Abstract
Since the official and systematic inclusion of sex and gender in biomedical research, gender differences have been acknowledged as important determinants of both the susceptibility to develop neurodegenerative diseases in general population and the clinical and therapeutic management of neurodegenerative patients. In this review, we gathered the available evidence on gender differences in Parkinson’s disease (PD) regarding clinical phenotype (including motor and non-motor symptoms), biomarkers, genetics and therapeutic management (including pharmacological and surgical treatment). Finally, we will briefly discuss the role of estrogens in determining such differences. Several data demonstrate that PD in women starts with a more benign phenotype, likely due to the effect of estrogens. However, as the disease progresses, women are at higher risk of developing highly disabling treatment-related complications, such as motor and non-motor fluctuations as well as dyskinesia, compared with men. In addition, women have lower chances of receiving effective treatment for PD as deep brain stimulation. Taken together these findings challenge the definition of a more benign phenotype in women. Still, much work needs to be done to better understand the interaction between gender, genetics and environmental factors in determining the PD risk and clinical features. Improving our understanding in this field may result in implementation of strategies to identify prodromal PD and speed efforts to discern new directions for disease tailored treatment and management.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
According to the working definitions of sex and gender provided by the Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Understanding the Biology of sex and gender differences, the term sex refers to the classification of living things, generally as male or female according to their reproductive organs and functions assigned by chromosomal complement, while the term gender refers to a person’s self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual’s gender presentation [1]. However, these terms are not univocal and cannot always be used in a mutually exclusive fashion. Thus, since gender is rooted in biology and shaped by environment and experience [1], gender rather than sex is more appropriate to define the interaction of biological and social elements affecting health outcomes [1].
Sex differences in brain structure and function initiate through sex determining genes and fetal hormonal programming and have important implications for brain-based disease risk; then, sex-specific genetic and hormonal factors, as well as age-related physical changes further contribute to biological differences in expression of neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease (PD) [1]. In addition, a variety of broader societal factors, including role expectations and social attitudes, also have roles in the risk, course and outcome of neurodegenerative diseases. As a matter of fact, a range of behavioral and lifestyle choices associate with gender differences, including diet, exercise, smoking and caffeine are emerging as potential modifiers of the PD risk during life [2].
Since the official and systematic inclusion of sex and gender in biomedical research [3], gender differences have been acknowledged as important determinants of both the susceptibility to develop neurodegenerative diseases in general population and the clinical and therapeutic management of neurodegenerative patients [4].
The aim of this review is to gather the available evidence on gender differences in PD regarding clinical phenotype (including motor and non-motor symptoms), biomarkers, genetics and therapeutic management (including pharmacological and surgical treatment). Before the closedown, we will briefly discuss the role of estrogens in determining such differences. However, since our approach is mainly clinical, we will not include in the present review all the preclinical data available on the topic.
Indeed, improving our understanding in this field may result in implementation of strategies to identify prodromal PD cases and speed efforts to discern new directions for PD tailored treatment and management.
Methods
The authors searched personal files and PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published in English language with no time limits. The search terms “agonist”, "biomarker", “deep brain stimulation”, "epidemiology", “gender”, “genetic”, “kinetic”, “levodopa”, “men”, “motor features”, “non-motor features”, “Parkinson”, “sex”, “surgery”, “weight” and “women” were used. Additional articles were identified by searching the reference lists of identified reviews that provided insightful or comprehensive overviews on gender differences in PD. The studies and meta-analysis considered in this review are detailed in Table 1.
Epidemiology and phenotypic differences
Epidemiology
Confirming previous data [5], a meta-analysis including 17 relevant studies and over 2500 PD cases, determined an overall age-standardized incidence M:F ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 1.24–1.72) [6]. This meta-analysis also disclosed a high-level heterogeneity between included studies and a positive relationship between age of onset and M:F incidence ratio [6, 7]. As for prevalence, a meta-analysis including data published between 1985 and 2000 reported a significant difference in gender ratio for individuals from 50 to 59 years old, with a PD prevalence of 41/100.000 in women and 134/100.000 in men (p < 0.05) [8]. When stratified by geographic location, M:F prevalence ratios were in favour of men in both the Western countries and South America, but not in Asia, although methodological issues may account for such discrepancy [8].
By analyzing the Health Insurance drugs reimbursement databases, a recent French nationwide study largely confirmed previous data reporting an overall M:F incidence ratio of 1.49 (95% CI 1.41–1.57, p < 0.001) and an overall M:F prevalence ratio of 1.48 (95% CI 1.45–1.51, p < 0.001) [9]. Both M:F incidence and prevalence ratios were markedly influenced by age in a strikingly progressive pattern, with incidence increasing by 0.14 per 10-year age increment and prevalence increasing by 0.05 for every 10-year age increment. As expected, this pattern was more pronounced for incidence than prevalence ratios, since the latter is most likely affected by gender differences in survival [9]. Indeed, male sex is associated with an increased mortality rate in PD for two complementary reasons [10–12]. First, it is the reflexion of the overall shorter life expectancy of men in the general population. Then, the factors usually predicting higher mortality in PD, as cognitive impairment and higher postural instability and gait scores, are much more common in men [10–12].
Motor symptoms
By examining a clinic-based cohort of 253 subjects, Haaxma et al. first delineated phenotypic gender differences in a large sample of PD patients [13]. Key findings of this study were: (a) women were 2 years older than men at symptom onset and presented more likely with tremor (67%) than men (48%); (b) tremor dominance was associated with a slower decline on motor scales; (c) at symptoms onset, women had 16% higher striatal [123I]FP-CIT binding than men; (d) in women, age at onset correlated positively with parity, age at menopause and fertile life span [13]. Taken together, these findings suggest a more benign phenotype in women with PD possibly related to the estrogens status [13, 14]. Indeed, gender differences in PD presentation may be attributable to biological factors; however, health-care seeking behavior should not be overlooked [15]. A study evaluating tertiary care referral in PD showed that the expected duration from onset to the movement disorders specialist visit for women was 61% greater than for men (p = 0.003) [16]. The effect of gender remained significant when adjusting the model for disease severity and historical features (age of onset and family PD history) and supported a referral delay in women irrespective of disease features [16].
Yet, once the disease has started, evidence reports shorter time to develop wearing off and dyskinesia in women than in men, arguing against the theory of the protective effect of estrogens [17–19]. According to a cross-sectional study enrolling 617 PD patients, the prevalence of wearing off was higher in women (72.5% versus 64%, p = 0.034) with female gender conferring an increased risk for wearing off equal to 80.1% [19]. Confirming previous findings [20], a prospective, population-based study on 189 de novo, PD patients showed that gender is the most important independent predictor of levodopa-induced dyskinesia, with an almost threefold increased risk in women compared to men, irrespective of body weight [18, 21]. As a matter of fact, along with younger age of onset, female gender has been associated with a shorter time to occurrence of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (Hazard Ratio = 1.82; 95% CI 1.14–2.89, p = 0.011) with a median time to dyskinesia of 4 years in women and 6 years in men [22].
Yet, the role of gender in determining either a more benign or aggressive motor disease course is far to be clear.
Non-motor symptoms
Although methodological issues (as the use of different scales) limit the comparison of the available data, the majority of studies suggest the existence of gender-related differences in non-motor symptoms (NMS) prevalence in PD. As a matter of fact, several studies showed that feelings of nervousness and sadness, constipation, restless legs and pain are more common in women, while daytime sleepiness, dribbling saliva, reduced interest in sex and problems having sex are more prevalent in men [23–27]. Indeed, since it is known that dopaminergic treatment may affect several NMS differently [28], as a major limitation these studies only included patients on dopaminergic treatment. By administering the Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire to 200 early, drug-native PD patients and 93 age- and sex-matched healthy controls, we were able to show PD-specific gender differences in NMS, irrespective of disease progression and dopaminergic therapy [29]. Our study showed that men with PD complained more frequently about dribbling, sadness/blues, loss of interest, anxiety, acting during dreams, and taste/smelling difficulties compared to healthy control men, while female PD patients reported more frequently loss of interest and anxiety compared to healthy control women [29]. In contrast with previous data on treated PD patients [23, 24, 30], female PD patients did not present higher prevalence of mood symptoms compared to male PD patients. Comparison with healthy controls showed that several NMS classically present in the promotor phase and pointing to subjects with subsequent development of PD in large population studies (i.e., sadness/blues, acting out during dreams, taste/smelling difficulties) [31–33] are more frequent in male than in female patients [29]. Further supporting the importance of these findings, Liu et al. described a combination of NMS that can best differentiate PD from controls [34]. Remarkably, in both men and women, poor olfaction was the most powerful NMS predicting PD diagnosis, followed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment battery score, but, once again, gender made a difference, since dysautonomia was a predictor of PD diagnosis only in men, while REM sleep behavior disorder only in women [34]. The large sample size and the use of multiple detailed NMS assessment tools further corroborate the importance of these findings [34] (Table 1).
Yet, the role of gender in the response of NMS to dopamine replacement therapy was not established. Subsequently, we conducted a 2-year prospective assessment of gender-related differences in the burden of NMS before and after starting dopaminergic therapy showing that sadness/blues presented a significant percentage reduction compared to baseline in both sexes, while urgency, daytime sleepiness, weight gain and increase in sex drive presented a significant percentage increase only in men possibly in relation to both disease progression and dopaminergic treatment [35]. Confirming previous findings [27, 36], male gender was a risk factor for developing both dribbling (odds ratio = 10.29) and nocturia (odds ratio = 9.90), irrespective of therapy and clinical features [35].
However, as the disease progresses, NMS appear in the form of non-motor fluctuations more frequently in women than in men. By administering the 19-item Wearing off Questionnaire to 47 PD patients (M:F = 31:16) after 4 years since the start of dopaminergic treatment, we showed that mood-related non-motor fluctuations (i.e., anxiety, mood changes and pain) were more prevalent in women [37]. These findings possibly account for the higher prevalence of mood-related NMS reported by women in studies including PD patients on dopaminergic treatment and with different stages of disease [26, 27]. Strikingly, in our study no gender differences were detected in either dopaminergic or antidepressants/benzodiazepines intake, despite the higher frequency of non-motor fluctuations evidenced in women, suggesting that non-motor fluctuations in women remain mostly underestimated and undertreated [37].
Regarding cognition, several studies suggest that, as opposite to the female prevalence of dementia (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease) in the general population [4], male gender is a robust risk factor for development of cognitive impairment and dementia in PD [38–40]. Interestingly, recent data suggest that dementia prevalence in women with PD began to increase steadily after the age of 65 years, reaching male estimates only after 80 years of age [41]. Thus, mirroring the course of motor symptoms, PD NMS and cognitive disturbances start with a more benign phenotype in women compared to men, but then present a steadily progressive worsening as disease progresses. Indeed, NMS develop differently in women and men; taste and smell difficulties are reported mainly in men and anxiety in women, respectively, suggesting that the prodromal stage of PD proceeds differently in both sexes [42]. In turn, NMS may be useful to differentiate patients at PD risk if gender is included as an important variable. However, it has to be considered that pre-existing sex differences such as in olfaction might be further exacerbated by the onset of PD.
Biomarkers
Despite few data suggested gender differences for other biomarkers in PD [43–46], the most robust evidence is available for urate.
Previous prospective and case–control studies showed that lower urate concentrations predicted PD prognosis and were inversely associated with disease severity in men but not in women [47–50]. In a postmortem study, urate levels in cortical and striatal tissue were lower in PD than in controls in men only [51]. Intriguingly, more recent data further expand the relationship between urate and gender in PD. With a nested case–control study based on 90.214 participants of three ongoing US cohorts, Gao et al. obtained data for 388 new PD cases (52% men) and 1.267 matched healthy controls (35% men) [52]. Logistic regression analysis showed that men, but not women, with higher urate concentrations had a lower future risk of developing PD, suggesting that urate can be protective against PD risk or could slow disease progression during the preclinical stage of the disease in men only [52]. In addition, by performing a meta-analysis on urate and PD risk in men and women separately, the authors pooled their data with additional 325 incident PD cases and further confirmed this gender difference [52]. The pathophysiological explanations underlying such gender specificity of urate in determining PD risk remain speculative. Other factors might offset the potential neuroprotective effects of urate in women, or estrogens may predominate in determining the lower risk of PD among women [52]. On a practical ground, these data, combined with the evidence on NMS, further support the need for gender-based strategies involving clinical and serum biomarkers to identify prodromal PD cases [34].
Genetics
In this section, the available evidence on gender differences in genes determining PD susceptibility is examined, while the large body of pharmacogenetic data was left out of the scope of this review.
While variable evidence suggests that specific polymorphisms’ expression may be influenced by gender [53-66), a number of studies support a role for LRRK2 status in either reverting or balancing the gender distribution in PD [67–71].
Mutations in the LRRK2 gene are among the most common genetic factors causing PD worldwide and particularly common in selected populations (e.g., Ashkenazi Jews and North African Berbers) [69]. LRRK2 mutations are inherited with an autosomal dominant pattern with incomplete and age-related penetrance. As a matter of fact, asymptomatic LRRK2 carriers represent the ideal setting to study prodromal PD [72]. Several studies suggest that PD LRRK2-associated PD patients are more likely women, as opposite to the gender distribution in glucocerebrosidase (GBA)-associated PD which mirrors the prevalence ratios in the general population [73]. Although a recent meta-analysis rebuts this finding and shows a 1:1 male to female ratio in LRRK2-associated PD [74], the factors associated with the possible rebalancing of the male to female ratio in LRRK2-associated PD compared to idiopathic PD are unknown. Indeed, there is a need for studies evaluating the effect of gender on both genetic and environmental factors determining the PD risk.
Gender differences in Parkinson’s disease management
Pharmacological treatment
Although therapeutic recommendations for PD take into account age, motor disability as well as the presence of disease-related complications (i.e., motor fluctuations and neuropsychiatric complications), to date no gender-oriented advice is available [75, 76]. Yet, gender is one of the pivotal determinants of development of motor and non-motor fluctuations as well as dyskinesia (see above) [17–22, 37]. In addition, no ad hoc prospective studies have been conducted so far and the available evidence on the topic can be inferred from either retrospective studies or the subanalysis of prospective data collected for different objectives.
As for the type of dopaminergic medication, evidence shows similar treatments assigned to men and women with PD, with no gender preference [77, 78]. As such, the NINDS NET-PD study, including data from 1.741 PD patients, reports similar gender ratios for treatment with levodopa alone, dopamine agonist alone or levodopa plus dopamine agonist [77]. Though, as for medication dosage, several studies demonstrate that men with PD are medicated with higher doses of either oral or infusional treatments, as evaluated with the levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) [78–81]. However, when body weight is added as a covariate, the gender differences in LEDD recedes [77], suggesting the core of the matter might be the dosage adjustment according to the body weight [82, 83]. As opposite to dopamine agonists [84], several studies have demonstrated that levodopa pharmacokinetics is significantly affected by the body weight with an inverse correlation between the plasmatic levodopa concentration (i.e., the area under the curve, AUC) and body weight, which is lower in women on average. Arabia et al. observed a lower body weight (65.3 kg versus 73.9 kg, p < 0.001) with greater levodopa AUC in women with PD (6.45 µmol/l h among women versus 4.94 µmol/l h among men, p = 0.002) and reported an inverse correlation between AUC and T1/2 (i.e., half-life) and body weight (respectively, p < 0.001 and p = 0.001) [85]. However, further evidence suggest that women present greater levodopa bioavailability with higher mean AUC (42.3 ± 7 mg versus 23.3 ± 7.3; p < 0.0001) and higher mean C max (1388 ± 42 mg versus 800 ± 33 mg; p < 0.001) after administration of 100 mg of levodopa, irrespective of body weight [84, 86]. In addition, women display lower levodopa clearance levels, further justifying the greater levodopa bioavailability [87]. Recent evidence delineated the features characterizing a subgroup of patients reporting a “brittle response” to levodopa, defined as the presence of highly disabling dyskinesia after small doses (i.e., 100 mg or less per dose) [88]. Those extremely sensitive subjects are mainly women (58%) with lower body weight and body mass index (63.5 versus 79.6 kg, p < 0.001 and 22.3 versus 26.5, p < 0.001, respectively), longer disease duration and much many years on levodopa, but with lower dosage (12.6 versus 8.9 years, p = 0.003 and 9.8 versus 5.9 years, p < 0.001, respectively), compared to patients without a “brittle response” [88]. Although this study suggests new insight into the phenomenology of the response to levodopa, the genetic background of the patients with “brittle response” is overlooked [88].
Indeed, the lower female body weight alone cannot entirely account for the gender discrepancy in development of levodopa-related complication. PD is associated with a profound alteration in central control of energy metabolism determining continuous changes in body weight and composition and energy expenditure in relation to both disease progression and type of treatment [89]. Furthermore, genetic polymorphisms may also have a role in modulating the dyskinesia risk (e.g., DRD2 polymorphism has a protective effect against dyskinesia development only in men [20]). Intriguingly, not all PD patients convert to a “brittle response”, suggesting this subgroup might have peculiar features placing them at risk for maladaptive plastic responses to levodopa [89]. There is a need for prospective ad hoc studies to clarify why women with PD have higher rates of levodopa-related complications and are at risk for presenting a “brittle response” to levodopa.
Surgical treatment
Several randomized clinical trials have shown bilateral subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (DBS) to be effective in PD patients with motor fluctuations [90]. Notwithstanding, this option is underused in certain groups of patients, such as ethnic minorities and low-level socioeconomic status subjects [91, 92]. Strikingly, in spite of the higher risk of developing dyskinesia and motor fluctuations in women, female gender has been repetitively associated with lower utilization of DBS in PD [91–93]. The observation that in the western world the proportion of male patients who receive DBS exceeds the usual male/female predominance of PD might have several explanations as doctors’ attitude and potential gender bias in proposing DBS, stronger fear for surgical risks among women or more initiative in men who autonomously demand for DBS [93, 94]. However, the lack of large ad hoc prospective studies prevents us from drawing conclusions on the reasons for the gender discrepancy in DBS access [92, 93]. As a matter of fact, women with PD perform DBS later than men displaying longer disease duration, more severe disease and much more dyskinesia at the time of surgery [95]. Yet, DBS provides benefit in both genders determining equal clinical improvement and reduction in medications with even greater impact on activities of daily living and quality of life in women [96–100]. Postponing DBS in PD women might have a detrimental impact on life planning. Recent reports demonstrate that, due to its efficacy on psychomotor status and treatment reduction, DBS is a safe option in the management of young PD women who wish to become pregnant [101]. However, there is the need to define strategies to prevent and control any worsening of clinical conditions during pregnancy and to consider device-related options (i.e., rechargeable battery to avoid battery replacement and subclavicular placement instead of abdominal) in women who plan to become pregnant [100]. Finally, DBS is a valid approach to relieve disability in patients with “brittle response” to levodopa (see above), who are mostly women [88].
The role of estrogens
Estrogens are likely contributors to gender differences in PD [102–104]. Although conflicting data are available, evidence would suggest a link between longer estrogen exposure during lifetime and both the decreased PD risk and milder features at onset in women [105–119]. Most women develop PD after menopause, further suggesting estrogen withdrawal has a role in disease pathogenesis [9, 13, 14]. Accordingly, preclinical evidence shows that estrogens are protective against dopaminergic damage. Animal models with estrogens deprivation show dopaminergic neuron loss, altered dopaminergic metabolism and transporter uptake, which can be partially reversed by the administration of exogenous estrogens [102–104].
A large body of evidence shows that estradiol and related compounds exert neuromodulatory and neuroprotective activities in the striatum and substantia nigra through several intracellular mechanisms that ultimately decrease apoptosis of neurons. In addition to these signal cascade effects, estrogens might impact PD pathogenesis via their influence on mitochondrial function and response to oxidative stress. Evidence demonstrates that estrogens might also prevent Lewy body deposition through specific alpha-synuclein anti-aggregation and fibril destabilization properties [102–104].
However, in contrast with the large body of preclinical evidence [104], a spoonful of studies on humans are available on the clinical effects of estrogens in PD. A small pilot study showed that estrogen replacement therapy in non-parkinsonian women increases putaminal dopamine active transporter as measured with TRODAT SPECT scan [120]. Although small trials have demonstrated mild efficacy of low-dose estrogens in improving motor disability and motor fluctuations in post-menopausal women [121–125], estrogens have not been further tested in larger cohort. Although there is an increasing interest of the research community in testing the disease-modifying effect of estrogens in different neurological conditions [126], clinical trials of estrogen face unique challenges possibly explaining the lack of data in larger PD cohort [123]. Estrogen is an endogenous compound with levels that naturally fluctuate throughout the lifecycle. Estrogen’s effects are widespread in and outside the brain and conventional study designs have difficulty assessing complex variables including variability in endogenous/exogenous estrogen exposure, and the interface between hormonal changes and the onset/progression of a chronic disease. Ultimately, as chronic estrogen exposure is associated with increased risk of breast cancer and coronary heart disease, risks may exceed benefits [127].
Conclusions
Here, we gathered evidence demonstrating the existence of gender differences in PD clinical phenotype, biomarkers and therapeutic management. Still, much work needs to be done to better understand the interaction between gender and genetics in determining the PD risk and clinical features. Several data demonstrate that PD in women starts with a more benign phenotype, likely due to the effect of estrogens. However, as the disease progresses, women are at higher risk of developing highly disabling treatment-related complications, such as motor and non-motor fluctuations as well as dyskinesia, compared with men. In addition, women have lower chances of receiving effective treatment for PD as DBS (Fig. 1). Taken together these findings challenge the definition of a more benign phenotype in women.
Improving our understanding in this field may result in implementation of strategies to identify prodromal PD cases and speed efforts to discern new directions for PD tailored treatment and management. We just got the evidence that gender does matter in PD [128]. It matters in many ways we did not expect. It also matters in ways we have not envisaged yet [1].
Abbreviations
- AUC:
-
Area under the curve
- F:
-
Female
- M:
-
Male
- LEDD:
-
Levodopa equivalent daily dose
- NMS:
-
Non motor symptoms
- PD:
-
Parkinson’s disease
- UPDRS-III:
-
Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part III
References
Institute of Medicine Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences. (2001) Exploring the biological contributions to human health: does sex matter? In: Wizemann TM, Pardue M-L (eds) Institute of Medicine, Washington,DC
Bellou V, Belbasis L, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP (2016) Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 23:1–9
Mazure CM, Jones DP (2015) Twenty years and still counting: including women as participants and studying sex and gender in biomedical research. BMC Womens Health 15:94
Mazure CM, Swendsen J (2016) Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. Lancet Neurol 15:451–452
Wooten GF, Currie LJ, Bovbjerg VE, Lee JK, Patrie J (2004) Are men at greater risk for Parkinson’s disease than women? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75:637–639
Taylor KSM, Cook JA, Counsell CE (2007) Heterogeneity in male to female risk for Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 78:905–912
Burn DJ (2007) Sex and Parkinson’s disease: a word of difference? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 78:787
Pringsheim T, Jette N, Frolkis A, Steeves TD (2014) The prevalence of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord 29:1583–1590
Moisan F, Kab S, Mohamed F et al (2015) Parkinson disease male-to-female ratios increase with age: French nationwide study and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 87:952–957
Lonneke ML de Lau, Dagmar Verbaan A, Johan Marinus A, van Hilten JJ (2014) Survival in Parkinson’s disease, Relation with motor and non-motor Features, Parkinsonism and Related Disorders 20: 613–616
Pinter B, Diem-Zangerl A, Wenning GK et al (2015) Mortality in Parkinson’s disease: a 38-year follow-up study. Mov Disord 30:266–269
Xu J, Gong DD, Man CF, Fan Y (2014) Parkinson’s disease and risk of mortality: meta-analysis and systematic review. Acta Neurol Scand 129:71–79
Haaxma CA, Bloem BR, Borm GF et al (2007) Gender differences in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 78:819–824
Cereda E, Barichella M, Cassani E, Caccialanza R, Pezzoli G (2013) Reproductive factors and clinical features of Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Related Disorders 19:1094–1099
Adamson J, Ben-Shlomo Y, Chaturvedi N, Donovan J (2003) Ethnicity, socio-economic position and gender—do they affect reported health-care seeking behaviour? Soc Sci Med 57:895–904
Saunders-Pullman R, Wang C, Stanley K, Bressman SB (2011) Diagnosis and Referral Delay in Women With Parkinson’s Disease. Gend Med 8:209–217
Sato K, Hatano T, Yamashiro K et al (2006) Prognosis of Parkinson’s disease: time to stage III, IV, V, and to motor fluctuations. Mov Disord 21:1384–1395
Bjornestad A, Forsaa EB, Pedersen KF, Tysnes OB, Larsen JP, Alves G (2016) Risk and course of motor complications in a population-based incident Parkinson’s disease cohort. Parkinsonism Related Disorders 22:48–53
Colombo D, Abbruzzese G, Antonini A et al (2015) The ‘‘Gender Factor’’ in Wearing-Off among Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: a post Hoc analysis of DEEP study. Sci World J 787451
Zappia M, Annesi G, Nicoletti G et al (2005) Sex differences in clinical and genetic determinants of levodopa peak-dose dyskinesias in Parkinson disease: an exploratory study. Arch Neurol 62:601–605
Sharma JC, Bachmann CG, Linazasoro G (2010) Classifying risk factors for dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Park Relat Disord 16:490–497
Hassin-Baer S, Molchadski I, Cohen OS et al (2011) Gender effect on time to levodopa-induced dyskinesias. J Neurol 258:2048–2053
Leentjens AF, Dujardin K, Marsh L, Martinez-Martin P, Richard IH, Starkstein SE (2011) Symptomatology and markers of anxiety disorders in Parkinson’s disease: a cross-sectional study. Mov Disord 26:484–492
Leentjens AF, Moonen AJ, Dujardin K (2013) Modeling depression in Parkinson disease: disease-specific and nonspecific risk factors. Neurology 81:1036–1043
Szewczyk-Krolikowski K, Tomlinson P, Nithi K (2014) The influence of age and gender on motor and non-motor features of early Parkinson’s disease: initial findings from the Oxford Parkinson Disease Center (OPDC) discovery cohort. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 20:99–105
Solla P, Cannas A, Ibba FC (2012) Gender differences in motor and non-motor symptoms among Sardinian patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci 323:33–39
Martinez-Martin P, Falup Pecurariu C (2012) Gender-related differences in the burden of non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 259:1639–1647
Erro R, Picillo M, Vitale C (2013) Non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: a 2-years follow-up study on previously untreated patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84:14–17
Picillo M, Amboni M, Erro R et al (2013) Gender differences in non-motor symptoms in early, drug naïve Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 260:2849–2855
Song Y, Gu Z, An J, Chan P; Chinese Parkinson Study Group (2014) Gender differences on motor and non-motor symptoms of de novo patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci 35:1991–1996
Shen CC, Tsai SJ, Perng CL, Kuo BI, Yang AC (2013) Risk of Parkinson disease after depression: a nationwide population-based study. Neurology 81:1538–1544
Postuma RB, Gagnon JF, Bertrand JA, Génier Marchand D, Montplaisir JY (2015) Parkinson risk in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: preparing for neuroprotective trials. Neurology 84:1104–1113
Picillo M, Pellecchia MT, Erro R et al (2014) The use of University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease in Italy. Neurol Sci 35:379–3783
Liu R, Umbach DM, Peddada SD, Xu Z, Tröster AI, Huang X, Chen H (2015) Potential sex differences in non motor symptoms in early drug-naive Parkinson disease. Neurology 84:2107–2115
Picillo M, Erro R, Amboni M et al (2014) Gender differences in non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: a 2-years follow-up study on previously untreated patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 20:850–854
Guo X, Song W, Chen K et al (2013) Gender and onset age-related features of non-motor symptoms of patients with Parkinson’s disease—a study from Southwest China. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 19:961–965
Picillo M, Palladino R, Moccia M et al (2016) Gender and non motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease: a prospective study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 27:89–92
Uc EY, McDermott MP, Marder KS et al (2009) Incidence of and risk factors for cognitive impairment in an early Parkinson disease clinical trial cohort. Neurology 73:1469–1477
Anang JB, Gagnon JF, Bertrand JA et al (2014) Predictors of dementia in Parkinson disease: a prospective cohort study. Neurology 83:1253–1560
Pigott K, Rick J, Xie SX et al (2015) Longitudinal study of normal cognition in Parkinson disease. Neurology 85:1276–1282
Cereda E, Cilia R, Klersy C et al (2016) Dementia in Parkinson’s disease: is male gender a risk factor? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 26:67–72
Nicoletti A, Vasta R, Mostile G et al (2016) Gender effect on non motor symptoms in parkinson’s disease: are men more at risk? Parkinsonims Relat Disord. doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.12.008
Brighina L, Prigione A, Begni B et al (2010) Lymphomonocyte alpha-synuclein levels in aging and in Parkinson disease. Neurobiol Aging 31:884–885
Ikeda K, Nakamura Y, Kiyozuka T et al (2011) Serological profiles of urate, paraoxonase-1, ferritin and lipid in Parkinson’s disease: changes linked to disease progression. Neurodegener Dis 8:252–258
Caranci G, Piscopo P, Rivabene R et al (2013) Gender differences in Parkinson’s disease: focus on plasma α-synuclein. J Neural Transm 120:1209–1215
Ho DH, Yi S, Seo H, Son I, Seol W (2014) Increased DJ-1 in urine exosome of Korean males with Parkinson’s disease. Biomed Res Int 704678
Schwarzschild MA, Schwid SR, Marek K et al (2008) Serum urate as a predictor of clinical and radiographic progression in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol 265:716–723
Ascherio A, LeWitt PA, Xu K et al (2009) Urate as a predictor of the rate of clinical decline in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 66:1460–1468
Schwarzschild MA, Marek K, Eberly S et al (2011) Serum urate and probability of dopaminergic deficit in early “Parkinson’s disease”. Mov Disord 26:1864–1868
Jesus S, Pérez I, Cáceres-Redondo MT et al (2013) Low serum uric acid concentration in Parkinson’s disease in southern Spain. Eur J Neurol 20:208–210
McFarland NR, Burdett T, Desjardins CA, Frosch MP, Schwarzschild MA (2013) Postmortem brain levels of urate and precursors in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders. Neurodegener Dis 12:189–198
Gao X, O’Reilly ÉJ, Schwarzschild MA, Ascherio A (2016) Prospective study of plasma urate and risk of Parkinson disease in men and women. Neurology 86:520–526
Foltynie T, Lewis SG, Goldberg TE et al (2005) The BDNF Val66Met polymorphism has a gender specific influence on planning ability in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 252:833–838
Gatt AP, Jones EL, Francis PT, Ballard C, Bateman JM (2013) Association of a polymorphism in mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM) with Parkinson’s disease dementia but not dementia with Lewy bodies. Neurosci Lett 557:177–180
Gusdon AM, Fang F, Chen J et al (2015) Association of the mt-ND2 5178A/C polymorphism with Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Lett 587:98–101
Klebe S, Golmard JL, Nalls MA et al (2004) The Val158Met COMT polymorphism is a modifier of the age at onset in Parkinson’s disease with a sexual dimorphism. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84:666–673
Lin JJ, Yueh KC, Chang CY, Chen CH, Lin SZ (2004) The homozygote AA genotype of the alpha1-antichymotrypsin gene may confer protection against early-onset Parkinson’s disease in women. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 10:469–473
Lin JJ, Chen CH, Yueh KC, Chang CY, Lin SZ (2006) A CD14 monocyte receptor polymorphism and genetic susceptibility to Parkinson’s disease for females. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 12:9–13
Liu RR, Zhou LL, Cheng X et al (2014) CCDC62 variant rs12817488 is associated with the risk of Parkinson’s disease in a Han Chinese population. Eur Neurol 71:77–83
Mariani S, Ventriglia M, Simonelli I et al (2016) Association between sex, systemic iron variation and probability of Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci 126:354–360
Palacios N, Weisskopf M, Simon K, Gao X, Schwarzschild M, Ascherio A (2010) Polymorphisms of caffeine metabolism and estrogen receptor genes and risk of Parkinson’s disease in men and women. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 16:370–375
San Luciano M, Ozeliusb L, Liptonc RB, Raymonda D, Bressman SB, Saunders-Pullman R (2012) Gender differences in the IL6-174G>C and ESR2 1730G>A polymorphisms and the risk of Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Lett 506:312–316
Simunovic F, Yi M, Wang Y, Stephens R, Sonntag KC (2010) Evidence for gender-specific transcriptional profiles of Nigral dopamine neurons in Parkinson disease. PLoS ONE 5:e8856
Yu RL, Guo JF, Wang YQ et al (2015) The single nucleotide polymorphism Rs12817488 is associated with Parkinson’s disease in the Chinese population. J Clin Neurosci 22:1002–1004
Zhang P, Liu L, Huang J et al (2014) Non-SMC condensin I complex, subunit D2 gene polymorphisms are associated with Parkinson’s disease: a Han Chinese study. Genome 57:253–257
Zhao J, Han X, Xue L, Zhu K, Liu H, Xie A (2015) Association of TLR4 gene polymorphisms with sporadic Parkinson’s disease in a Han Chinese population. Neurol Sci 36:1659–1665
Agalliu I, San Luciano M, Mirelman A et al (2015) Higher frequency of certain cancers in LRRK2 G2019S mutation carriers with Parkinson disease: a pooled analysis. JAMA Neurol 72:58–65
Cilia R, Siri C, Rusconi D et al (2014) LRRK2 mutations in Parkinson’s disease: confirmation of a gender effect in the Italian population. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 20:911–914
Clark LN, Wang Y, Karlins E et al (2006) Frequency of LRRK2 mutations in early- and late-onset Parkinson disease. Neurology 67:1786–1791
Orr-Urtreger A, Shifrin C, Rozovski U, Rosner S et al (2007) The LRRK2 G2019S mutation in Ashkenazi Jews with Parkinson disease: is there a gender effect? Neurology 69:1595–1602
Saunders-Pullman R, Stanley K, San Luciano M, Barrett MJ et al (2011) Gender differences in the risk of familial parkinsonism: beyond LRRK2? Neurosci Lett 496:125–128
Mirelman A, Alcalay RN, Saunders-Pullman R et al (2015) Nonmotor symptoms in healthy Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of the G2019S mutation in the LRRK2 gene. Mov Disord 30:981–986
Gan-Or Z, Bar-Shira AA, Mirelman A et al (2010) LRRK2 and GBA mutations differentially affect the initial presentation of Parkinson disease. Neurogenetics 11:121–125
Gan-Or Z, Leblond CS, Mallett V, Orr-Urtreger A, Dion PA, Rouleau G (2015) LRRK2 mutations in Parkinson disease; a sex effect or lack thereof? A meta-analysis. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 21:778–782
Lang AE, Lees A (2002) Management of Parkinson’s Disease: an evidence-based review. Mov Disord 17:S1–S166
Ferreira JJ, Katzenschlager R, Bloem BR et al (2013) Summary of the recommendations of the EFNS/MDS-ES review on therapeutic management of Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol 20:5–15
Umeh CC, Pérez A, Augustine EF et al (2014) No sex differences in use of dopaminergic medication in early Parkinson disease in the US and Canada—baseline findings of a multicenter trial. PLoS One 9:e112287
Baba Y, Putzke JD, Whaley NR, Wszolek ZK, Uitti RJ (2005) Gender and the Parkinson’s disease phenotype. J Neurol 252:1201–1205
Nyholm D, Karlsson E, Lundberg M, Askmark H (2010) Large differences in levodopa dose requirement in Parkinson’s disease: men use higher doses than women. Eur J Neurol 17:260–266
Lubomski M, Louise Rushworth R, Lee W, Bertram KL, Williams DR (2014) Sex differences in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Neurosci 21:1503–1506
Nyholm D, Constantinescu R, Holmberg B, Dizdar N, Askmark H (2009) Comparison of apomorphine and levodopa infusions in four patients with Parkinson’s disease with symptom fluctuations. Acta Neurol Scand 119:345–348
Sharma JC, Macnamara L, Hasoon M, Vassallo M, Ross I (2006) Cascade of levodopa dose and weight-related dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease (LD–WD-PD cascade). Parkinsonism Relat Disord 12:499–505
Sharma JC, Ross IN, Rascol O, Brooks D (2008) Relationship between weight, levodopa and dyskinesia: the significance of levodopa dose per kilogram body weight. Eur J Neurol 15:493–496
Kompoliti K, Adler CH, Raman R et al (2002) Gender and pramipexole effects on levodopa pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Neurology 58:1418–1422
Arabia G, Zappia M, Bosco D et al (2002) Body weight, levodopa pharmacokinetics and dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci 23:S53–S54
Kumagai T, Nagayama H, Ota T, Nishiyama Y, Mishina M, Ueda M (2014) Sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of levodopa in elderly patients with Parkinson disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 37:173–176
Martinelli P, Contin M, Scaglione C, Riva R, Albani F, Baruzzi A (2003) Levodopa pharmacokinetics and dyskinesias: are there sex-related differences? Neurol Sci 24:192–193
Martinez-Ramirez D, Giugni J, Vedam-Mai V et al (2014) The “brittle response” to Parkinson’s disease medications: characterization and response to deep brain stimulation. PLoS One 9:e94856
Montaurier C, Morio B, Bannier S, Derost P et al (2007) Mechanisms of body weight gain in patients with Parkinson’s disease after subthalamic stimulation. Brain 130:1808–1818
Kleiner-Fisman G, Herzog J, Fisman DN et al (2006) Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: summary and meta-analysis of outcomes. Mov Disord 14:S290–S304
Chan AK, McGovern RA, Brown LT et al (2014) Disparities in access to deep brain stimulation surgery for Parkinson disease: interaction between African American race and Medicaid use. JAMA Neurol 71:291–299
Willis AW, Schootman M, Kung N, Wang XY, Perlmutter JS, Racette BA (2014) Disparities in deep brain stimulation surgery among insured elders with Parkinson disease. Neurology 82:163–171
Hariz GM, Nakajima T, Limousin P et al (2011) Gender distribution of patients with Parkinson’s disease treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation; a review of the 2000-2009 literature. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 17:146–149
Hamberg K, Hariz GM (2014) The decision-making process leading to deep brain stimulation in men and women with parkinson’s disease—an interview study. BMC Neurol 14:89
Hariz GM, Lindberg M, Hariz MI, Bergenheim AT (2003) Gender differences in disability and health-related quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease treated with stereotactic surgery. Acta Neurol Scand 108:28–37
Chandran S, Krishnan S, Rao RM, Sarma SG, Sarma PS, Kishore A (2014) Gender influence on selection and outcome of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 17:66–70
Hariz GM, Limousin P, Zrinzo L et al (2013) Gender differences in quality of life following subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurol Scand 128:281–285
Chiou SM (2015) Sex-related prognostic predictors for Parkinson disease undergoing subthalamic stimulation. World Neurosurg 84:906–912
Accolla E, Caputo E, Cogiaamanian F et al (2007) Gender differences in patients with Parkinson’s disease treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord 22:1150–1156
Romito LM, Contarino FM, Albanese A (2010) Transient gender-related effects in Parkinson’s disease patients with subthalamic stimulation. J Neurol 257:603–608
Scelzo E, Mehrkens JH, Bötzel K, Krack P et al (2015) Deep brain stimulation during pregnancy and delivery: experience from a series of “DBS Babies”. Front Neurol 6:191
Smith KM, Dahodwala N (2014) Sex differences in Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders. Exp Neurol 259:44–56
Gillies GE, Pienaar IS, Vohra S, Qamhawi Z (2014) Sex differences in Parkinson’s disease. Front Neuroendocrinol 35:370–384
Litim N, Morissette M, Di Paolo T (2016) Neuroactive gonadal drugs for neuroprotection in male and female models of Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 67:79–88
Benedetti MD, Maraganore DM, Bower JH et al (2001) Hysterectomy, menopause, and estrogen use preceding Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory case-control study. Mov Disord 16:830–837
Martignoni E, Nappi RE, Citterio A et al (2002) Parkinson’s disease and reproductive life events. Neurol Sci 23:S85–S86
Currie LJ, Harrison MB, Trugman JM, Bennett JP, Wooten GF (2004) Postmenopausal estrogen use affects risk for Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 61:886–888
Ragonese P, D’Amelio M, Salemi G et al (2004) Risk of Parkinson disease in women: effect of reproductive characteristics. Neurology 62:2010–2014
Popat RA, Van Den Eeden SK, Tanner CM et al (2005) Effect of reproductive factors and postmenopausal hormone use on the risk of Parkinson disease. Neurology 65:383–390
Ascherio A, Chen H, Schwarzschild MA, Zhang SM, Colditz GA, Speizer FE (2003) Caffeine, postmenopausal estrogen, and risk of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 60:790–795
Rocca WA, Bower JH, Maraganore DM et al (2008) Increased risk of parkinsonism in women who underwent oophorectomy before menopause. Neurology 70:200–209
Simon KC, Chen H, Gao X, Schwarzschild MA, Ascherio A (2009) Reproductive factors, exogenous estrogen use, and risk of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 24:1359–1365
Nicoletti A, Nicoletti G, Arabia G et al (2011) Reproductive factors and Parkinson’s disease: a multicenter case-control study. Mov Disord 26:2563–2566
Frigerio R, Breteler MM, de Lau LM et al (2007) Number of children and risk of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 22:632–639
Rugbjerg K, Christensen J, Tjonneland A, Olsen JH (2013) Exposure to estrogen and women’s risk for Parkinson’s disease: a prospective cohort study in Denmark. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 19:457–460
Marder K, Tang MX, Alfaro B et al (1998) Postmenopausal estrogen use and Parkinson’s disease with and without dementia. Neurology 50:1141–1143
Greene N, Lassen CF, Rugbjerg K, Ritz B (2014) Reproductive factors and Parkinson’s disease risk in Danish women. Eur J Neurol 21:1168–1177
Liu R, Baird D, Park Y, Freedman ND et al (2014) Female reproductive factors, menopausal hormone use, and Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 29:889–896
Gatto NM, Deapen D, Stoyanoff S et al (2014) Lifetime exposure to estrogens and Parkinson’s disease in California teachers. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 20:1149–1156
Gardiner SA, Morrison MF, Mozley PD et al (2004) Pilot study on the effect of estrogen replacement therapy on brain dopamine transporter availability in healthy, postmenopausal women. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 12:621–630
Tsang K, Ho S, Lo S (2000) Estrogen improves motor disability in parkinsonian postmenopausal women with motor fluctuations. Neurology 54:2292–2298
Blanchet PJ, Fang J, Hyland K, Arnold LA, Mouradian MM, Chase TN (1999) Short-term effects of high-dose 17beta-estradiol in postmenopausal PD patients: a crossover study. Neurology 53:91–95
Parkinson Study Group POETRY Investigators (2011) A randomized pilot trial of estrogen replacement therapy in post-menopausal women with Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 17:757–760
Nicoletti A et al (2007) Hormonal replacement therapy in women with Parkinson disease and levodopa-induced dyskinesia: a crossover trial. Clin Neuropharmacol 30:276–280
Strijks E, Kremer JA, Horstink MW (1999) Effects of female sex steroids on Parkinson’s disease in postmenopausal women. Clin Neuropharmacol 22:93–97
Voskuhl RR, Wang H, Wu TC et al (2016) Estriol combined with glatiramer acetate for women with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 15:35–46
Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL et al (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333
Picillo M, Fasano A (2015) How much does sex matter in Parkinson disease? Neurology 84:2102–2104
Augustine EF, Pérez A, Dhall R et al (2015) Sex differences in clinical features of early, treated Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One 10:e0133002
Fengler S, Roeske S, Heber I et al (2016) Verbal memory declines more in female patients with Parkinson’s disease: the importance of gender-corrected normative data. Psychol Med 46:2275–2286
Gao L, Nie K, Tang H et al (2015) Sex differences in cognition among Chinese people with Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Neurosci 22:488–492
Scott B, Borgman A, Engler H, Johnels B, Aquilonius SM (2000) Gender differences in Parkinson’s disease symptom profile. Acta Neurol Scand 102:37–43
Wee N, Kandiah N, Acharyya S, Chander RJ, Ng A, Au WL, Tan LC (2016) Baseline predictors of worsening apathy in Parkinson’s disease: a prospective longitudinal study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 23:95–98
Jain S, Ton TG, Boudreau RM et al (2011) The risk of Parkinson disease associated with urate in a community-based cohort of older adults. Neuroepidemiology 36:223–229
Lyons KE, Hubble JP, Tröster AI, Pahwa R, Koller WC (1998) Gender differences in Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 21:118–121
Acknowledgements
This review was designed after the authors have been involved in a talk about “Gender differences in movement disorders” during the last meeting of the Italian LIMPE-DISMOV Academy held in Bari on May 4–6, 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no financial disclosures related to the content of this article. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Picillo, M., Nicoletti, A., Fetoni, V. et al. The relevance of gender in Parkinson’s disease: a review. J Neurol 264, 1583–1607 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-016-8384-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-016-8384-9