Advertisement

BMC Neurology

, 19:194 | Cite as

Gender-dependent effect of coffee consumption on tremor severity in de novo Parkinson’s disease

  • Bang-Hoon Cho
  • Seong-Min ChoiEmail author
  • Byeong C. Kim
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Movement disorders

Abstract

Background

Coffee consumption represents a negative risk factor for Parkinson’s disease (PD) and seems to affect PD motor symptoms. We aimed to investigate the association between coffee consumption and motor symptoms in de novo PD patients.

Methods

In total, 284 patients with de novo PD were included in the current study. Motor and non-motor symptoms were evaluated using various scales. History of coffee consumption was obtained via a semi-structured interview.

Results

In total, 204 patients were categorized as coffee drinkers and 80 as non-coffee drinkers. Coffee drinkers were predominantly male and had early symptom onset; in addition, they were younger, reported more years in formal education, and had better motor and non-motor scores than did non-coffee drinkers. After adjustments, coffee drinkers had lower tremor scores than did non-coffee drinkers, and coffee consumption was related to tremors in a dose-dependent manner. These relationships were statistically significant in case of rest tremor but not in case of action tremor. The dose-dependent relationship between coffee consumption and tremor severity was significant only in men. Non-motor symptom scores were not significantly different between coffee drinkers and non-coffee drinkers.

Conclusions

Coffee consumption and tremor severity are inversely related in male patients with de novo PD.

Keywords

Parkinson’s disease Coffee Tremor Gender differences 

Abbreviations

ADL

Activities of daily living

ANCOVA

Analysis of covariance

AR

Akinetic-rigid

BDI

Beck Depression Inventory

K-MMSE

Korean versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination

mHY

modified Hoehn and Yahr scale

MoCA-K

Montreal Cognitive Assessment

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NMSS

Non-Motor Symptoms assessment scale for Parkinson’s disease

PD

Parkinson’s disease

PIGD

Postural instability and gait disturbance

SD

Standard deviation

UPDRS

Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale

Background

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorder with diverse clinical manifestations that include both motor and non-motor symptoms [1]. Cardinal motor symptoms used for diagnosing PD include bradykinesia, which is one of the most important features, as well as rigidity, resting tremor, and postural instability [2]. Since tremor may have a different pathophysiology than bradykinesia and rigidity [3], the response of tremor to dopaminergic agents is less clear than that of bradykinesia or rigidity [4].

Previous epidemiological studies established that coffee is a negative risk factor for PD [5, 6, 7, 8]. This is further supported by a study showing that caffeine, a major chemical component of coffee, attenuates the loss of striatal dopamine and dopamine transporter binding sites in an experimental PD mouse model [9]. Additional experimental and observational PD studies demonstrated that coffee consumption had a beneficial effect on PD motor symptoms [10, 11]. Since coffee consumption reduces the risk of PD, there might be a relationship between coffee consumption and the severity of motor symptoms. However, few studies have investigated the relationship between coffee consumption and PD motor symptoms.

Gender differences in PD phenotypic presentation and disease progression are widely accepted, and the impact of caffeine on PD differs based on gender [5, 12, 13, 14, 15]. In addition, the association between coffee consumption and the severity of motor symptoms may differ between genders. Therefore, in the current study, we investigated the association between coffee consumption and motor symptoms in de novo PD patients based on their gender.

Methods

Study population

We performed a baseline survey to determine the association between coffee consumption and motor symptoms in a cohort of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve, early-stage PD patients consisting of 284 participants. All participants were enrolled from the outpatient clinic at the Chonnam National University Hospital and were recruited consecutively from January 2011 to December 2016.

Parkinsonism comprises multiple syndromes including PD. Thus, according to the international criteria, both parkinsonism and PD symptoms must be evaluated to make a proper PD diagnosis [2]. Parkinsonism is defined by the presence of bradykinesia and one additional symptom, including 4–6 Hz rest tremor, muscular rigidity, or postural instability not caused by primary visual, vestibular, cerebellar, or proprioceptive dysfunction, according to a previous study [2]. The United Kingdom Parkinson’s Disease Society Brain Bank clinical diagnostic criteria were used for the clinical diagnosis of PD [2]. An additional inclusion criterion for our study was the lack of significant cerebral lesions, as assessed by brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). None of the patients had a history of taking either antiparkinsonian or antidopaminergic agents. In contrast, the exclusion criteria were an uncertain diagnosis, secondary or atypical parkinsonism according to the recent clinical diagnostic criteria [16, 17, 18, 19], failure to complete the coffee consumption questionnaire, and dementia. The time at which one of the four cardinal PD signs was first noted by the patient or caregiver was defined as the onset of PD.

All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the hospital and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

Clinical evaluation

All PD patients were diagnosed by a specialist in movement disorders (S.M.Choi). The history of the patient and a neurological examination were used to obtain detailed clinical information, prior to the administration of antiparkinsonian medication.

Participants underwent a thorough neurological examination and were asked about the age at symptom onset and duration of formal education, as well as past and current medications. Both the severity and stage of the parkinsonism were evaluated using the modified Hoehn and Yahr (mHY) staging scale and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor (part III) and activities of daily living (ADL; part II) sub-scores. The effect of coffee consumption on the sum of each motor symptom score in the UPDRS, in addition to postural instability and gait disturbance (PIGD) and akinetic-rigid (AR) scores, was evaluated. Patients were scored for these variables using the methods proposed by both Jankovic at al. and Kang et al. [20, 21]. In short, in Jankovic’s method, the tremor score was calculated by dividing the sum of the UPDRS III items 20 and 21 and UPDRS II item 16 by 8, whereas the PIGD score was calculated by dividing the sum of the UPDRS III items 29 and 30 and UPDRS II items 13–15 by 5 [20, 22]. In contrast, in Kang’s method, the tremor score was calculated by dividing the sum of the UPDRS III items 20 and 21 by 4, and the AR score was calculated by dividing the sum of the UPDRS III items 22–27 and 31 by 15 [21].

To evaluate non-motor PD symptoms and general cognition, the Korean versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-K) were used [23, 24]. Additionally, the Non-Motor Symptoms assessment scale for PD (NMSS) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were used [25, 26].

Data on past and present coffee consumption were obtained via a semi-structured interview. In brief, the interview had the following questions: 1) Have you ever had coffee or do you currently drink coffee? 2) If you have ever drunk coffee, when did you start drinking coffee? 3) How long have you been drinking coffee? 4) On average, how many cups of coffee do you drink per day? 5) If you have stopped drinking coffee, when did you stop drinking coffee? For the analyses, we allocated our participants to two groups, the coffee drinker and non-coffee drinker group.

Statistical analysis

The results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables while numbers and percentages are provided for categorical variables. Comparisons of the demographic and clinical variables between PD patients with and without a history of drinking coffee were conducted using bivariate analyses (Student’s t-test or chi-square test, depending on the data distribution). Adjustments were made for the variables when bivariate analyses revealed a significant difference between coffee and non-coffee drinkers. Comparison of the severity of motor and non-motor scores between PD patients with and without a history of drinking coffee was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), which controlled for the significantly different demographic and clinical variables. We further evaluated the dose-dependent effect of the amount of coffee consumption in a day. Additionally, such analyses were performed in each gender subgroup to investigate the gender differences underlying the association. The p-values for the motor score on UPDRS and motor score on subtypes were corrected for by multiple testing using the false discovery rate. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software for Windows (version 22.0, IBM corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Comparison between coffee and non-coffee drinkers

Of the 284 de novo PD patients enrolled (Table 1), a total of 204 patients (71.83%) and 80 patients (28.17%) were categorized as coffee drinkers (coffee drinker group) and non-coffee drinkers (non-coffee drinker group), respectively. The coffee drinker group comprised current coffee drinkers and those who have had coffee in the past but have now stopped. Most of the patients who quit drinking coffee had a history of coffee drinking for more than 10 years. As shown in Table 2, intergroup comparisons revealed that coffee drinkers were younger, included more men, younger in age at cardinal motor symptom onset, and reported more years in formal education than the non-coffee drinkers. When comparing motor- and ADL-related scores, coffee drinkers had significantly lower UPDRS motor scores (p = 0.020) as well as tremor (p = 0.002), bradykinesia (p = 0.022), and gait and posture (p = 0.022) scores than non-coffee drinkers. When the tremor was divided into rest and action tremors, only rest tremor (p = 0.001) showed a significant difference. Furthermore, the univariate analysis revealed that coffee drinkers had significantly lower tremor scores (p = 0.001 for Jankovic’s method, p = 0.002 for Kang’s method) than non-coffee drinkers. However, PIGD and AR scores were not significantly different between the two groups. When comparing non-motor scores, we found that coffee drinkers had higher MMSE (p = 0.005), but lower BDI (p = 0.005) and total NMSS (p = 0.007) scores than non-coffee drinkers.
Table 1

Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with Parkinson’s disease (N = 284)

Age (years)

65.76 ± 9.63

Sex (female:male)

137:147

Age at symptom onset (years)

63.82 ± 9.69

Duration of disease (months)

21.98 ± 26.13

Formal education (years)

7.77 ± 5.17

Modified H-Y stage

1.79 ± 0.80

UPDRS motor score

20.37 ± 10.65

UPDRS ADL score

7.35 ± 5.63

MMSE

25.49 ± 3.84

MoCA

23.69 ± 4.74

BDI

12.42 ± 9.44

NMSS score

53.27 ± 46.67

The values represent the mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and numbers for categorical variables

H-Y Hoehn and Yahr, UPDRS Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale, ADL Activities of daily living, MMSE Mini-Mental State Examination, MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment, BDI Beck Depression Inventory, NMSS Non-Motor Symptoms assessment scale for Parkinson’s disease

Table 2

Comparison of Parkinson’s disease characteristics between coffee drinkers and non-coffee drinkers

 

Coffee drinker

(n = 204)

Non-coffee drinker

(n = 80)

p-value

Adjusted

p-value

Demographic

 Age (years)

64.57 ± 9.83

68.79 ± 8.24

0.001

 

 Sex (female:male)

84:120

53:27

<  0.001

 

 Age at symptom onset (years)

62.84 ± 10.00

67.00 ± 8.15

0.001

 

 Disease duration (months)

21.08 ± 24.23

22.04 ± 22.65

NS

 

 Formal education (years)

8.54 ± 5.30

5.77 ± 4.28

<  0.001

 

Motor and ADL

 Modified H-Y stage

1.75 ± 0.80

1.89 ± 0.84

NS

 

 UPDRS motor score

19.46 ± 9.97

22.84 ± 12.04

0.020

NS*

 UPDRS ADL score

7.02 ± 5.24

8.22 ± 6.60

NS

 

Motor scores on UPDRS

 Tremor

2.48 ± 2.17

3.64 ± 2.90

0.002

<  0.001*†

 Rest tremor (Item 20)

1.49 ± 1.67

2.41 ± 2.23

0.001

0.001*†

 Action tremor (Item 21)

0.99 ± 1.25

1.23 ± 1.45

NS

NS*

 Bradykinesia

8.93 ± 5.36

10.83 ± 6.28

0.022

NS*

 Rigidity

4.60 ± 2.83

4.92 ± 2.99

NS

 

 Gait and Posture

0.78 ± 1.19

1.16 ± 1.27

0.022

NS*

Motor scores on subtypes

 Tremor score (Jankovic)

0.44 ± 0.32

0.61 ± 0.41

0.001

<  0.001*†

 PIGD score (Jankovic)

0.41 ± 0.47

0.47 ± 0.52

NS

 

 Tremor score (Kang)

0.62 ± 0.54

0.91 ± 0.72

0.002

<  0.001*†

 Akinetic-Rigid score (Kang)

0.90 ± 0.51

1.05 ± 0.59

NS

 

Non-motor symptoms

 MMSE

25.88 ± 3.71

24.38 ± 4.00

0.005

NS**

 MoCA

23.99 ± 4.63

22.31 ± 5.04

NS

 

 BDI

11.32 ± 8.35

15.47 ± 11.51

0.005

NS**

 Total NMSS score

48.80 ± 46.12

65.72 ± 46.24

0.007

NS**

NS, statistically not significant

* Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, sex, age at symptom onset, formal education period, MMSE, BDI and total NMSS score

** Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, sex, age at symptom onset, formal education period, and UPDRS motor score

† Means statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing using the false discovery rate

After adjustment for significant clinical variables found in the univariate analysis, we found that rest tremor score (p = 0.001) on UPDRS and tremor scores on Jankovic’s and Kang’s methods (all p-values < 0.001) were lower in coffee drinkers than in non-coffee drinkers. However, scores related to other motor manifestations, such as bradykinesia, gait and posture, PIGD, and AR, were not significantly different between the two groups. Furthermore, after adjustment, there was no significant difference between the two groups for all the non-motor symptom scores (Table 2).

Since the prevalence of coffee consumption differed according to gender, we compared the demographic and clinical variables between coffee drinkers and non-coffee drinkers in each gender. Similar to the results described above, rest tremor scores were lower in coffee drinkers than in non-coffee drinkers in both the male and female subgroups, after adjusting for the significant variables found in the univariate analysis (Table 3).
Table 3

Comparison of Parkinson’s disease characteristics between coffee drinkers and non-coffee drinkers across genders

 

Male

Female

Coffee drinker

(n = 120)

Non-coffee drinker

(n = 27)

p-value

Adjusted p-value

Coffee drinker

(n = 84)

Non-coffee drinker

(n = 53)

p-value

Adjusted p-value

Demographic

 Age (years)

64.36 ± 10.04

72.20 ± 6.05

<  0.001

 

65.01 ± 9.45

67.32 ± 8.82

NS

 

 Age at symptom onset (years)

62.63 ± 10.14

69.75 ± 6.24

<  0.001

 

63.29 ± 9.71

65.53 ± 8.62

NS

 

 Disease duration (months)

21.00 ± 26.51

29.36 ± 43.61

NS

 

21.21 ± 20.69

22.02 ± 21.93

NS

 

 Formal education (years)

10.15 ± 5.18

7.74 ± 4.66

NS

 

6.16 ± 4.50

4.94 ± 3.80

NS

 

Motor and ADL

 Modified H-Y stage

1.75 ± 0.74

2.00 ± 0.78

NS

 

1.72 ± 0.83

1.82 ± 0.86

NS

 

 UPDRS motor score

19.47 ± 8.50

24.13 ± 11.69

0.024

NS*

18.99 ± 11.26

22.22 ± 12.27

NS

 

 UPDRS ADL score

7.15 ± 5.24

8.84 ± 6.03

NS

 

6.66 ± 5.17

7.98 ± 6.86

NS

 

Motor scores on UPDRS

 Tremor

2.52 ± 2.42

4.28 ± 3.46

0.021

0.002*†

2.44 ± 1.76

3.32 ± 2.55

0.018

0.036*

 Rest tremor (Item 20)

1.43 ± 1.83

2.84 ± 2.66

0.017

0.004*

1.57 ± 1.41

2.20 ± 1.98

0.034

0.044*

 Action tremor (Item 21)

1.08 ± 1.28

1.08 ± 1.44

NS

NS*

0.86 ± 1.20

1.12 ± 1.38

NS

NS*

 Bradykinesia

8.60 ± 4.48

10.72 ± 5.82

0.043

NS*

9.40 ± 6.40

10.88 ± 6.56

NS

 

 Rigidity

4.71 ± 2.70

5.00 ± 3.30

NS

 

4.44 ± 3.00

4.88 ± 2.85

NS

 

 Gait and Posture

0.68 ± 1.01

1.20 ± 1.00

0.020

NS*

0.93 ± 1.40

1.14 ± 1.40

NS

 

Motor scores on subtypes

 Tremor score (Jankovic)

0.45 ± 0.35

0.68 ± 0.48

0.006

0.005*†

0.42 ± 0.27

0.58 ± 0.37

0.007

0.026*†

 PIGD score (Jankovic)

0.38 ± 0.45

0.45 ± 0.48

NS

 

0.46 ± 0.49

0.48 ± 0.54

NS

 

 Tremor score (Kang)

0.63 ± 0.61

1.07 ± 0.86

0.021

0.002*†

0.61 ± 0.44

0.83 ± 0.64

0.018

0.036*†

 Akinetic-Rigid score (Kang)

0.89 ± 0.44

1.05 ± 0.57

NS

 

0.92 ± 0.60

1.05 ± 0.60

NS

 

Non-motor symptoms

 MMSE

26.41 ± 3.47

25.67 ± 3.13

NS

 

25.11 ± 3.92

23.79 ± 4.24

NS

 

 MoCA

24.20 ± 4.03

23.18 ± 4.35

NS

 

23.55 ± 5.49

21.87 ± 5.51

NS

 

 BDI

10.43 ± 7.91

11.04 ± 9.08

NS

 

12.56 ± 8.83

17.68 ± 12.02

0.010

0.018**

 Total NMSS score

52.26 ± 51.36

59.76 ± 39.25

NS

 

43.95 ± 37.30

68.70 ± 49.47

0.003

0.009**

NS, statistically not significant

* Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, age at symptom onset, formal education period, MMSE, BDI and total NMSS score

** Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, age at symptom onset, formal education period, and UPDRS motor score

† Means statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing using the false discovery rate

Dose-dependent relationship between coffee consumption and PD symptoms

The median value of coffee consumption was one cup a day; therefore, PD patients were categorized as non-coffee drinkers, coffee drinkers - one cup a day, and coffee drinkers - more than one cup a day, to evaluate the dose-dependent effect of the coffee consumption on tremor. We found that mHY stage, UPDRS motor, UPDRS tremor, UPDRS rest tremor, UPDRS bradykinesia, UPDRS gait and posture, tremor scores in both the Jankovic’s and Kang’s methods, and the AR score in Kang’s method were inversely related to the number of cups of coffee per day, and this was significant. Additionally, we found a significant inverse relationship between the BDI score and the number of cups of coffee per day, although MMSE and MoCA scores were directly related to the number of cups of coffee per day. However, after adjustment for the confounders, only tremor scores (UPDRS tremor, UPDRS rest tremor, and tremor scores in both Jankovic’s and Kang’s methods) were found to be related to coffee consumption in a dose-dependent manner (Table 4).
Table 4

Comparisons of demographic and clinical characteristics among Parkinson’s disease patients categorized by coffee drinking status (Non-coffee drinker, Coffee drinker - 1 cup a day, Coffee drinker - more than 1 cup a day [median = 1])

 

Non-coffee drinker

(n = 80)

Coffee drinker 1 cup

(n = 99)

Coffee drinker more than 1 cup

(n = 105)

p-value

P for trend

Adjusted p-value

Demographic

 Age (years)

68.79 ± 8.24

66.52 ± 8.97

62.52 ± 10.22

<  0.001

<  0.001

 

 Sex (female:male)

53:27

48:51

36:69

<  0.001

<  0.001

 

 Age at symptom onset (years)

67.00 ± 8.15

64.85 ± 8.94

60.80 ± 10.56

<  0.001

<  0.001

 

 Disease duration (months)

22.04 ± 22.65

20.40 ± 19.16

20.93 ± 27.00

NS

NS

 

 Formal education (years)

5.77 ± 4.28

8.15 ± 4.86

8.92 ± 5.53

<  0.001

<  0.001

 

Motor and ADL

 Modified H-Y stage

1.89 ± 0.84

1.82 ± 0.72

1.66 ± 0.82

NS

0.028

NS*

 UPDRS motor score

22.84 ± 12.04

20.9 ± 9.6

17.9 ± 9.9

0.006

0.002

NS*

 UPDRS ADL score

8.22 ± 6.60

7.0 ± 5.5

6.8 ± 5.2

NS

NS

 

Motor scores on UPDRS

 Tremor

3.64 ± 2.90

2.56 ± 2.37

2.40 ± 2.07

0.003

0.001

0.002*†

 Rest tremor (Item 20)

2.41 ± 2.23

1.77 ± 1.43

1.41 ± 1.73

0.001

<  0.001

0.002*†

 Action tremor (Item 21)

1.23 ± 1.45

1.30 ± 1.40

0.90 ± 1.20

0.076

0.074

NS*

 Bradykinesia

10.83 ± 6.28

9.61 ± 5.72

8.89 ± 5.22

0.037

0.012

NS*

 Rigidity

4.92 ± 2.99

5.13 ± 2.96

4.28 ± 2.75

NS

NS

 

 Gait and Posture

1.16 ± 1.27

0.90 ± 1.07

0.68 ± 1.27

0.015

0.004

NS*

Motor scores on subtypes

 Tremor score (Jankovic)

0.60 ± 0.41

0.45 ± 0.35

0.43 ± 0.28

0.004

0.001

0.003*†

 PIGD score (Jankovic)

0.47 ± 0.52

0.43 ± 0.47

0.38 ± 0.50

NS

NS

 

 Tremor score (Kang)

0.89 ± 0.72

0.64 ± 0.59

0.60 ± 0.50

0.003

0.001

0.002*†

 Akinetic-Rigid score (Kang)

1.04 ± 0.60

0.95 ± 0.52

0.85 ± 0.48

NS

0.018

NS*

Non-motor symptoms

 MMSE

24.38 ± 4.00

25.3 ± 3.7

26.2 ± 3.7

0.009

<  0.001

NS**

 MoCA

22.31 ± 5.04

22.7 ± 5.2

25.1 ± 3.6

0.001

0.001

NS**

 BDI

15.47 ± 11.51

11.66 ± 7.90

11.00 ± 8.84

0.006

0.003

NS**

 Total NMSS score

65.72 ± 46.24

48.25 ± 47.25

50.48 ± 45.88

NS

NS

 

* Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, sex, age at symptoms onset, formal education period, MMSE, MoCA, and BDI

** Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, sex, age at symptom onset, formal education period, and UPDRS motor score

† Means statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing using the false discovery rate

Finally, we evaluated the dose-dependent effect of coffee consumption on tremor in each gender. Tremor scores (UPDRS tremor, UPDRS rest tremor, and tremor scores in both the Jankovic’s and Kang’s methods) had an inverse relationship with coffee consumption in a dose-dependent manner only in the male subgroup, after adjustment for significant clinical variables found in the univariate analysis (Table 5).
Table 5

Comparisons of demographic and clinical characteristics among Parkinson’s disease patients categorized by coffee drinking status between genders (Non-coffee drinker, Coffee drinker - 1 cup a day, Coffee drinker - more than 1 cup a day [median = 1])

 

Male

Female

Non-coffee drinker

(n = 27)

Coffee drinker 1 cup

(n = 51)

Coffee drinker more than 1 cup

(n = 69)

p-value

p for trend

Adjusted p-value

Non-coffee drinker

(n = 53)

Coffee drinker 1 cup

(n = 48)

Coffee drinker more than 1 cup

(n = 36)

p-value

p for trend

Adjusted p-value

Demographic

 Age (years)

72.04 ± 6.00

67.29 ± 9.08

62.03 ± 10.26

< 0.001

< 0.001

 

67.62 ± 8.68

65.69 ± 8.89

63.47 ± 10.22

NS

0.038

 

 Age at symptom onset (years)

69.68 ± 6.17

65.72 ± 8.78

60.17 ± 10.54

< 0.001

< 0.001

 

65.69 ± 8.51

63.94 ± 9.11

62.01 ± 10.63

NS

0.070

 

 Disease duration (months)

28.30 ± 42.08

18.98 ± 20.12

22.69 ± 30.81

NS

NS

 

23.79 ± 25.26

21.98 ± 18.13

17.61 ± 17.65

NS

NS

 

 Formal education (years)

8.11 ± 4.88

9.78 ± 5.27

10.31 ± 5.14

NS

NS

 

4.73 ± 3.85

6.61 ± 3.89

5.93 ± 5.23

NS

NS

 

Motor and ADL

 Modified H-Y stage

1.93 ± 0.79

1.94 ± 0.73

1.64 ± 0.72

NS

NS

 

1.84 ± 0.86

1.70 ± 0.70

1.71 ± 0.98

NS

NS

 

 UPDRS motor score

23.18 ± 11.71

22.28 ± 9.12

17.78 ± 7.60

0.007

0.010

NS*

22.40 ± 12.27

19.50 ± 10.47

17.80 ± 12.08

NS

NS

 

 UPDRS ADL score

8.67 ± 5.86

7.63 ± 5.77

6.81 ± 4.88

NS

NS

 

8.21 ± 6.72

6.27 ± 4.82

6.72 ± 5.64

NS

NS

 

Motor scores on UPDRS

 Tremor

4.15 ± 3.36

2.55 ± 2.82

2.49 ± 2.14

0.017

0.006

0.014*†

3.26 ± 2.57

2.58 ± 1.75

2.25 ± 1.70

NS

0.026

NS*

 Rest tremor (Item 20)

2.84 ± 2.66

1.62 ± 1.47

1.39 ± 1.92

0.006

0.001

0.016*†

2.20 ± 1.98

1.95 ± 1.40

1.45 ± 1.41

NS

0.017

NS*

 Action tremor (Item 21)

1.44 ± 1.58

1.46 ± 1.50

0.98 ± 1.21

NS

NS

 

1.12 ± 1.38

1.10 ± 1.26

0.79 ± 1.18

NS

NS

 

 Bradykinesia

10.26 ± 5.85

8.96 ± 5.10

8.45 ± 3.99

NS

NS

 

11.00 ± 6.65

9.49 ± 6.03

8.97 ± 6.73

NS

NS

 

 Rigidity

4.81 ± 3.27

5.42 ± 3.10

4.25 ± 2.26

NS

NS

 

4.91 ± 2.99

4.63 ± 2.68

4.11 ± 3.21

NS

NS

 

 Gait and Posture

1.15 ± 0.99

0.88 ± 1.13

0.54 ± 0.90

0.018

0.008

NS*

1.21 ± 1.45

0.85 ± 1.13

0.92 ± 1.63

NS

NS

 

Motor scores on subtypes

 Tremor score (Jankovic)

0.66 ± 0.46

0.46 ± 0.41

0.44 ± 0.30

0.032

0.011

0.027*

0.57 ± 0.38

0.44 ± 0.28

0.41 ± 0.25

0.035

0.020

NS*

 PIGD score (Jankovic)

0.42 ± 0.47

0.44 ± 0.52

0.34 ± 0.40

NS

NS

 

0.49 ± 0.55

0.43 ± 0.43

0.48 ± 0.56

NS

NS

 

 Tremor score (Kang)

1.04 ± 0.84

0.64 ± 0.71

0.63 ± 0.53

0.017

0.006

0.014*†

0.82 ± 0.64

0.65 ± 0.44

0.56 ± 0.42

NS

0.026

NS*

 Akinetic-Rigid score (Kang)

1.00 ± 0.57

0.96 ± 0.51

0.85 ± 0.37

NS

NS

 

1.06 ± 0.61

0.94 ± 0.54

0.87 ± 0.64

NS

0.147

 

Non-motor symptoms

 MMSE

25.80 ± 3.14

25.88 ± 3.80

26.76 ± 3.20

NS

NS

 

23.78 ± 4.16

25.12 ± 3.32

25.24 ± 4.69

NS

NS

 

 MoCA

23.22 ± 4.22

23.34 ± 4.68

24.82 ± 3.44

NS

NS

 

21.58 ± 5.57

22.26 ± 5.59

25.62 ± 4.07

0.016

0.009

NS**

 BDI

10.82 ± 8.83

10.80 ± 7.65

10.23 ± 8.22

NS

NS

 

17.45 ± 11.84

12.56 ± 8.14

12.47 ± 9.88

0.024

0.025

NS**

 Total NMSS score

57.41 ± 39.26

53.61 ± 58.40

51.97 ± 46.36

NS

NS

 

66.08 ± 49.24

42.56 ± 31.05

47.61 ± 45.45

0.017

0.047

0.044**

NS, statistically not significant

* Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, age at symptoms onset, formal education period, MMSE, MoCA, and BDI

** Adjusted p-values were calculated by ANCOVA after adjustment for age, age at symptom onset, formal education period, and UPDRS motor score

† Means statistically significant after correcting for multiple testing using the false discovery rate

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between coffee consumption and motor symptoms in de novo PD patients. In summary, we found that 1) coffee drinkers have lower tremor scores than non-coffee drinkers, 2) the low tremor scores in coffee drinkers are found in both the male and female subgroups, 3) coffee consumption is related to tremor in a dose-dependent manner, 4) the relationship between coffee consumption and tremor was statistically significant only in rest tremor, not in action tremor, and 5) the dose-dependent, inverse relationship between coffee consumption and tremor scores was significant only in the male subgroup.

The relationship between coffee consumption and tremor is controversial. Some people have previously stated that drinking coffee made their hands prone to tremor, and a small proportion of patients with essential tremor or PD thought that coffee worsened their tremor [27]. However, caffeine only infrequently induces tremor in the general population, and it does not exacerbate pathological tremor [27, 28]. Although caffeine consumption is not correlated to tremor severity in patients with essential tremor [29], currently, no studies exist on the association between caffeine and tremor in PD patients. Our study shows that coffee consumption could attenuate tremor severity in de novo PD patients.

Tremor may have distinct pathophysiology compared to bradykinesia and rigidity. Previous neuroimaging studies reported that patients with the tremor-dominant PD subtype show higher dopamine transporter binding than those with the AR subtype, whereas tremor severity does not correlate to striatal dopamine deficits [30, 31]. Furthermore, another neuroimaging study revealed the involvement of both the cerebellothalamic circuit and basal ganglia in PD tremor generation [32]. Coffee is a major source of caffeine, which is the most widely consumed methylxanthine (1,3,4-trimethylxanthine) and is also a nonspecific adenosine A1/A2A receptor antagonist. Several studies have suggested that A2A receptor antagonists have a tremolytic effect in PD animal models [10, 33, 34]. Although it is possible that caffeine has a symptomatic benefit on tremor, there might be other explanations, including the neuroprotective effect of caffeine, reverse causality (prodromal PD patients might have reduced desires for caffeine), or residual confounding by other factors (specific personality or changes in reward mechanism in PD) [35]. In this study, we found that coffee consumption prior to diagnosis could influence tremor severity in de novo PD patients. Selective adenosine A2A antagonism through the modulation of basal ganglia function via opposing dopamine D2 receptors seems to be effective for the treatment of PD motor symptoms as a monotherapy or an adjunct therapy to dopaminergic agents [36, 37]. We believe that the effects of coffee on tremor severity in PD patients could be caused by the modulation of dopaminergic signaling even before clinical diagnosis. As such, future large prospective studies should investigate the therapeutic effects of coffee or adenosine A2A antagonists on tremor in PD. The findings from this study, therefore, suggest a potential therapeutic option for PD tremor, which responds less effectively to dopaminergic treatment than bradykinesia or rigidity.

In our study, the relationship between coffee consumption and tremor was significant only in rest tremor. One possible explanation is that rest tremor rather than action tremor is a typical symptom that reflects Parkinson’s pathophysiology [38]. However, these results could be related to the limitations of the UPDRS scoring system, because the total score of rest tremor is higher than that of action tremor.

A number of studies on the gender differences in PD patients were reported [13]. For example, although female PD patients show a mild disease phenotype at first, they have a more aggressive disease progression and a higher probability of motor complications as the disease progresses [13]. The impact of coffee and caffeine on PD risk and mortality also differs between genders [5, 12, 14, 15]. In fact, our study shows that the dose-dependent inverse association between coffee consumption and tremor severity is prominent in men but not in women. Such gender differences in PD have been partly explained by the effect of estrogen. Similar to our results, caffeine was reported to reduce the risk of PD, and its beneficial effect was prevented by the use of estrogen replacement therapy [12]. In addition, caffeine was found to reduce the risk of PD in postmenopausal women without hormonal replacement therapy; however, increased PD risk was observed in estrogen users [39]. Since estrogen has neuroprotective or neurotrophic effects and modulates the nigrostriatal dopaminergic system [40], we suggest that estrogen modulates the effects of caffeine on the dopaminergic system and that a complex interaction between caffeine, estrogen, and dopamine exists in the basal ganglia system. Large prospective studies could elucidate the mechanism behind such observations.

In this study, we included de novo PD patients to ensure that the effects of medication would not represent a confounder. Additionally, we prospectively recruited patients with PD based on a registry to reduce the selection bias. Our study has several limitations. First, there were significant differences between coffee drinkers and non-coffee drinkers in demography, including age, sex, age at symptom onset, and formal education. Although, we adjusted for these variables in other analyses, it is possible that these differences could affect the relationship between coffee consumption and tremor. Second, we investigated the association between coffee consumption and motor symptoms in de novo PD patients only, without examining control or advanced PD groups. Further controlled studies would reveal a more precise association between tremor severity and coffee consumption in PD patients. Third, this study did not include information regarding the consumption of other caffeine-containing beverages. There is a possibility that other beverages containing caffeine can influence motor symptoms in PD patients. Fourth, we did not collect information on the menopausal status and hormonal replacement therapy in women. Therefore, the analysis of the association between coffee consumption and motor severity in the female subgroup according to the hormonal status was not possible.

Conclusion

Coffee drinkers had lower tremor scores when compared to non-coffee drinkers, and the coffee consumption was inversely related to tremor severity in a dose-dependent manner in de novo PD patients. These relationships were statistically significant only in rest tremor, not in action tremor. The effect of coffee consumption on tremor severity was gender-dependent, and it was significant only in men. Further investigations are needed to reveal the exact causal relationship between coffee consumption and tremor in PD patients.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all patients, researchers, and institutions for their collaboration and contribution to this study.

Authors’contributions

BHC: study concept and design, data analysis and interpretation, drafting of the manuscript. BCK: data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. SMC: study design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors have edited and critically reviewed the paper for intellectual content and approved the final version of the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, & Future Planning NRF-2016M3C7A1905469 (to BC Kim). The funder involved in the collection and analysis of data and approved the final submission.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Chonnam National University Hospital and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Lees AJ, Hardy J, Revesz T. Parkinson’s disease. Lancet. 2009;373:2055–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al. The accuracy of diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes in a specialist movement disorder service. Brain. 2002;125(Pt 4):861–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hallett M. Parkinson’s disease tremor: pathophysiology. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012;18(Suppl 1):S85–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hallett M. Tremor: pathophysiology. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2014;20(Suppl 1):S118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross GW, Abbott RD, Petrovitch H, et al. Association of coffee and caffeine intake with the risk of Parkinson disease. JAMA. 2000;283:2674–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nefzger MD, Quadfasel FA, Karl VC. A retrospective study of smoking in Parkinson's disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1968;88:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hellenbrand W, Seidler A, Boeing H, et al. Diet and Parkinson's disease. I: a possible role for the past intake of specific foods and food groups. Results from a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire in a case-control study. Neurology. 1996;47:636–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fall PA, Fredrikson M, Axelson O, et al. Nutritional and occupational factors influencing the risk of Parkinson’s disease: a case-control study in southeastern Sweden. Mov Disord. 1999;14:28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen JF, Xu K, Petzer JP, et al. Neuroprotection by caffeine and a (2A) adenosine receptor inactivation in a model of Parkinson's disease. J Neurosci. 2001;21:RC143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morelli M, Di Paolo T, Wardas J, et al. Role of adenosine A2A receptors in parkinsonian motor impairment and l-DOPA-induced motor complications. Prog Neurobiol. 2007;83:293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwarzschild MA, Agnati L, Fuxe K, et al. Targeting adenosine A2A receptors in Parkinson's disease. Trends Neurosci. 2006;29:647–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ascherio A, Weisskopf MG, O'Reilly EJ, et al. Coffee consumption, gender, and Parkinson's disease mortality in the cancer prevention study II cohort: the modifying effects of estrogen. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:977–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picillo M, Nicoletti A, Fetoni V, et al. The relevance of gender in Parkinson's disease: a review. J Neurol. 2017;264:1583–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ascherio A, Zhang SM, Hernan MA, et al. Prospective study of caffeine consumption and risk of Parkinson's disease in men and women. Ann Neurol. 2001;50:56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benedetti MD, Bower JH, Maraganore DM, et al. Smoking, alcohol, and coffee consumption preceding Parkinson's disease: a case-control study. Neurology. 2000;55:1350–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilman S, Wenning GK, Low PA, et al. Second consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy. Neurology. 2008;71:670–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Litvan I, Agid Y, Calne D, et al. Clinical research criteria for the diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome): report of the NINDS-SPSP international workshop. Neurology. 1996;47:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang AE. Cortical basal ganglionic degeneration presenting with “progressive loss of speech output and orofacial dyspraxia”. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992;55:1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKeith IG. Consensus guidelines for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB): report of the consortium on DLB international workshop. J Alzheimers Dis. 2006;9(3 Suppl):417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jankovic J, McDermott M, Carter J, et al. Variable expression of Parkinson's disease: a base-line analysis of the DATATOP cohort. The Parkinson Study group. Neurology. 1990;40:1529–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kang GA, Bronstein JM, Masterman DL, et al. Clinical characteristics in early Parkinson's disease in a Central California population-based study. Mov Disord. 2005;20:1133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stebbins GT, Goetz CG, Burn DJ, et al. How to identify tremor dominant and postural instability/gait difficulty groups with the movement disorder society unified Parkinson's disease rating scale: comparison with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. Mov Disord. 2013;28:668–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kang Y, Na DL, Hahn S. A validity study on the Korean mini-mental state examination (K-MMSE) in dementia patients. J Korean Neurol Assoc. 1997;15:300–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee JY, Dong Woo L, Cho SJ, et al. Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment in elderly outpatient clinic: validation of the Korean version of the Montreal cognitive assessment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2008;21:104–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez-Martin P, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Abe K, et al. International study on the psychometric attributes of the non-motor symptoms scale in Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2009;73:1584–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beck AT, Beamesderfer A. Assessment of depression: the depression inventory. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1974;7:151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koller W, Cone S, Herbster G. Caffeine and tremor. Neurology. 1987;37:169–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morgan JC, Sethi KD. Drug-induced tremors. Lancet Neurol. 2005;4:866–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Louis ED, Jurewicz EC, Applegate L, et al. Semiquantitative study of current coffee, caffeine, and ethanol intake in essential tremor cases and controls. Mov Disord. 2004;19:499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spiegel J, Hellwig D, Samnick S, et al. Striatal FP-CIT uptake differs in the subtypes of early Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2007;114:331–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rossi C, Frosini D, Volterrani D, et al. Differences in nigro-striatal impairment in clinical variants of early Parkinson’s disease: evidence from a FP-CIT SPECT study. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17:626–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Helmich RC, Janssen MJ, Oyen WJ, et al. Pallidal dysfunction drives a cerebellothalamic circuit into Parkinson tremor. Ann Neurol. 2011;69:269–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Correa M, Wisniecki A, Betz A, et al. The adenosine A2A antagonist KF17837 reverses the locomotor suppression and tremulous jaw movements induced by haloperidol in rats: possible relevance to parkinsonism. Behav Brain Res. 2004;148:47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simola N, Fenu S, Baraldi PG, et al. Blockade of adenosine A2A receptors antagonizes parkinsonian tremor in the rat tacrine model by an action on specific striatal regions. Exp Neurol. 2004;189:182–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Postuma RB, Anang J, Pelletier A, et al. Caffeine as symptomatic treatment for Parkinson disease (Café-PD). Neurology. 2017;89:1795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferre S, Fredholm BB, Morelli M, et al. Adenosine-dopamine receptor-receptor interactions as an integrative mechanism in the basal ganglia. Trends Neurosci. 1997;20:482–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kondo T, Mizuno Y, Japanese Istradefylline Study G. A long-term study of istradefylline safety and efficacy in patients with Parkinson disease. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2015;38:41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deuschl G, Bain P, Brain M, and an Ad Hoc Scientific Committee. Mov Disord. 1998;13:2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ascherio A, Chen H, Schwarzschild MA, et al. Caffeine, postmenopausal estrogen, and risk of Parkinson's disease. Neurology. 2003;60:790–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shulman LM. Is there a connection between estrogen and Parkinson's disease? Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2002;8:289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, Korea University Anam HospitalKorea University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Neurology, Chonnam National University HospitalChonnam National University Medical SchoolGwangjuSouth Korea
  3. 3.National Research Center for DementiaGwangjuSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations