Search

Model-informed precision dosing using virtual twins (MIPD-VTs) is an emerging strategy to predict target drug concentrations in clinical practice. Using a high virtualization MIPD-VT approach (Simcyp version 21), we predicted the steady-state clozapine concentration and clozapine dosage range to achieve a target concentration of 350 to 600 ng/mL in hospitalized patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (N = 11). We confirmed that high virtualization MIPD-VT can reasonably predict clozapine concentrations in individual patients with a coefficient of determination (R 2 ) ranging between 0.29 and 0.60. Importantly, our approach predicted the final dosage range to achieve the desired target clozapine concentrations in 73% of patients. In two thirds of patients treated with fluvoxamine augmentation, steady-state clozapine concentrations were overpredicted two to four-fold. This work supports the application of a high virtualization MIPD-VT approach to inform the titration of clozapine doses in clinical practice. However, refinement is required to improve the prediction of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, particularly with fluvoxamine augmentation., (© 2024 The Authors. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and wellbeing, thereby enhancing quality of life. Trials have shown that physiotherapy has short-term benefits in PD. However, which physiotherapy intervention is most effective remains unclear., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of one physiotherapy intervention compared with a second approach in patients with PD., Search Methods: Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of numerous literature databases (for example MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, plus handsearching of major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to the end of January 2012., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of one physiotherapy intervention versus another physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted independently from each paper by two authors. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance and martial arts., Main Results: A total of 43 trials were identified with 1673 participants. All trials used small patient numbers (average trial size of 39 participants); the methods of randomisation and concealment of allocation were poor or not stated in most trials. Blinded assessors were used in just over half of the trials and only 10 stated that they used intention-to-treat analysis.A wide variety of validated and customised outcome measures were used to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions. The most frequently reported physiotherapy outcomes were gait speed and timed up and go, in 19 and 15 trials respectively. Only five of the 43 trials reported data on falls (12%). The motor subscales of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 were the most commonly reported clinician-rated disability and patient-rated quality of life outcome measures, used in 22 and 13 trials respectively. The content and delivery of the physiotherapy interventions varied widely in the trials included within this review, so no quantitative meta-analysis could be performed., Authors' Conclusions: Considering the small number of participants examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies, the possibility of publication bias, and the variety of interventions, formal comparison of the different physiotherapy techniques could not be performed. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of one physiotherapy intervention over another in PD.This review shows that a wide range of physiotherapy interventions to treat PD have been tested . There is a need for more specific trials with improved treatment strategies to underpin the most appropriate choice of physiotherapy intervention and the outcomes measured.

Background: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. Physiotherapy aims to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety, and well-being, thereby enhancing quality of life., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no intervention in patients with PD., Search Methods: We identified relevant trials by conducting electronic searches of numerous literature databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, and by handsearching major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to the end of January 2012., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy intervention versus no physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from each article. We used standard meta-analysis methods to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no physiotherapy intervention. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance, and martial arts. We used tests for heterogeneity to assess for differences in treatment effect across these different physiotherapy interventions., Main Results: We identified 39 trials with 1827 participants. We considered the trials to be at a mixed risk of bias as the result of unreported allocation concealment and probable detection bias. Compared with no intervention, physiotherapy significantly improved the gait outcomes of speed (mean difference 0.04 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.06, P = 0.0002); two- or six-minute walk test (13.37 m, 95% CI 0.55 to 26.20, P = 0.04) and Freezing of Gait questionnaire (-1.41, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.19, P = 0.02); functional mobility and balance outcomes of Timed Up & Go test (-0.63 s, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.21, P = 0.003), Functional Reach Test (2.16 cm, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.43, P = 0.0008), and Berg Balance Scale (3.71 points, 95% CI 2.30 to 5.11, P < 0.00001); and clinician-rated disability using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (total -6.15 points, 95% CI-8.57 to -3.73, P < 0.00001; activities of daily living: -1.36, 95% CI -2.41 to -0.30, P = 0.01; and motor: -5.01, 95% CI -6.30 to -3.72, P < 0.00001). No difference between arms was noted in falls (Falls Efficacy Scale: -1.91 points, 95% CI -4.76 to 0.94, P = 0.19) or patient-rated quality of life (PDQ-39 Summary Index: -0.38 points, 95% CI -2.58 to 1.81, P = 0.73). One study reported that adverse events were rare; no other studies reported data on this outcome. Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions revealed no evidence that the treatment effect differed across physiotherapy interventions for any of the outcomes assessed., Authors' Conclusions: Benefit for physiotherapy was found in most outcomes over the short term (i.e. < 3 months) but was significant only for speed, two- or six-minute walk test, Freezing of Gait questionnaire, Timed Up & Go, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale, and clinician-rated UPDRS. Most of the observed differences between treatments were small. However, for some outcomes (e.g. speed, Berg Balance Scale, UPDRS), the differences observed were at, or approaching, what are considered minimal clinically important changes. These benefits should be interpreted with caution because the quality of most of the included trials was not high. Variation in measurements of outcome between studies meant that our analyses include a small proportion of the participants recruited.This review illustrates that a wide range of approaches are employed by physiotherapists to treat patients with PD. However, no evidence of differences in treatment effect was noted between the different types of physiotherapy interventions being used, although this was based on indirect comparisons. A consensus menu of 'best practice' physiotherapy is needed, as are large, well-designed randomised controlled trials undertaken to demonstrate the longer-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in PD.

Background: Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy aims to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and well-being, thereby enhancing quality of life., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no intervention in patients with PD., Search Methods: We identified relevant trials by electronic searches of numerous literature databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, plus handsearching of major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to end of December 2010., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy intervention versus no physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from each article. We used standard meta-analysis methods to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no physiotherapy intervention. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance and martial arts. We used tests for heterogeneity to assess for differences in treatment effect across these different physiotherapy interventions., Main Results: We identified 33 trials with 1518 participants. Compared with no-intervention, physiotherapy significantly improved the gait outcomes of velocity (mean difference 0.05 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02 to 0.07, P = 0.0002), two- or six-minute walk test (16.40 m, CI: 1.90 to 30.90, P = 0.03) and step length (0.03 m, CI: 0 to 0.06, P = 0.04); functional mobility and balance outcomes of Timed Up & Go test (-0.61 s, CI: -1.06 to -0.17, P = 0.006), Functional Reach Test (2.16 cm, CI: 0.89 to 3.43, P = 0.0008) and Berg Balance Scale (3.36 points, CI: 1.91 to 4.81, P < 0.00001); and clinician-rated disability using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (total: -4.46 points, CI -7.16 to -1.75, P = 0.001; activities of daily living: -1.36, CI -2.41 to -0.30, P = 0.01; and motor: -4.09, CI: -5.59 to -2.59, P < 0.00001). There was no difference between arms in falls or patient-rated quality of life. Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the physiotherapy interventions for any of the outcomes assessed., Authors' Conclusions: Benefit for physiotherapy was found in most outcomes over the short-term (i.e. < three months), but was only significant for velocity, two- or six-minute walk test, step length, Timed Up & Go, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale and clinician-rated UPDRS. Most of the observed differences between the treatments were small. However, for some outcomes (e.g. velocity, Berg Balance Scale and UPDRS), the differences observed were at, or approaching, what are considered minimally clinical important changes.The review illustrates that a wide range of approaches are employed by physiotherapists to treat PD. However, there was no evidence of differences in treatment effect between the different types of physiotherapy interventions being used, though this was based on indirect comparisons. There is a need to develop a consensus menu of 'best-practice' physiotherapy, and to perform large well-designed randomised controlled trials to demonstrate the longer-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in PD.

Background: Current treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) is focused on relieving symptoms, at present there is nothing that is widely accepted to halt or slow disease progression. Potential neuroprotective or disease modifying agents have been identified from preclinical studies. One such group of compounds are anti-hypertensive drugs., Objectives: 1) Do anti-hypertensive drugs prevent the onset of PD? (primary prevention)2) Are anti-hypertensive drugs disease modifying agents in PD, do they slow the progression of disease once PD is established? (secondary prevention)3) What are the adverse effects of taking anti-hypertensive drugs for patients with PD?, Search Methods: Electronic databases including trial registers were searched, complemented with handsearching of conference proceedings and searching the citations of key articles (updated May 2011). Authors were contacted, to provide additional information, where necessary., Selection Criteria: For the primary prevention review, primary prevention trials and observational studies (cohort and case control studies) were sought. Participants were free of PD when exposure to anti-hypertensive drugs was assessed. For the secondary prevention review, clinical trials in patients with well defined PD were sought. Two people independently selected studies for inclusion using predetermined criteria., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted from the source papers and methodological quality was assessed independently by two review authors. Results for both reviews were dealt with descriptively., Main Results: Two cohort studies and four case control studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary prevention review. The two cohort studies found no effect of exposure to calcium channel blockers on the risk of developing PD. Three case control studies looked at the effects of exposure to calcium channel blockers and beta blockers on the risk of developing PD but the assessment periods of exposure were markedly different prior to PD onset, and different subclasses of drugs were examined, so results were not comparable. A protective effect of centrally acting calcium channel blockers was found in one study.Two trials and one ongoing trial met the inclusion criteria for the secondary prevention review. Each completed trial examined a different class of anti-hypertensive drug. The ongoing trial is examining the effects of the calcium channel blocker isradipine on motor symptoms and disease progression. It follows an earlier tolerability study. The results are due in the year 2012.Adverse effects were noted in all included trials and included intolerability to the drugs and worsening PD symptoms., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently a lack of evidence for the use of antihypertensive drugs for either the primary or secondary prevention of PD. More observational studies are required to identify potential drugs to go forward for safety and tolerability studies in people with early PD. The results of the ongoing trial will help inform further research.

Background: Levodopa is the mainstay of treatment for alleviating the motor symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease. However, patients often experience fluctuations in their symptoms over time and 'wearing off' which may be partly related to variable absorption of the drug. There is some evidence that treatment of the common gastrointestinal infection Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) with antibiotics may improve levodopa absorption in the gut and hence improve symptoms., Objectives: 1) What is the prevalence of H pylori in Parkinson's disease patients? 2) Does treatment of H pylori infection with antibiotics improve symptoms in Parkinson's disease patients? Is this effect dependent on improvements in the absorption of levodopa?, Search Methods: We searched electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) and trial registers, handsearched conference proceedings and carried out citation searching on key articles. All searching was updated in August 2009. We contacted authors to provide additional information where necessary., Selection Criteria: Clinical trials in patients with a well-defined definition of Parkinson's disease and who were H pylori-positive. Two people independently selected studies for inclusion using predetermined criteria. We used recruitment figures from clinical trials and other studies identified from the searching to determine the prevalence of H pylori in Parkinson's disease., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors abstracted data from the source papers and assessed methodological quality independently. We presented results descriptively., Main Results: Two completed and one ongoing clinical trial met the inclusion criteria. One trial (34 patients randomised) examined the effects of H pylori eradication on levodopa absorption and motor symptoms and found significant improvements in both. The ongoing trial has similar objectives and aims to recruit 100 patients. The other completed trial (20 patients analysed) sought to find a causal link between infection with H pylori and Parkinsonism and was non-contributory. A worsening of symptoms was noted with eradication failure.The prevalence of H pylori in Parkinson's disease was reported in four studies and ranged from 37% to 59% which is similar to that of the general population., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently a lack of evidence on the effects of screening and treating H pylori in patients with Parkinson's disease. There is limited evidence to suggest that H Pylori eradication improves the absorption of levodopa and improves motor symptoms. Results from an ongoing trial will inform the evidence base and will be incorporated in an update of this review. There is a need for well-conducted randomised controlled trials with standard outcome measures for motor symptoms and incorporating the costs of screening and treatment.

Background: Neuroinflammation may play a key role in the neurodegeneration associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be beneficial in the primary and secondary prevention of PD., Objectives: 1) Do NSAIDs prevent the onset of PD?2) Are NSAIDs neuroprotective in PD - do they slow the progression of disease once PD is established?3) What are the adverse effects of taking NSAIDs in PD?, Search Methods: We searched electronic databases, including trial registers, complemented with handsearching of conference proceedings and citation searching on key articles. All searching was updated in May 2011. We contacted authors to provide additional information where necessary., Selection Criteria: For the primary prevention review, we sought primary prevention trials and observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). Participants were free of PD when exposure to NSAIDs was assessed. For the secondary prevention review, we sought clinical trials in patients with a well-defined definition of PD. Two people independently selected studies for inclusion using predetermined criteria., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors abstracted data from the source papers and assessed methodological quality independently. No studies met the inclusion criteria for the secondary prevention review. For the primary prevention review only observational studies were found. We combined data where appropriate using the inverse variance method. We assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scales and by examining the period of exposure assessed prior to PD onset (or the index date in controls)., Main Results: Fourteen observational studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary prevention review (five cohort, nine case-control studies). Exposure to any NSAIDs or aspirin had no effect on the risk of developing PD. Exposure to non-aspirin NSAIDs reduced the risk of developing PD by 13% (effect estimate 0.87 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.04 - random-effects model), but this did not reach statistical significance. We found similar results for the most robust studies. Ibuprofen in isolation was examined in four studies and was associated with a 27% reduction in risk (effect estimate 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85). There was a lack of information on adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently no evidence for the use of NSAIDs in the secondary prevention of PD. Non-aspirin NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, may reduce the risk of developing PD. However, little is known of the effects of other individual drugs and at present no recommendations can be made regarding their use in primary prevention.

Background: One of the complications of long-term treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) with levodopa is the development of motor complications. Generally, when motor complications develop, clinicians add in an additional drug (to the levodopa regimen) from one of three other classes of anti-Parkinsonian treatments (dopamine agonists, catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitors (COMTIs) or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (MAOBIs)). However, despite trials having shown that these drugs are beneficial compared to placebo, it remains unclear as to the best way to treat patients experiencing motor complications and whether one class of drug is more effective than another., Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to assess more reliably the benefits and risks of the three classes of drugs (dopamine agonists, COMTIs and MAOBIs) currently used as adjuvant treatment to levodopa in PD patients suffering from motor complications. The three drug classes were compared with the aim of determining whether one class of drug provides better symptomatic control than another., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, LILACS and Web of Science, plus major journals in the field, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing an orally administered dopamine agonist, COMTI or MAOBI versus placebo, both on a background of levodopa therapy, in PD patients experiencing motor complications., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data on off-time, levodopa dose, motor complications, side-effects, treatment concordance, clinician-rated disability, mortality, quality of life and health economic data., Main Results: Forty-four eligible trials, involving 8436 participants were identified. Compared to placebo, adjuvant therapy significantly reduced off-time (-1.05 hours/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.19 to -0.90; P<0.00001), the required levodopa dose (-55.65 mg/day, CI -62.67 to -48.62; P<0.00001) and improved UPDRS scores (UPDRS ADL score: -1.31 points, CI -1.62 to -0.99; P<0.00001; UPDRS motor score: -2.84 points, CI -3.36 to -2.32; P<0.00001; UPDRS total score: -3.26 points, CI -4.52 to -2.00; P<0.00001). However, dyskinesia (odds ratio (OR) 2.50, CI 2.21 to 2.84; P<0.00001) and side-effects including constipation (OR 3.19, CI 2.17 to 4.68; P<0.00001), dizziness (OR 1.57, CI 1.30 to 1.90; P<0.00001), dry mouth (OR 2.33, CI 1.22 to 4.47; P=0.01), hallucinations (OR 2.16, CI 1.70 to 2.74; P<0.00001), hypotension (OR 1.47, CI 1.18 to 1.83; P=0.0007), insomnia (OR 1.38, CI 1.09 to 1.74; P=0.007), nausea (OR 1.78, CI 1.53 to 2.07; P<0.00001), somnolence (OR 1.87, CI 1.40 to 2.51; P<0.0001) and vomiting (OR 2.56, CI 1.67 to 3.93; P<0.0001) were all increased with adjuvant therapy.Indirect comparisons of the three drug classes suggested that dopamine agonists were more efficacious in reducing off-time (dopamine agonist: -1.54 hours/day; COMTI: -0.83 hours/day; MAOBI: -0.93 hours/day; test for heterogeneity between drug classes P=0.0003) and levodopa dose (dopamine agonist: -116 mg/day; COMTI: -52 mg/day; MAOBI: -29 mg/day; test for heterogeneity between drug classes P<0.00001). UPDRS scores also improved more with dopamine agonists than with COMTI or MAOBI (UPDRS total scores - dopamine agonist: -10.01 points versus COMTI: -1.46 points versus MAOBI: -2.20 points; test for heterogeneity between drug classes P<0.00001), although more dyskinesia were seen with dopamine agonists (OR 2.70) and COMTI (OR 2.50) than with MAOBI (OR 0.94) (test for heterogeneity between drug classes P=0.009). Although the increase in the overall incidence of side-effects was generally more marked with dopamine agonists (OR 1.52) and COMTI (OR 2.0) than with MAOBI (OR 1.32), heterogeneity between drug classes was only of borderline significance (P=0.07)., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to placebo, adjuvant therapy reduces off-time, levodopa dose, and improves UPDRS scores in PD patients who develop motor complications on levodopa therapy. However, this is at the expense of increased dyskinesia and numerous other side-effects. Indirect comparisons suggest that dopamine agonist therapy may be more effective than COMTI and MAOBI therapy, which have comparable efficacy. However, as indirect comparisons should be interpreted with caution, direct head-to-head randomised trials assessing the impact of these different drug classes on overall patient-rated quality of life are needed.

Background: It has been postulated that monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors alter disease progression in Parkinson's disease (PD) but trials have produced conflicting results., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of long-term use of MAO-B inhibitors compared with other dopaminergic agents in early PD., Search Strategy: We searched several electronic databases including: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2009) and EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2009). We also handsearched neurology and movement disorders conference proceedings, checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted other researchers., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared a MAO-B inhibitor with other dopaminergic agents (presently levodopa or dopamine agonists) in patients with early PD, where treatment and follow up lasted at least one year., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. Additional data were provided by the original authors. Random-effects models were used to analyse results, where appropriate., Main Results: Only two eligible trials were included (593 patients), both of reasonable quality although one was unblinded. Both trials compared selegiline with a dopamine agonist, whilst one also compared selegiline with levodopa. MAO-B inhibitors were not associated with a significant increase or decrease in deaths compared with levodopa (odds ratio (OR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.76) or dopamine agonists (OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.45). Those receiving MAO-B inhibitors were more likely to require add-on therapy during follow-up than those receiving levodopa (OR 12.02; 95% CI 6.78 to 21.31) or dopamine agonist (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.81). There was a reduction in motor fluctuations with MAO-B inhibitors compared with levodopa (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94) but not dopamine agonists (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.05). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less common with MAO-B inhibitors than with dopamine agonists (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99)., Authors' Conclusions: MAO-B inhibitors are one option for the early treatment of PD although they have weaker symptomatic effects than levodopa and dopamine agonists. They may reduce the rate of motor fluctuations compared with initial levodopa therapy and may have fewer significant adverse effects than the older agonists but data are too few to provide reliable conclusions.

Background: Dopamine agonists are being used increasingly as first line treatment for Parkinson's disease, but there remains uncertainty about their clinical and cost-effectiveness relative to levodopa., Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to quantify more reliably the benefits and risks of dopamine agonists compared to placebo or levodopa in early Parkinson's disease., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, LILACS and Web of Science, plus major journals in the field, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing an orally administered dopamine agonist (with or without levodopa) versus placebo or levodopa or both placebo and levodopa in participants with early Parkinson's disease., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data on clinician-rated disability, motor complications, other side-effects, treatment concordance, levodopa dose and mortality., Main Results: Twenty-nine eligible trials, involving 5247 participants, were identified. Participants randomised to a dopamine agonist were less likely to develop dyskinesia (odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.59; P < 0.00001), dystonia (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81; P = 0.0002) and motor fluctuations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; P = 0.002) than levodopa-treated participants. However, various 'non-motor' side-effects, including oedema (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.62 to 5.18; P < 0.00001), somnolence (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.00; P = 0.007), constipation (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.28; P = 0.01), dizziness (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.92; P = 0.01), hallucinations (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.52; P = 0.01) and nausea (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.66; P = 0.02) were all increased in agonist-treated participants (compared with levodopa-treated participants). Agonist-treated participants were also significantly more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events (OR 2.49, 95% CI 2.08 to 2.98; P < 0.00001). Finally symptomatic control of Parkinson's disease was better with levodopa than with agonists, but data were reported too inconsistently and incompletely to meta-analyse., Authors' Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms that motor complications are reduced with dopamine agonists compared to levodopa, but also establishes that other important side-effects are increased and symptom control is poorer with agonists. Larger, long-term comparative trials assessing patient-rated quality of life are needed to assess more reliably the balance of benefits and risks of dopamine agonists compared to levodopa.

Background: Drugs that mimic dopamine, such as bromocriptine (BR), were introduced as monotherapy or in combination with levodopa (LD) in the hope that this approach would prevent or delay the onset of motor complications in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, hitherto, the role of BR has remained controversial. We present a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BR/LD combination therapy compared with LD monotherapy in PD., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of BR/LD combination therapy in delaying the onset of motor complications associated with LD monotherapy in patients with PD., Search Strategy: We searched the Movement Disorders Group trials register which includes MEDLINE and EMBASE; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); handsearched appropriate neurology journals, symposia reports, PD handbooks and reference lists of reviews found by the search-strategy. We also contacted Sandoz -now Novartis- (manufacturer of BR) and PPD Pharmaco and contacted colleagues who had co-ordinated trials on BR., Selection Criteria: RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the efficacy of BR/LD combination therapy for delaying the onset of motor complications compared with LD monotherapy in patients with PD. Outcome measures evaluated included the occurrence and severity of motor complications, impairment and disability scores, side effects and dropouts., Data Collection and Analysis: To determine the feasibility of a quantitative systematic review two independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of identified trials and extracted data from the trials., Main Results: The methodological quality of seven trials showed important shortcomings. All studies failed adequately to describe randomisation procedures. Only three were carried out according to a double-blind design. Differences were found between studies concerning the mean age of the participants, the BR titration phase, the maximum achieved daily dose of LD (62.5 to 1000 mg) and BR (5 to 50 mg), and the applied outcomes. Our results show no evidence of consistent differences between treatment groups concerning the occurrence and severity of motor complications, scores of impairment and disability, or the occurrence of side effects., Authors' Conclusions: This systematic review revealed no evidence to support the use of early BR/LD combination therapy as a strategy to prevent or delay the onset of motor complications in the treatment of PD.

Background: Drugs that mimic dopamine as bromocriptine were introduced as monotherapy or in combination with LD in the hope that this approach would prevent or delay the onset of motor complications in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, hitherto, the role of bromocriptine (BR) in this issue has remained controversial., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of bromocriptine (BR) monotherapy for delaying the onset of motor complications associated with levodopa (LD) therapy in patients with PD., Search Strategy: We searched the Movement Disorders Group trials register which includes MEDLINE and EMBASE; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); handsearched appropriate neurology journals and reference lists of reviews found by the search-strategy. We also contacted Sandoz -now Novartis- (manufacturer of BR) and contacted colleagues who had co-ordinated trials on BR., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of BR monotherapy for delaying the onset of motor complications compared to LD therapy alone in PD patients., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality of identified trials and extracted the data from the trials., Main Results: Six trials with 850 participants were included. The trials were of low methodological quality and were heterogeneous so we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. The occurrence of dyskinesias in three short trials was too low to draw any conclusion. The results of the longer trials indicate a lower occurrence of dyskinesias in the BR tier. In five trials that evaluated dystonia, this motor complication occurred less frequently in the BR tier. However, for both dyskinesias and dystonia a statistically significant difference in favour of BR emerged only in the largest trial. There was a trend for wearing-off and on-off fluctuations to occur less frequently in the BR group. Although all trials evaluated participants at the impairment level, only the largest trial reported a significantly larger improvement for the LD tier during the first year of therapy. Concerning disability, which was evaluated by five trials no statistically significant differences were found. Overall, a statistically larger number of dropouts occurred in the BR group because of an inadequate therapeutic response or intolerable side effects., Authors' Conclusions: Based on a qualitative review of the available data we conclude that in the treatment of early Parkinson's disease, bromocriptine may be beneficial in delaying motor complications and dyskinesias with comparable effects on impairment and disability in those patients that tolerate the drug.

Background: It has been postulated that monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors alter disease progression in Parkinson's disease (PD). Clinical trials have produced conflicting results., Objectives: To assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials for the effectiveness and safety of long-term use of MAO-B inhibitors in early PD., Search Strategy: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (last searched 18th August 2004) and EMBASE (last searched 18th August 2004). We also handsearched neurology and movement disorders conference proceedings, checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted other researchers., Selection Criteria: We sought to include all unconfounded randomized controlled trials that compared a MAO-B inhibitor with control, in the presence or absence of levodopa or dopamine agonists, in patients with early PD and where treatment and follow up lasted at least one year., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. A small amount of additional data was provided by the original authors. Random-effects models were used to analyse results, where appropriate., Main Results: Ten trials were included (a total of 2422 patients), nine using selegiline, one using lazabemide. The methodological quality was reasonable although concealment of allocation was definitely adequate in only four trials. The mean follow up was for 5.8 years. MAO-B inhibitors were not associated with a significant increase in deaths (odds ratio (OR) 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.44). They provided small benefits over control in impairment (weighted mean difference (WMD) for change in motor UPDRS score was 3.81 points less with MAO-B inhibitors; 95% CI 2.27 to 5.36) and disability (WMD for change in UPDRS ADL score was 1.50 less; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.53) at one year which, although statistically significant, were not clinically significant. There was a marked levodopa-sparing effect with MAO-B inhibitors which was associated with a significant reduction in motor fluctuations (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94) but not dyskinesia (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.25). The reduction in motor fluctuations was, however, not robust in sensitivity analyses. Although adverse events were generally mild and infrequent, withdrawals due to side-effects were higher (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.32 to 4.20) with MAO-B inhibitors., Authors' Conclusions: MAO-B inhibitors do not appear to delay disease progression but may have a beneficial effect on motor fluctuations. There was no statistically significant effect on deaths although the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase with MAO-B inhibitors. At present we do not feel these drugs can be recommended for routine use in the treatment of early Parkinson's disease but further randomized controlled trials should be carried out to clarify, in particular, their effect on deaths and motor complications.

The pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and excretion of 14C-sumatriptan have been studied in the beagle dog following administration by the intranasal and other routes. The pharmacological response which was monitored, an increase in carotid arterial vascular resistance, correlated with the plasma levels of unchanged sumatriptan following intranasal, intravenous, or intraduodenal administration to the anaesthetised dog. The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of sumatriptan were then confirmed in conscious male and female dogs. Intranasal administration of 14C-sumatriptan resulted in rapid absorption of part of the dose. The overall bioavailability of sumatriptan was 40-50%. Sumatriptan was eliminated from plasma with a half-life of 1.5 or 1.9 h after intravenous or intranasal dosage respectively. Radioactivity was largely excreted in urine (up to 75% of the dose) with small amounts in the bile and faeces after intravenous and intranasal dosing, as sumatriptan and a major metabolite. The results from these studies suggest that intranasal administration provides a viable method for delivering sumatriptan to the systemic circulation.

Stressful environmental conditions are a major determinant of immune reactivity. This effect is pronounced in Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition populations exposed to prolonged periods of isolation in the Antarctic. Alterations of T cell function, including depression of cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity responses and a peak 48.9% reduction of T cell proliferation to the mitogen phytohaemagglutinin, were documented during a 9-month period of isolation. T cell dysfunction was mediated by changes within the peripheral blood mononuclear cell compartment, including a paradoxical atypical monocytosis associated with altered production of inflammatory cytokines. There was a striking reduction in the production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells of the predominant pro-inflammatory monokine TNF-alpha and changes were also detected in the production of IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, IL-1ra and IL-10. Prolonged Antarctic isolation is also associated with altered latent herpesvirus homeostasis, including increased herpesvirus shedding and expansion of the polyclonal latent Epstein-Barr virus-infected B cell population. These findings have important long-term health implications.

1. The ability of 5-HT4 (5-hydroxytryptamine4) receptor ligands to modify dopamine release from rat striatal slices in vitro and in the striatum of freely moving rats was assessed by the microdialysis technique. 2. The release of dopamine from slices of rat striatum continually perfused with Krebs buffer was enhanced by 5-HT4 receptor agonists; 5-HT (10 microM), 5-methoxytryptamine (5-MeOT; 10 microM), renzapride (10 microM) and (S)-zacopride (10 microM) maximally increased dopamine release by 133 +/- 5, 214 +/- 25, 232 +/- 29 and 264 +/- 69%, respectively (mean +/- s.e.mean, n = 3-8). The drug-induced responses were maximal within the first 2 min of drug application, and subsequently declined. The non-selective 5-HT3/5-HT4 receptor antagonist, SDZ205-557 (10 microM), failed to modify basal dopamine release from striatal slices but completely antagonized the (S)-zacopride (10 microM)-induced increase in dopamine release. 3. To allow faster drug application, the modulation of dopamine release from rat striatal slices in a static release preparation was also investigated. The 5-HT4 receptor agonist, renzapride (10 microM) also enhanced dopamine release in this preparation (maximal increase = 214 +/- 35%, mean +/- s.e.mean, n = 14), whilst a lower concentration of renzapride (3 microM) was less effective. The renzapride-induced response was maximal within the first 2 min of drug application, before declining. In this preparation, the stimulation of dopamine release by renzapride (10 microM), was completely antagonized by the selective 5-HT4 receptor antagonist, GR113808 (100 nM). In addition, both the Na+ channel blocker, tetrodotoxin (100 nM) and the non-selective protein kinase A inhibitor, H7 (100 nM) completely prevented the stimulation of dopamine release induced by renzapride (10 microM). 4. In vivo microdialysis studies demonstrated that the 5-HT4 receptor agonists, 5-MeOT (10 microM), renzapride (100 microM) and (S)-zacopride (100 microM) maximally elevated extracellular levels of dopamine in the striatum by 220 +/- 20, 161 +/- 10 and 189 +/- 53%, respectively (mean +/- s.e.mean, n = 5-9). A lower concentration of renzapride (10 microM) was less effective. The elevation of extracellular striatal dopamine levels induced by either renzapride (100 microM) or (S)-zacopride (100 microM) were completely antagonized by the non-selective 5-HT4 receptor antagonist, SDZ205-557 (100 microM). In addition, the elevation of extracellular levels of dopamine induced by either 5-MeOT (10 microM) or renzapride (100 microM) was completely prevented by the selective 5-HT4 receptor antagonist, GR113808 (1 microM) and the renzapride (100 microM)-induced response was also completely prevented by the non-selective protein kinase A inhibitor, H7 (1 microM). In this in vivo preparation, both GR113808 (1 microM) and H7 (1 microM), when perfused alone, reduced extracellular levels of dopamine. 5. In conclusion, the present study provides evidence that the 5-HT4 receptor facilitates rat striatal dopamine release in vitro and in vivo.