4.6 Article

Short-term effects of coenzyme Q10 in progressive supranuclear palsy:: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 942-949

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mds.22023

关键词

progressive supranuclear palsy; energy metabolism; coenzyme Q(10); magnetic resonance spectroscopy; randomized controlled clinical trial (CONSORT statement)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial complex I appears to be dysfunctional in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). Coenzyme Q(10) (CoQ(10)) is a physiological cofactor of complex I. Therefore, we evaluated the short-term effects of CoQ(10) in PSP. We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial, including 21 clinically probable PSP patients (stage <= III) to receive a liquid nanodispersion of CoQ(10) (5 mg/kg/day) or matching placebo. Over a 6-week period, we determined the change in CoQ(10) serum concentration, cerebral energy metabolites (by P-31- and H-1-magnetic resonance spectroscopy), motor and neuropsychological dysfunction (PSP rating scale, UPDRS III, Hoelm and Yahr stage, Frontal Assessment Battery, Mini Mental Status Examination, Montgomery Asberg Depression Scale). CoQ(10) was safe and well tolerated. In patients receiving CoQ(10) compared to placebo, the concentration of low-energy phosphates (adenosine-diphosphate, unphosphorylated creatine) decreased. Consequently, the ratio of high-energy phosphates to low-energy phosphates (adenosine-triphosphate to adenosine-diphosphate, phospho-creatine to unphosphorylated creatine) increased. These changes were significant in the occipital lobe and showed a consistent trend in the basal ganglia. Clinically, the PSP rating scale and the Frontal Assessment Battery improved slightly, but significantly, upon CoQ(10) treatment compared to placebo. Since CoQ(10) appears to improve cerebral energy metabolism in PSP, long-term treatment might have a disease-modifying, neuroprotective effect. (c) 2008 Movement Disorder Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据