who got their PD, ICL and psychiatric diagnosis at least twice.

Results

There were 79 795 patients with PD and 676 874 patients with ICL. Of the PD patients 16% whereas of those with ischemic cerebrovascular lesion 9.7% had a psychiatric diagnosis before the first appearance of PD or ICL (p<0.001) established in psychiatric care at least twice. The higher rate of PS in PD compared to ICL remained significant after controlling for age and gender in logistic regression analysis. The difference between PD and ICL was significant for Mood disorders (F30-F39), Organic, including symptomatic, mental disorders (F00-F09), Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (F40-F48) and Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20-F29) diagnosis categories (p<0.001, for all).

Discussion

The higher rate of psychiatric morbidity in the premotor phase of PD may reflect neurotransmitter changes in the early phase of PD.

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a gradual-onset multisystem neurodegenerative disorder, currently clinically defined by a set of classical motor signs. However, converging evidence from neuropathological, clinical, and imaging research suggests a definable prodromal phase where detectable non-motor features are major components [13]. Psychiatric symptoms (PS) are some of the non-motor features which are common even in the prodromal, untreated phase of PD, may precede motor symptoms and have a major impact on the course of the disease, quality of life and caregivers [4, 5]. Some PS, especially depression and anxiety recently became known predictive markers for PD with several prospective studies reporting diagnostic value [3]. To explore PS that are related to PD itself it is necessary to study the prodromal phase and untreated patients as antiparkinsonian drugs have the potential to influence cognition, affective, psychotic and impulsivity symptoms. We recently reviewed the literature on PS addressing the early, untreated stages of PD, with a focus on the premotor and early motor phases separately and found that the prevalence of PS is high even in the premotor/prodromal phase [6]. The onset and characteristics of PS in drug naïve patients before the diagnosis of PD are still not well studied, further examination of patients in the premotor, untreated phase is needed to better understand PS which are linked to the disease pathology itself. Recently, we demonstrated that incidence and prevalence rates of PD are considerably higher than previous reports in Hungary and the healthcare administrative database of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), using the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10), with proper case identification and certification methodology is appropriate to evaluate epidemiological features of PD in Hungary [7]. Therefore, using this database with a massive sample size our objective was to explore retrospectively the prevalence of PS before the diagnosis of PD in the Hungarian population.

Materials and methods

We identified PD patients with PS using the database of the NHIF which includes data from specialist outpatient and specialist inpatient services of all hospitals covering the whole population of Hungary. The NHIF does not include data from general practitioners. Encrypted identifiers were used as the original patient identifier codes were anonymized. The database contains information of PD patients covering a 13-year period between 2004 and 2016. Case ascertainment and patient selection are described in detail in a previous paper [7]. First, patients who used either the inpatient or the outpatient specialist health care service at least once during this period and had a primary or secondary diagnosis of PD (ICD-10, G20) were identified. We considered those patients to have PD who appeared at least in two calendar years with G20 code in the database during the 13-year period regardless of the diagnosis type (i.e., primary/admitting diagnosis or secondary diagnosis). This is the PD patient group that was further analyzed. Third, the range and prevalence of all mental and behavioral disorders (ICD-10, codes F00-F99) were analyzed in the period before the first appearance of PD in the database. For more conservative case ascertainment the F00-F99 diagnoses had to be established at least twice in an outpatient or inpatient psychiatric care service. For the control group we chose all patients with ischemic cerebrovascular lesion (ICL) diagnoses (ICD-10, codes I63 or I64) assigned at least twice between 2004 and 2016. In this group, patients with PD or parkinsonism (ICD-10, codes G20-26) with any diagnosis type (primary/secondary) were not included. In both groups (PD and ICL) patients below 40 and above 100 years of age (age in the year of the first PD or ICL diagnosis) were excluded as well as patients who refilled any antiparkinsonian drug (APD) before their first PD or ICL diagnosis. Pharmacological data is available only from 2010, therefore our analysis could evaluate prescriptions of APDs refilled at pharmacies only from 2010 onwards and had no access to data on inpatient medication use in hospitals.

Personal data protection regulations were followed, the Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary approved the study (Approval No: SE TUKEB 88/2015).

Data extraction and results of individual searches in the database were exported to excel files. This was performed by a research assistant IT specialist, with several years of experience in reviewing medical records of patients with neurological conditions. The data from excel files were first analyzed by basic descriptive statistical methods. For associations between the PD and ICL group we used chi-squared test, logistic regression and mixed effects logistic regression analysis. The goodness of fit testing of the traditional logistic regression models was considered using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test but was eventually not used due to the large sample size, which resulted in significant test outcomes even when there was only a minor deviation. R version 3.6.2 was used for data analysis with packages lme4 and Resource selection.

Results

The number of patients between 2004–2016 with at least one PD diagnosis (G20) in the specialist healthcare service (outpatient and inpatient) was 130 773. Fulfillment of the minimum 2-year PD diagnosis criteria was present in 79 795 patients, this was the cohort for further analysis. The mean ± SD age of this group was 73 ± 9 years, 48% were male. Of the 79 795, 59 403 patients had at least one mental and behavioral disorder (F00-F99) anytime during the examined 13 year period. The number of patients who had their F00-F99 diagnosis before the first PD diagnosis was 26 645. Out of the 26 645 patients 13 092 had their F00-F99 diagnosis in specialized psychiatric care (outpatient/inpatient) established at least twice.

The control group between 2004 and 2016 with at least one ICL diagnosis (I63 or I64) and without PD diagnosis consisted of 783 843 patients. Of those 676 874 got their ICL diagnosis at least twice. The mean ± SD age of this group was 69 ± 12 years, 46% were male. 330 170 patients with ICL had at least one F00-F99 diagnosis during the studied 13 years. Of those, 160 501 had their psychiatric diagnosis before the diagnosis of ICL, and out of the 160 501 patients 66 164 had their F00-F99 diagnosis established in psychiatric care at least twice. Fig 1 shows the algorithm used for cohort definition.

Fig 1. Flow chart of patients’ selection.

Fig 1

*APD-antiparkinsonian drug.

To evaluate the overall presence of psychiatric morbidity, in addition to the number of patients we also analyzed the total number of reported F00-F99 diagnoses, noting, that an individual patient may have several diagnoses in the F00-F99 categories. The numbers of all F00-99 diagnoses before the initial PD and ICL diagnosis were 63 360 vs. 340 280, and of those established in psychiatric care were 25 674 vs. 123 746 for PD and ICL, respectively. Table 1 shows the number of patients and their mean age at the first diagnosis. Table 2 presents the number of diagnoses that were established in psychiatric care at least twice, their proportion in all 79 795 PD and all 676 874 ICL patients and the effect of age and gender. Table 3 presents the age of patient subgroups by F-categories.

Table 1. Age of the patient subgroups.

Patient subgroup PD (n) Mean age (±SD) at initial appearance of G20 ICL (n) Mean age (±SD) at initial appearance of I63-I64
All patients 79 795 73.2 ± 9.0 676 874 69 ± 12
Patients with F00-99 dg. 59 403 72.9 ± 9.2 330 170 67.7 ± 12.1
Patients with F00-99 dg. before PD/ICL dg. 26 645 72.1 ± 9.5 160 501 66.4 ± 12.2
Patients with F00-99 dg. established in psychiatric care before PD/ICL dg. 13 092 71.3 ± 10 66 164 65.1 ± 12.3

Table 2. Number of F00-F99 diagnoses which were established in psychiatric care before PD and ICL diagnoses between 2004–2016 in the ICD-10 subgroups and the effect of the presence of PD vs. ICL, age and gender on F00-99 diagnoses.

ICD code F diagnostic subgroup Number of F diagnoses before G20, established in psychiatric care (number of patients) Diagnoses established in psychiatric care relative to all PD patients (n = 79 795) Number of F diagnoses before I63/64 established in psychiatric care (number of patients) Diagnoses established in psychiatric care relative to all ICL patients (n = 676 874) PD relative to ICL Age Gender (female)
Odds ratio (95% C.I.) p-value Odds ratio (95% C.I.) p-value Odds ratio (95% C.I.) p-value
F00-F09 Organic, including symptomatic, mental disorders 7361 (5594) 9% 24 656 (19 961) 3% 1.469 (1.425–1.514) <0.001 1.033 (1.032–1.034) <0.001 1.202 (1.172–1.233) <0.001
F10-F19 Mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use 584 (569) 1% 6768 (6620) 1% 0.665 (0.610–0.724) <0.001 0.950 (0.948–0.952) <0.001 0.275 (0.261–0.290) <0.001
F20-F29 Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders 2914 (2387) 4% 6981 (5744) 1% 2.390 (2.273–2.514) <0.001 0.986 (0.985–0.988) <0.001 1.563 (1.492–1.638) <0.001
F30-F39 Mood (affective) disorders 7574 (5982) 9% 40 684 (32 167) 5% 1.281 (1.247–1.317) <0.001 0.967 (0.966–0.968) <0.001 2.121 (2.076–2.168) <0.001
F40-F48 Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders 5897 (5170) 7% 36 511 (31 405) 5% 1.127 (1.095–1.161) <0.001 0.964 (0.963–0.964) <0.001 2.091 (2.045–2.137) <0.001
F50-F59 Behavioral syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors 461 (460) 1% 2227 (2220) 0% 1.381 (1.247–1.530) <0.001 0.969 (0.966–0.972) <0.001 2.125 (1.950–2.314) <0.001
F60-F69 Disorders of adult personality and behavior 557 (536) 1% 4262 (4104) 1% 1.188 (1.085–1.301) <0.001 0.927 (0.924–0.929) <0.001 1.409 (1.329–1.495) <0.001
F70-F79 Mental retardation 268 (229) 0% 1379 (1250) 0% 1.684 (1.456–1.947) <0.001 0.924 (0.920–0.929) <0.001 1.004 (0.906–1.113) 0.935
F80-F89 Disorders of psychological development 0 (0) 0% 6 (6) 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA
F90-F98 Behavioral and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence 58 (58) 0% 269 (268) 0% 1.203 (0.903–1.602) 0.207 1.002 (0.993–1.011) 0.643 2.221 (1.723–2.862) <0.001
F99 Unspecified mental disorder 0 (0) 0% 3 (3) 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA
All F-ICD type in all PD (79 795) and ICL (676 874) patients 25 674 (13 092) 32% 123 746 (66 164) 18% 1.358 (1.338–1.378) <0.001 0.976 (0.976–0.977) <0.001 1.736 (1.706–1.767) <0.001

*: An individual patient may appear repeatedly in an F subgroup and also in several F subgroups if that patient had been assigned multiple F codes.

Table 3. Age of patients for F00-99 diagnosis categories between 2004–2016 for those where F diagnoses were assigned at least twice by psychiatric care facilities.

ICD code Title Mean age at F00-99 dg. in PD (±SD) N* Mean age (±SD) at initial appearance of G20 Mean age at F00-99 dg. in ICL (±SD) N* Mean age (±SD) at initial appearance of I63-I64
F00-09 Organic, including symptomatic, mental disorders 72.7 ± 9 7096 74.8 ± 8.7 69.9 ± 12.5 24 656 72.3 ± 12.1
F10-19 Mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use 62 ± 9.7 584 65.6 ± 9.2 55.1 ± 9.7 6768 59.5 ± 9.3
F20-29 Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders 65.4 ± 11.3 2914 68.2 ± 10.8 62.1 ± 13.2 6981 66 ± 12.5
F30-39 Mood (affective) disorders 66.1 ± 10.4 7574 69.5 ± 10 58.5 ± 11.4 40 684 62.7 ± 11.3
F40-48 Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders 65.9 ± 10.6 5897 69.3 ± 10.2 58 ± 11.7 36 511 62.2 ± 11.5
F50-59 Behavioral syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors 66.4 ± 10.3 461 69.1 ± 10 59.6 ± 11.4 2227 63 ± 11.3
F60-69 Disorders of adult personality and behavior 60.6 ± 10.2 557 64.5 ± 9.9 52.4 ± 9.1 4262 56.7 ± 9.2
F70-79 Mental retardation 54.1 ± 10.4 268 58 ± 10.2 52 ± 9.8 1379 56 ± 9.4
F80-89 Disorders of psychological development no data 0 no data 49 ± 4.9 6 51.8 ± 4.3
F90-98 Behavioral and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence 70.8 ± 11 58 73.3 ± 10.4 64.7 ± 14.1 269 68 ± 13.2
F99 Unspecified mental disorder no data 0 no data 49.6 ± 5.5 3 56 ± 2

*: An individual patient may appear repeatedly in an F subgroup and also in several F subgroups if that patient had been assigned multiple F codes.

Of the PD patients 16% whereas of those with ICL 9.7% had a psychiatric diagnosis before the first appearance of PD or ICL (p<0.001). The higher rate of PS in PD compared to ICL remained significant after controlling for age and gender in logistic regression analysis (p<0.01 for age, gender and diagnosis type). We found that females had greater odds compared to males, and older patients had lowers odds of preceding psychiatric diagnoses. In the PD group where psychiatric diagnosis appeared before PD diagnosis, in descending order Mood disorders (F30-F39: 9%), Organic, including symptomatic, mental disorders (F00-F09: 9%), Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (F40-F48: 7%) and Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20-F29: 4%) were the most common diagnosis categories, compared with only 6% (p<0.001), 4% (p<0.001), 5% (p<0.001) and 1% (p<0.001) in the ICL group in the same categories.

The number of psychiatric diagnoses in total and for the sub-diagnoses were also analyzed using traditional logistic and mixed effects logistic regression analysis. The traditional models were used simply on the psychiatric diagnoses as an outcome variable while the mixed effects model also took into account that several diagnoses may belong to the same patient. Analyses were conducted with and without controlling for the effect of age and gender.

Without controlling and with considering all types of psychiatric diagnoses together we found that the odds of receiving a psychiatric diagnosis before a PD/ICL diagnosis is significantly greater for the PD group (p<0.001). This was true in both types of logistic regression models. The effect of PD diagnosis in the different psychiatric diagnosis subgroups was varying.

When we adjusted for age and gender the results were much more consistent: the odds of preceding any (OR: 1.429 [95% C.I: 1.395–1.464]), or F00-F09, F20-F29, F30-F39, F40-F48, F50-F59, F60-F69 or F70-F79 diagnoses were significantly greater for the PD group of patients in both types of logistic regression models (p<0.001 for all comparisons). The only exception was F10-F19 (mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use), where the ICL group had greater odds of preceding psychiatric diagnosis. Logistic regression could not be conducted for the sub-diagnoses of F80-89 and F99 due to lack of relevant diagnoses. The adjusted model for the diagnoses F90-98 also had a relatively low amount of diagnoses to work with, and while the regressions could be conducted, they did not produce any significant effect for the PD/ICL groups. The multiple testing might warrant for correction, however the tests were not directly comparable (as they used different sub-diagnoses i.e. different outcome variables) and the p-values were so low that the effects would remain significant even after correction, thus our overall conclusions would not change. Summing up the effect of gender and age, generally we found that females had greater odds compared to males, and older patients had lowers odds of preceding psychiatric diagnoses. The results of the mixed effects multiple logistic regression models are shown in Table 2. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis where we only kept the data of such psychiatric diagnoses where medication information was also available. The results of the controlled mixed effects logistic regression models were very close to the original ones. However, due to the severely decreased number of patients in the sensitivity analysis the effect of PD/ICL diagnosis lost its significance on the preceding F10-19, F50-59, F60-69, F70-79 sub-diagnoses.

Fig 2A presents the distribution of F00-F99 diagnoses in proportion of all PD (79 795) and ICL (676 874) patients, and Fig 2B shows the distribution of diagnoses which were established in specialized psychiatric care. In both figures an individual patient may have appeared repeatedly in an F subgroup and also in several F subgroups if that patient had been assigned multiple F codes. The average time when psychiatric diagnoses appeared before PD diagnosis was 3.1 years in the PD group and 4 years in ICL.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(A) Distribution of F00-F99 diagnoses in proportion of all patients with PD and ICL. (B) Distribution of F00-F99 diagnoses established in psychiatric care at least twice, in proportion of all patients with PD and ICL. *: an individual patient may appear repeatedly in an F subgroup and also in several F subgroups if that patient had been assigned multiple F codes.

Discussion

By analyzing the large healthcare administrative database of the NHIF our aim was to estimate the prevalence of mental and behavioral disorders before the diagnosis of PD. Our primary findings were that several psychiatric diseases (especially mood disorders, cognitive impairment, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia) were more common in PD patients before PD diagnosis compared to our control group, patients with ICL. If we consider only those diagnoses that were established by psychiatric care, the numbers are still significantly higher in PD than in the control group. Our results are in line with previous findings and support the notion that a range of PS are already present at the diagnosis of PD, and these symptoms are more common in PD patients than in people without PD [4, 8]. Henceforth, we will discuss below only the most common PS that we have found.

Our data indicate that from the Organic, including symptomatic, mental disorders group (F00-09) category the diagnosis rate in PD patients was 9%, most of which were different types of dementias, showing evidence of cognitive dysfunction. In comparison, only 4% of those with ICL had diagnoses from the F00-09 group. It was previously demonstrated that the prevalence of cognitive impairment is high even in newly diagnosed PD patients, it is associated with extensive atrophy and greater percentage of cortical thinning, older age at disease onset is an important determinant of cognitive dysfunction [911] and up to 80% of all PD patients will eventually develop dementia [12]. Our results support these findings because in our PD sample the average age in the year of the appearance of the first PD diagnosis in our database was relatively high, 73 years. Although we do not have information on detailed neuropsychological results, we assume that the presence of the large number of dementia diagnoses may be due to the relatively older age of the patients. PD typically occurs in people over the age of 60 [13]. It has to be acknowledged that the mean age at the first appearance of G20 diagnosis in our dataset was at the higher end of those in the literature. However, in a French study which assessed PD with a similar methodology, using the national healthcare insurance database, incidence rates were the highest starting from the 74 age group [14]. Additionally, a study conducted in Germany, which examined prevalence and incidence based also on health claims data, the mean age of PD onset was 77 years [15]. A systematic review of incidence studies of PD found that PD incidence rises steadily with age to a peak occurring between the ages of 70 to 79 [16]. The differences in large health claim data analyzes can be explained by different validation strategies and in our case by the fact that we only considered those with first appearance of G20 from a defined time point, i.e. starting from 2004. Therefore it is obvious that there are many cases that had been diagnosed with PD earlier than the database was initiated, and the first appearance of these patients in the database appears long after their first clinical diagnosis of PD.

We found significant difference also in the Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20–F29) category, where schizophrenia diagnosis (F20) was the most common. In the PD group there was a more than twofold higher prevalence (4%) compared to the control group (1%). A study based on similar methods as ours, analyzing ICD codes retrospectively in a large health insurance database investigated the effects of psychiatric diseases on subsequent PD diagnosis in an Asian population and found that having a specific psychiatric disease was independently associated with a nearly 2.3-fold increased risk of receiving a PD diagnosis within the 6-year follow-up period, patients with schizophrenia exhibiting the highest risk of a later PD diagnosis [17]. Our results support this result, however the exact association between schizophrenia and PD remains to be elucidated, because there are still just a few studies with inconclusive data which examined the connection between the two diseases. The role of dopamine and dopaminergic pathways that play crucial role in both PD and schizophrenia is well-known [18]. Current data assume that negative and cognitive symptoms in schizophrenia anticipate the onset of positive symptoms, decreased dopamine may be responsible for these, suggesting that schizophrenia may essentially represent a hypodopaminergic disorder after all [19, 20]. On the other hand a few studies have proposed the idea that parkinsonism in schizophrenia may not be just the consequence of neuroleptic exposure but it could be also related to the clinical spectrum and might represent the motor side of schizophrenia manifesting in the late phase of disease course [2123].

In the Mood (affective) disorders (F30–F39) category the diagnosis rate was higher in the PD sample (9%) and it was significantly larger than in the ICL group (6%). One of the most frequent disorder before PD diagnosis was, not surprisingly the depressive episode in both PD and ICL groups. Depressive symptoms predating PD can have diverse etiologies, although the exact pathomechanism is still unknown. Neurobiological factors, changes in brain structure and neuronal systems (dopaminergic, noradrenergic, and serotonergic) that are associated with the underlying neurodegenerative processes in PD play an important role in the early stages, later on mood reaction to the progressive disability and PD itself, psychosocial factors or pain could also have roles in the appearance of depressive symptoms [24, 25]. Several other studies came to the conclusion that depression may also be an independent risk factor for PD [26, 27]. Our prevalence values correlate favorably with previous findings [6] and further support the idea of depression being a non-motor symptom already present before the diagnosis of PD.

Another group which showed significant difference was the Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (F40–F48) category, before PD diagnosis being present in 7%, while before ICL only in 5%, anxiety disorders being the most common in this category. The etiology of anxiety in PD is also multifactorial, a dysfunction in the dopaminergic system might be implicated from the earliest stages of disease [28] likewise decreased metabolism and tissue reduction in different brain areas may also contribute to the development of anxiety [29, 30]. Moreover, the risk of developing PD was found to be higher in a population with anxiety, also the psychological reaction to the development of motor disability and other common anxiety disorders described in PD like panic attacks and social phobias have an important role [31, 32]. Our study provides further evidence on anxiety disorders having a high prevalence before PD diagnosis.

The average number of years when psychiatric diagnoses appeared before PD diagnosis, which was 3.1 years in our case, slightly differ from other study findings about prodromal symptoms such as depression and anxiety that emerged 4–6 years before PD motor symptoms appeared [33]. This lag time may correspond to the proposed beginning of the disease process that anticipates the onset of motor symptoms by several years or even decades [34] and the difference can be explained by the relatively shorter examination period in our study.

The strength of our study lies in the large-scale epidemiologic examination and sufficient number of cases for valid statistical comparison. The database analysis of a several years’ time period with full coverage of a country makes this study large about PD and psychiatric comorbidity. The use of all categories of discharge diagnoses types (admitting diagnosis, principal and secondary diagnoses) according to the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting increases the efficacy of case identification both in PD and psychiatric illnesses.

We are aware that our research may have several limitations, therefore our results should be interpreted within the context of these. First, diagnostic accuracy may be limited in each patient group (PD, psychiatry, ICL) due to the lack of a direct individual clinical case certification by a specialist in the field. Second, using health administrative databases, the possibility of misclassification error should be considered as an important source of research bias which threatens the validity of study results. However it was demonstrated that databases created from hospital reports submitted for reimbursement purposes can be used reliably in Hungary for ICL (I63-I64) epidemiological studies [35] and as previously mentioned, with appropriate case identification methodology this is true for PD as well [7]. Additionally, patients not presenting in specialized outpatient or inpatient care but only at general practitioners, patients who have not yet been commenced on APD, undiagnosed patients, result in underestimation of the number of patients with PD. At the same time, all this highlights the importance of treating PS from the onset of PD, taking advantage of the benefits of certain APDs, but also being cautious of potential side effects (e.g. psychosis). That is why it is important that the diagnosis and treatment of PD to be managed from the beginning by a neurologist specialist, as it is the case in Central and Eastern Europe [36, 37]. Third, information on APD use is incomplete. This could have also influenced the results nonetheless a paper reports that the majority of PS do not worsen substantially in the first years of PD regardless of treatment, and the initiation of antiparkinsonian therapy does not significantly improve most of these symptoms on average [8]. Despite these drawbacks, our study provides up till now not available data regarding the current epidemiology of the psychiatric burden experienced in this large group of PD patients.

In conclusion, we determined that a range of psychiatric illnesses have elevated prevalence before the first diagnosis of PD compared to ICL. This study may reflect neurotransmitter changes in the early phase of PD and highlights the importance of early, routine screening for highly prevalent, often under-diagnosed and under-treated PS in PD patients to initiate optimal treatment.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

S2 File

(XLSX)

S3 File

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

-DB was supported by grants from the National Brain Research Program, nr. 2017-2-1 NKP-2017-00002 (https://nkfih.gov.hu/palyazoknak/nkfi-alap/nemzeti-kivalosagi) -SS has recieved grants from: the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Program and the New National Excellence Program (UNKP-17-3) of the Ministry of Human Resources of the Government of Hungary (http://semmelweis.hu/innovacio/2017/05/08/doktori-hallgato-doktorjelolt-unkp-17-3/) and the EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00009 project for development of scientific workshops for medical, health sciences and pharmaceutical training (http://semmelweis.hu/innovacio/palyazat/tamogatott-projektek/hazai-tamogatott-projektek/efop-3-6-3-vekop-16-2017-00009/) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mahlknecht P, Seppi K, Poewe W. The Concept of Prodromal Parkinson’s Disease. J Parkinsons Dis. 2015;5(4):681–97. 10.3233/JPD-150685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Braak H, Del Tredici K, Rub U, de Vos RAI, Jansen Steur ENH, Braak E. Staging of brain pathology related to sporadic Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2003;24(2):197–211. 10.1016/s0197-4580(02)00065-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Postuma RB, Berg D. Prodromal Parkinson’s Disease: The Decade Past, the Decade to Come. Mov Disord. 2019. May;34(5):665–75. 10.1002/mds.27670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Aarsland D, Bronnick K, Alves G, Tysnes OB, Pedersen KF, Ehrt U, et al. The spectrum of neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with early untreated Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009. August;80(8):928–30. 10.1136/jnnp.2008.166959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Aarsland D, Larsen JP, Lim NG, Janvin C, Karlsen K, Tandberg E, et al. Range of neuropsychiatric disturbances in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999. October;67(4):492–6. 10.1136/jnnp.67.4.492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Szatmari S, Illigens BM-W, Siepmann T, Pinter A, Takats A, Bereczki D. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in untreated parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Szatmari S jr, Ajtay A, Balint M, Takats A, Oberfrank F, Bereczki D. Linking individual patient data to estimate incidence and prevalence of Parkinson’s disease by comparing reports of neurological services and pharmacy prescription refills at a nationwide level. Front Neurol. 2019;10:640 10.3389/fneur.2019.00640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.de la Riva P, Smith K, Xie SX, Weintraub D. Course of psychiatric symptoms and global cognition in early Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2014. September;83(12):1096–103. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Muslimovic D, Post B, Speelman JD, Schmand B. Cognitive profile of patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2005. October;65(8):1239–45. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000180516.69442.95 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Monastero R, Cicero CE, Baschi R, Davi M, Luca A, Restivo V, et al. Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: the Parkinson’s disease cognitive study (PACOS). J Neurol. 2018. May;265(5):1050–8. 10.1007/s00415-018-8800-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mak E, Su L, Williams GB, Firbank MJ, Lawson RA, Yarnall AJ, et al. Baseline and longitudinal grey matter changes in newly diagnosed Parkinson’s disease: ICICLE-PD study. Brain. 2015. October;138(Pt 10):2974–86. 10.1093/brain/awv211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aarsland D, Andersen K, Larsen JP, Lolk A, Kragh-Sorensen P. Prevalence and characteristics of dementia in Parkinson disease: an 8-year prospective study. Arch Neurol. 2003. March;60(3):387–92. 10.1001/archneur.60.3.387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lisak RP., Truong DD., Carroll WM., Roongroj B. International Neurology, 2nd Edition 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Blin P, Dureau-Pournin C, Foubert-Samier A, Grolleau A, Corbillon E, Jove J, et al. Parkinson’s disease incidence and prevalence assessment in France using the national healthcare insurance database. Eur J Neurol. 2015. March;22(3):464–71. 10.1111/ene.12592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nerius M, Fink A, Doblhammer G. Parkinson’s disease in Germany: prevalence and incidence based on health claims data. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017. November;136(5):386–92. 10.1111/ane.12694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Twelves D, Perkins KSM, Counsell C. Systematic review of incidence studies of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2003. January;18(1):19–31. 10.1002/mds.10305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lin H-L, Lin H-C, Chen Y-H. Psychiatric diseases predated the occurrence of Parkinson disease: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Epidemiol. 2014. March;24(3):206–13. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Birtwistle J, Baldwin D. Role of dopamine in schizophrenia and Parkinson’s disease. Br J Nurs. 1998. July;7(14):832–834, 836,, 838–841. 10.12968/bjon.1998.7.14.5636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Goldman-Rakic PS, Castner SA, Svensson TH, Siever LJ, Williams GV. Targeting the dopamine D1 receptor in schizophrenia: insights for cognitive dysfunction. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004. June;174(1):3–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Remington G, Agid O, Foussias G. Schizophrenia as a disorder of too little dopamine: implications for symptoms and treatment. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011. April;11(4):589–607. 10.1586/ern.10.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Morgante F, Barbui C, Tinazzi M. Parkinsonian axial signs in schizophrenia. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2017. March;36:89–92. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.12.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Caligiuri MP, Lohr JB, Jeste DV. Parkinsonism in neuroleptic-naive schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1993. September;150(9):1343–8. 10.1176/ajp.150.9.1343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kamis D, Stratton L, Calvo M, Padilla E, Florenzano N, Guerrero G, et al. Sex and laterality differences in parkinsonian impairment and transcranial ultrasound in never-treated schizophrenics and their first degree relatives in an Andean population. Schizophr Res. 2015. May;164(1–3):250–5. 10.1016/j.schres.2015.01.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ehmann TS, Beninger RJ, Gawel MJ, Riopelle RJ. Depressive symptoms in Parkinson’s disease: a comparison with disabled control subjects. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1990;3(1):3–9. 10.1177/089198879000300102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Aarsland D, Pahlhagen S, Ballard CG, Ehrt U, Svenningsson P. Depression in Parkinson disease—epidemiology, mechanisms and management. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011. December;8(1):35–47. 10.1038/nrneurol.2011.189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jacob EL, Gatto NM, Thompson A, Bordelon Y, Ritz B. Occurrence of depression and anxiety prior to Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2010. November;16(9):576–81. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010.06.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shen C-C, Tsai S-J, Perng C-L, Kuo BI-T, Yang AC. Risk of Parkinson disease after depression: a nationwide population-based study. Neurology. 2013. October;81(17):1538–44. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a956ad [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Erro R, Pappata S, Amboni M, Vicidomini C, Longo K, Santangelo G, et al. Anxiety is associated with striatal dopamine transporter availability in newly diagnosed untreated Parkinson’s disease patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012. November;18(9):1034–8. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.05.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Vriend C, Boedhoe PSW, Rutten S, Berendse HW, van der Werf YD, van den Heuvel OA. A smaller amygdala is associated with anxiety in Parkinson’s disease: a combined FreeSurfer-VBM study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016. May;87(5):493–500. 10.1136/jnnp-2015-310383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Huang C, Ravdin LD, Nirenberg MJ, Piboolnurak P, Severt L, Maniscalco JS, et al. Neuroimaging markers of motor and nonmotor features of Parkinson’s disease: an 18f fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2013;35(3–4):183–96. 10.1159/000345987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lin C-H, Lin J-W, Liu Y-C, Chang C-H, Wu R-M. Risk of Parkinson’s disease following anxiety disorders: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Neurol. 2015. September;22(9):1280–7. 10.1111/ene.12740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pontone GM, Williams JR, Anderson KE, Chase G, Goldstein SA, Grill S, et al. Prevalence of anxiety disorders and anxiety subtypes in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2009. July;24(9):1333–8. 10.1002/mds.22611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gonera EG, van’t Hof M, Berger HJ, van Weel C, Horstink MW. Symptoms and duration of the prodromal phase in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 1997. November;12(6):871–6. 10.1002/mds.870120607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hawkes CH. The prodromal phase of sporadic Parkinson’s disease: does it exist and if so how long is it? Mov Disord. 2008. October;23(13):1799–807. 10.1002/mds.22242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ajtay A, Oberfrank F, Bereczki D. [Applicability of hospital reports submitted for reimbursement purposes for epidemiological studies based on the example of ischemic cerebrovascular diseases]. Orv Hetil. 2015. September;156(38):1540–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Szasz JA, Constantin V, Fazakas PA, Blenyesi E, Grieb LG, Balla A, et al. [The role of selective monoamine oxidase B inhibitors in the therapeutic strategy of Parkinson’s disease in the neurology clinics of Tirgu Mures County Emergency Clinical Hospital]. Orv Hetil. 2017. December;158(51):2023–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Szasz JA, Orban-Kis K, Constantin VA, Peter C, Biro I, Mihaly I, et al. Therapeutic strategies in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease: a cross-sectional evaluation of 15 years’ experience with a large cohort of Romanian patients. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019;15:831–8. 10.2147/NDT.S197630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kenji Hashimoto

5 May 2020

PONE-D-20-03850

The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms before the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in a nationwide cohort: a comparison to patients with cerebral infarction

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Szatmari Jr,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two reviewers addressed several major and minor concerns about your manuscript. Please revise your manuscript carefully.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kenji Hashimoto, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A short but succinct, relevant and well written result on the rates of occurrence of neuropsychiatric symptoms prior to treatment for PD relative to an appropriate control group. An interesting addition to the PD literature and good use of an administrative data collection.

The statistical analysis presented is correct, however it is not sufficiently complete. All results are quoted without estimates of relative risk and their confidence intervals, with p values reported on their own. While the classical relative risks will be a bit "back to front" in this data, as it provides estimates of the risk of NPS prior to PD relative to the risk of NPS prior to ICL, nevertheless they do quantify the results meaningfully. So estimates of effect size should be included, perhaps added to table 2.

Similarly, using regression to control for age and gender strengthens the results, however these "adjusted " p values should be provided for each comparison, including for the NPS diagnoses prior to PD/ICL daignosis. It would further aid completeness if the authors could comment on the regressions, what was the fit like and any notable effects of age or gender? The authors should consider using the same regression technique for all results, with and without adjustment for age and gender and with and without specific prior NPS diagnoses.

There is a minor multiple testing issue however it is clear that the sample size is more than sufficient to establish the results beyond the usual multiple testing requirements (for example the Bonferroni level) and it would suffice if the authors mentioned this as part of their methodology.

Reviewer #2: Several suggestions are listed behind.

1. Authors should introduce NHIF to readers in the method section. Does NHIF only include the data from all specialist outpatient and inpatient services of all hospitals covering the whole population of Hungary? Does it mean NHIF not include the data from non-specialist outpatient and inpatient services? How about GP? Is it a specialist? Whether PD may be underestimated based on this database needs further explanation in the method or study limitation.

2. What kind of specialist? Neurologists only? Or other specialists are included?

3. For NPS, “For more conservative case ascertainment the F00-F99 diagnoses had to be established at least once in an outpatient or inpatient psychiatric care service.” I think “at least once” is very not reliable. Following the definition of PD above, “at least twice” and “given by related specialists” are needed. For example, anxiety disorder is defined by specific ICD-10 code at least twice given by psychiatrists. Otherwise, the validity is too low.

4. In addition, is NPS defined as “F00-F99 diagnoses”? Is it logical clinically because many ICD diagnoses in F00-F99 are not regarded as NPS anymore, such as Mental retardation, substance, personality….? Authors should specifically point out which ICD codes they want to study with the related references. But, based on authors’ title “The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms before the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in a nationwide cohort: a comparison to patients with cerebral infarction”, so I think it may be not very logically relevant to link majority of those psychiatric diagnoses with NPS in their introduction and discussion. So, authors should choose their study and writing strategy for what exact they want to study, and make the manuscript relevant between text and results.

5. “For the control group we chose all patients with at least one ischemic cerebrovascular lesion (ICL) diagnosis (ICD-10, codes I63 or I64) between 2004 and 2016.” Again, authors should explain their logic to find ICL group as control group first. And, “at least once” is very low-valid.

6. “…were excluded as well as patients who refilled any antiparkinsonian drug (APD) before their first PD or ICL diagnosis. Antiparkinsonian agents are coded N04 in accordance with the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) system, patients refilling N04A-anticholinergic agents as well as N04B-dopaminergic agents were excluded.” These two sentences are confusing for the readers. Authors need revision. Does it mean N04A-anticholinergic agents as well as N04B-dopaminergic agents are not included in Antiparkinsonian agents that are excluded from the two groups? They are permitted for use before enrollment date.

7. “Our analysis could evaluate prescriptions of N04 ATC drugs refilled at pharmacies only from 2010 onwards and had no access to data on inpatient medication use in hospitals, therefore pharmacological data in this regard are limited.” Based on this limitation, sensitivity analysis with exclusion of data < 2010 should be done.

8. “their F00-F99 diagnosis established in psychiatric care at least once.” Again, the validity is very low and non-specific.

Thanks.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: John F Pearson

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 4;15(8):e0236728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236728.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jun 2020

REPLY TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

Reviewer 1: A short but succinct, relevant and well written result on the rates of occurrence of neuropsychiatric symptoms prior to treatment for PD relative to an appropriate control group. An interesting addition to the PD literature and good use of an administrative data collection.

We thank Reviewer 1 for evaluating and supporting our manuscript.

Reviewer 1 Q1: The statistical analysis presented is correct, however it is not sufficiently complete. All results are quoted without estimates of relative risk and their confidence intervals, with p values reported on their own. While the classical relative risks will be a bit "back to front" in this data, as it provides estimates of the risk of NPS prior to PD relative to the risk of NPS prior to ICL, nevertheless they do quantify the results meaningfully. So estimates of effect size should be included, perhaps added to table 2.

OUR RESPONSE: We have now complemented our analysis with logistic regression models, and we have added the resulting odds-ratios and confidence intervals to Table 2.

Reviewer 1 Q2: Similarly, using regression to control for age and gender strengthens the results, however these "adjusted" p values should be provided for each comparison, including for the NPS diagnoses prior to PD/ICL diagnosis. It would further aid completeness if the authors could comment on the regressions, what was the fit like and any notable effects of age or gender? The authors should consider using the same regression technique for all results, with and without adjustment for age and gender and with and without specific prior NPS diagnoses. There is a minor multiple testing issue however it is clear that the sample size is more than sufficient to establish the results beyond the usual multiple testing requirements (for example the Bonferroni level) and it would suffice if the authors mentioned this as part of their methodology.

OUR RESPONSE: We have now conducted regression analysis for all F00-F99 subgroups with and without adjustment and included the results of the mixed effects multiple logistic regression models in the manuscript. We report the effect of age and gender now too (generally we found that females had greater odds compared to males and older patients had lowers odds of preceding psychiatric diagnoses). Logistic regression could not be conducted for the sub-diagnoses of F80-89 and F99 due to lack of relevant diagnoses. The adjusted model for the diagnoses F90-98 also had a relatively low amount of diagnoses to work with, and while the regressions could be conducted, they did not produce any significant effect for the PD/ICL groups.

Reviewer 2: We thank Reviewer 2 for evaluating and supporting our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Q1: Authors should introduce NHIF to readers in the method section. Does NHIF only include the data from all specialist outpatient and inpatient services of all hospitals covering the whole population of Hungary? Does it mean NHIF not include the data from non-specialist outpatient and inpatient services? How about GP? Is it a specialist? Whether PD may be underestimated based on this database needs further explanation in the method or study limitation.

OUR RESPONSE: We completed the NHIF description with more details in the methods section. We completed the discussion with the limitation of PD underestimation based on this database.

Reviewer 2 Q2: What kind of specialist? Neurologists only? Or other specialists are included?

OUR RESPONSE: The NHIF database includes data of all specialist also, not only neurologists. GP data are not included.

Reviewer 2 Q3: For NPS, “For more conservative case ascertainment the F00-F99 diagnoses had to be established at least once in an outpatient or inpatient psychiatric care service.” I think “at least once” is very not reliable. Following the definition of PD above, “at least twice” and “given by related specialists” are needed. For example, anxiety disorder is defined by specific ICD-10 code at least twice given by psychiatrists. Otherwise, the validity is too low.

OUR RESPONSE: We did a full re-analysis including patients with F00-F99 diagnoses established in psychiatric care at least twice to strengthen the validity. The results were modified accordingly however the final conclusion did not change.

Reviewer 2 Q4: In addition, is NPS defined as “F00-F99 diagnoses”? Is it logical clinically because many ICD diagnoses in F00-F99 are not regarded as NPS anymore, such as Mental retardation, substance, personality….? Authors should specifically point out which ICD codes they want to study with the related references. But, based on authors’ title “The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms before the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in a nationwide cohort: a comparison to patients with cerebral infarction”, so I think it may be not very logically relevant to link majority of those psychiatric diagnoses with NPS in their introduction and discussion. So, authors should choose their study and writing strategy for what exact they want to study, and make the manuscript relevant between text and results.

OUR RESPONSE: F00-F99 diagnoses are defined as mental and behavioral disorders. When analyzing the literature we already had a strong suspicion, which psychiatric symptoms were to be the most common but we were curious if there are any other common disorders besides those already known (e.g depression, anxiety). Therefore we analyzed the whole F00-F99 category and discussed ultimately only those which were to be the most common based on our results.

We changed the term neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in the whole article to psychiatric symptoms (PS) as in the title. We changed NPS to mental and behavioral disorders when defining F00-F99.

Reviewer 2 Q5: “For the control group we chose all patients with at least one ischemic cerebrovascular lesion (ICL) diagnosis (ICD-10, codes I63 or I64) between 2004 and 2016.” Again, authors should explain their logic to find ICL group as control group first. And, “at least once” is very low-valid.

OUR RESPONSE: Patients with ICL diagnosis were chosen for control group because the age group is somewhat similar to PD and includes large number of patients.

We did a full re-analysis including patients with ICL with at least two ICL diagnoses to strengthen the validity. The results were modified accordingly however the final conclusion did not change.

Reviewer 2 Q6: “…were excluded as well as patients who refilled any antiparkinsonian drug (APD) before their first PD or ICL diagnosis. Antiparkinsonian agents are coded N04 in accordance with the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) system, patients refilling N04A-anticholinergic agents as well as N04B-dopaminergic agents were excluded.” These two sentences are confusing for the readers. Authors need revision. Does it mean N04A-anticholinergic agents as well as N04B-dopaminergic agents are not included in Antiparkinsonian agents that are excluded from the two groups? They are permitted for use before enrollment date.

OUR RESPONSE: We agree with Reviewer 2, the above mentioned sentence is confusing for the readers. We reformulated and simplified this statement for better understanding.

Reviewer 2 Q7: “Our analysis could evaluate prescriptions of N04 ATC drugs refilled at pharmacies only from 2010 onwards and had no access to data on inpatient medication use in hospitals, therefore pharmacological data in this regard are limited.” Based on this limitation, sensitivity analysis with exclusion of data < 2010 should be done.

OUR RESPONSE: We have now conducted a sensitivity analysis where we only kept the data of such psychiatric diagnoses where medication information was also available. We found that the effects and significance are much the same in nearly all models as in the original models, but due to the decreased sample size the effect of PD/ICL diagnosis did not reach significance in four models (F10-19, F50-59, F60-69, F70-79). We have mentioned this in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Q8: “their F00-F99 diagnosis established in psychiatric care at least once.” Again, the validity is very low and non-specific.

OUR RESPONSE: We did a full re-analysis including patients with F00-F99 diagnoses established in psychiatric care at least twice to strengthen the validity. The results were modified accordingly however the final conclusion did not change.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REVISED.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Kenji Hashimoto

14 Jul 2020

The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms before the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in a nationwide cohort: a comparison to patients with cerebral infarction

PONE-D-20-03850R1

Dear Dr. Szatmari Jr,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kenji Hashimoto, PhD

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All questions are well answered and addressed. Revised manuscript is good. I have no further comment. Thanks.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Kenji Hashimoto

23 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-03850R1

The prevalence of psychiatric symptoms before the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in a nationwide cohort: a comparison to patients with cerebral infarction

Dear Dr. Szatmári Jr:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Kenji Hashimoto

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    S2 File

    (XLSX)

    S3 File

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers REVISED.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES