4.6 Article

Intrajejunal Levodopa Infusion in Parkinson's Disease: A Pilot Multicenter Study of Effects on Nonmotor Symptoms and Quality of Life

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1468-1474

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.22596

关键词

Parkinson's disease; nonmotor; quality of life; duodenum; infusion

资金

  1. Boehringer-Ingelheim, Solvay, Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Switching from oral medications to continuous infusion of levodopa/carbidopa gel reduces motor complications in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD), but effects on nonmotor symptoms (NMSs) are unknown. In this prospective open-label observational study, we report the effects of intrajejunal levodopa/carbidopa gel infusion on NMS in PD based on standard assessments utilizing the nonmotor symptoms scale (NMSS) along with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS 3 motor and 4 complications) and quality of life (QoL) using the Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-8). Twenty-two advanced PD patients (mean age 58.6 years, duration of disease 15.3 years) were followed for 6 months. A statistically significant beneficial effect was shown in six of the nine domains of the NMSS: cardiovascular, sleep/fatigue, attention/memory, gastrointestinal, urinary, and miscellaneous (including pain and dribbling) and for the total score of this scale (NMSST) paralleling improvement of motor symptoms (UPDRS 3 motor and 4 complications in best on state) and dyskinesias/motor fluctuations. In addition, significant improvements were found using the Parkinson's disease sleep scale (PDSS) and the PDQ-8 (QoL). The improvement in PDQ-8 scores correlated highly significantly with the changes in NMSST, whereas a moderately strong correlation was observed with UPDRS changes. This is the first demonstration that a levodopa-based continuous dopaminergic stimulation is beneficial for NMS and health-related quality of life in PD in addition to the reduction of motor fluctuations and dyskinesias. (C) 2009 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