基于ELLDOPA研究的左旋多巴的新视角。

S Fahn
{"title":"基于ELLDOPA研究的左旋多巴的新视角。","authors":"S Fahn","doi":"10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_63","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Levodopa has been the gold standard for Parkinson's disease (PD) therapy since it was successfully introduced in 1967. But in the years since then, after recognizing that levodopa often leads to the motor complications of wearing-off and dyskinesias, there have been debates among clinicians as to when levodopa therapy should be started. Delaying therapy was advocated for the purpose of delaying the development of these motor complications. This became more popular as the dopamine agonists became available. Although less potent than levodopa in ameliorating the symptoms of PD, they were much less likely to produce the unwanted motor complications, even though they had their own adverse effects. When it was recognized that dopamine, itself, might be a factor leading to the death of dopaminergic neurons through its contributing to the formation of oxyradicals, a new concern arose, namely that levodopa, through its conversion to brain dopamine, might add to the existing oxidative stress and possibly enhance neurodegeneration of dopaminergic neurons. Though widely debated and without definite evidence, this possibility was sufficient to make some clinicians have further reason to delay the start of levodopa therapy. The ELLDOPA study was created to test this hypothesis. The clinical component of the study failed to find an enhancement of PD symptoms after levodopa was withdrawn following 40 weeks of levodopa therapy. Rather, the clinical results indicated that the symptoms had progressed much less than placebo, and in a dose-response manner. This suggests that levodopa may actually have neuroprotective properties. The uncertainty that a 2-week withdrawal of levodopa may not have entirely eliminated its symptomatic benefit and the discordant results of the neuroimaging component of the ELLDOPA study have created even more uncertainty that levodopa is neuroprotective. A survey of neurologists who treat PD patients showed that the vast majority of these clinicians do not believe levodopa is neuroprotective, and they remain concerned about the drug's likelihood of inducing motor complications. Thus, the ELLDOPA study failed to change the treating pattern of PD, and the clinicians require more convincing evidence of either neuroprotection or neurotoxicity of levodopa before they would alter their treatment approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":16395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neural Transmission-supplement","volume":" 70","pages":"419-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_63","citationCount":"56","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new look at levodopa based on the ELLDOPA study.\",\"authors\":\"S Fahn\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_63\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Levodopa has been the gold standard for Parkinson's disease (PD) therapy since it was successfully introduced in 1967. But in the years since then, after recognizing that levodopa often leads to the motor complications of wearing-off and dyskinesias, there have been debates among clinicians as to when levodopa therapy should be started. Delaying therapy was advocated for the purpose of delaying the development of these motor complications. This became more popular as the dopamine agonists became available. Although less potent than levodopa in ameliorating the symptoms of PD, they were much less likely to produce the unwanted motor complications, even though they had their own adverse effects. When it was recognized that dopamine, itself, might be a factor leading to the death of dopaminergic neurons through its contributing to the formation of oxyradicals, a new concern arose, namely that levodopa, through its conversion to brain dopamine, might add to the existing oxidative stress and possibly enhance neurodegeneration of dopaminergic neurons. Though widely debated and without definite evidence, this possibility was sufficient to make some clinicians have further reason to delay the start of levodopa therapy. The ELLDOPA study was created to test this hypothesis. The clinical component of the study failed to find an enhancement of PD symptoms after levodopa was withdrawn following 40 weeks of levodopa therapy. Rather, the clinical results indicated that the symptoms had progressed much less than placebo, and in a dose-response manner. This suggests that levodopa may actually have neuroprotective properties. The uncertainty that a 2-week withdrawal of levodopa may not have entirely eliminated its symptomatic benefit and the discordant results of the neuroimaging component of the ELLDOPA study have created even more uncertainty that levodopa is neuroprotective. A survey of neurologists who treat PD patients showed that the vast majority of these clinicians do not believe levodopa is neuroprotective, and they remain concerned about the drug's likelihood of inducing motor complications. Thus, the ELLDOPA study failed to change the treating pattern of PD, and the clinicians require more convincing evidence of either neuroprotection or neurotoxicity of levodopa before they would alter their treatment approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neural Transmission-supplement\",\"volume\":\" 70\",\"pages\":\"419-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_63\",\"citationCount\":\"56\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neural Transmission-supplement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_63\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neural Transmission-supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-45295-0_63","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

摘要

自1967年成功引入以来,左旋多巴一直是帕金森病(PD)治疗的黄金标准。但在那之后的几年里,在认识到左旋多巴经常导致运动障碍和运动障碍等运动并发症之后,临床医生们一直在争论左旋多巴治疗何时应该开始。延迟治疗的目的是延迟这些运动并发症的发展。随着多巴胺激动剂的出现,这种方法变得更加流行。虽然在改善PD症状方面不如左旋多巴有效,但它们产生不必要的运动并发症的可能性要小得多,即使它们有自己的副作用。当人们认识到多巴胺本身可能通过促进氧自由基的形成而导致多巴胺能神经元死亡时,一个新的问题出现了,即左旋多巴通过转化为脑多巴胺,可能会增加现有的氧化应激,并可能加剧多巴胺能神经元的神经变性。尽管存在广泛的争议,也没有明确的证据,但这种可能性足以使一些临床医生有进一步的理由推迟左旋多巴治疗的开始。ELLDOPA研究就是为了验证这一假设。该研究的临床部分没有发现左旋多巴治疗40周后停药后PD症状的增强。相反,临床结果表明,症状的进展比安慰剂要少得多,而且是剂量反应方式。这表明左旋多巴实际上可能具有神经保护作用。不确定的是,两周的左旋多巴停药可能不会完全消除其对症状的益处,以及ELLDOPA研究中神经影像学部分的不一致结果,使得左旋多巴对神经的保护作用更加不确定。一项针对治疗PD患者的神经科医生的调查显示,这些临床医生中的绝大多数不相信左旋多巴具有神经保护作用,他们仍然担心这种药物可能诱发运动并发症。因此,ELLDOPA研究未能改变PD的治疗模式,临床医生在改变治疗方法之前需要更多令人信服的证据来证明左旋多巴的神经保护作用或神经毒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A new look at levodopa based on the ELLDOPA study.

Levodopa has been the gold standard for Parkinson's disease (PD) therapy since it was successfully introduced in 1967. But in the years since then, after recognizing that levodopa often leads to the motor complications of wearing-off and dyskinesias, there have been debates among clinicians as to when levodopa therapy should be started. Delaying therapy was advocated for the purpose of delaying the development of these motor complications. This became more popular as the dopamine agonists became available. Although less potent than levodopa in ameliorating the symptoms of PD, they were much less likely to produce the unwanted motor complications, even though they had their own adverse effects. When it was recognized that dopamine, itself, might be a factor leading to the death of dopaminergic neurons through its contributing to the formation of oxyradicals, a new concern arose, namely that levodopa, through its conversion to brain dopamine, might add to the existing oxidative stress and possibly enhance neurodegeneration of dopaminergic neurons. Though widely debated and without definite evidence, this possibility was sufficient to make some clinicians have further reason to delay the start of levodopa therapy. The ELLDOPA study was created to test this hypothesis. The clinical component of the study failed to find an enhancement of PD symptoms after levodopa was withdrawn following 40 weeks of levodopa therapy. Rather, the clinical results indicated that the symptoms had progressed much less than placebo, and in a dose-response manner. This suggests that levodopa may actually have neuroprotective properties. The uncertainty that a 2-week withdrawal of levodopa may not have entirely eliminated its symptomatic benefit and the discordant results of the neuroimaging component of the ELLDOPA study have created even more uncertainty that levodopa is neuroprotective. A survey of neurologists who treat PD patients showed that the vast majority of these clinicians do not believe levodopa is neuroprotective, and they remain concerned about the drug's likelihood of inducing motor complications. Thus, the ELLDOPA study failed to change the treating pattern of PD, and the clinicians require more convincing evidence of either neuroprotection or neurotoxicity of levodopa before they would alter their treatment approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Neuroimaging of Parkinson's disease Stem cells and cell replacement therapy for Parkinson's disease. Gene therapy for Parkinson's disease. Immunization as treatment for Parkinson's disease. A diet for dopaminergic neurons?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1