4.7 Review

Gastrointestinal barriers to levodopa transport and absorption in Parkinson's disease

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1465-1480

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.15734

关键词

absorption; constipation; delayed gastric emptying; diet; dysphagia; levodopa; medication; microbiota; Parkinson's disease; pharmacokinetics; transport

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Levodopa is the gold standard treatment for Parkinson's disease, but it often leads to motor and non-motor fluctuations. Gastrointestinal barriers, such as dysphagia, delayed gastric emptying, and gut dysbiosis, can affect levodopa absorption and response. Managing gastrointestinal dysfunction is crucial for optimizing levodopa therapy.
Levodopa is the gold standard for the symptomatic treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD). There are well documented motor and non-motor fluctuations, however, that occur almost inevitably once levodopa is started after a variable period in people with PD. Whilst brain neurodegenerative processes play a part in the pathogenesis of these fluctuations, a range of barriers across the gastrointestinal (GI) tract can alter levodopa pharmacokinetics, ultimately contributing to non-optimal levodopa response and symptoms fluctuations. GI barriers to levodopa transport and absorption include dysphagia, delayed gastric emptying, constipation, Helicobacter pylori infection, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and gut dysbiosis. In addition, a protein-rich diet and concomitant medication intake can further alter levodopa pharmacokinetics. This can result in unpredictable or sub-optimal levodopa response, 'delayed on' or 'no on' phenomena. In this narrative review, we provided an overview on the plethora of GI obstacles to levodopa transport and absorption in PD and their implications on levodopa pharmacokinetics and development of motor fluctuations. In addition, management strategies to address GI dysfunction in PD are highlighted, including use of non-oral therapies to bypass the GI tract.

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

4.7
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