Treatment of Parkinson's disease should begin with a dopamine agonist

L-DOPA: a scapegoat for accelerated neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease?

There is consensus that amelioration of the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease is most effective with L-DOPA (levodopa). However, this necessary therapeutic step is biased by an enduring belief that L-DOPA is toxic to the remaining substantia nigra dopaminergic neurons by itself, or by specific metabolites such as dopamine. The concept of L-DOPA toxicity originated from pre-clinical studies conducted mainly in cell culture, demonstrating that L-DOPA or its derivatives damage dopaminergic neurons due to oxidative stress and other mechanisms. However, the in vitro data remain controversial as some studies showed neuroprotective, rather than toxic action of the drug. The relevance of this debate needs to be considered in the context of the studies conducted on animals and in clinical trials that do not provide convincing evidence for L-DOPA toxicity in vivo. This review presents the current views on the pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease, focusing on mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative/proteolytic stress, the factors that can be affected by L-DOPA or its metabolites. We then critically discuss the evidence supporting the two opposing views on the effects of L-DOPA in vitro, as well as the animal and human data. We also address the problem of inadequate experimental models used in these studies. L-DOPA remains the symptomatic 'hero' of Parkinson's disease. Whether it contributes to degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, or is a 'scapegoat' for explaining undesirable or unexpected effects of the treatment, remains a hotly debated topic.

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.

Changes in vascular alpha 1- and alpha 2-adrenoceptor responsiveness by selegiline treatment

Pharmacoepidemiological studies have reported an excess of mortality with selegiline, a MAO B inhibitor used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The mechanism of this putative adverse effect remains unknown but an interaction with the sympathetic nervous system was suggested. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of selegiline (10 mg/daily, orally during one week) on vascular alpha1- and alpha2-adrenoceptor responsiveness in conscious unrestrained dogs. Selegiline significantly increased resting values of both systolic and diastolic blood pressures and noradrenaline plasma levels (HPLC) without changing heart rate. Moreover, spectral analysis of systolic blood pressure (Fast Fourier Transformation) showed that selegiline increased the relative energy of a low frequency band without modifying the total spectrum. ED 50 calculated from dose-pressor response curves with phenylephrine (after beta-blockade by propranolol), an index of alpha1-adrenoceptor response or with noradrenaline (after alpha1- and beta blockade by prazosin plus propranolol), an index of alpha2-adrenoceptor response, were significantly higher after selegiline. Selegiline failed to modify the number of platelet alpha2-adrenoceptors measured by [(3)H] RX 821002 binding. Yohimbine-induced increase in noradrenaline release was significantly more marked after selegiline. These results support the evidence that selegiline induces a vascular alpha1- and alpha2-adrenoceptor-hyposensitivity that can be explained by the increase in noradrenaline release elicited by the drug.