4.7 Article

Two Faces of Catechol-O-Methyltransferase Inhibitor on One-Carbon Metabolism in Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15040901

关键词

meta-analysis; Parkinson's disease; one-carbon metabolism; levodopa; homocysteine; vitamin B; folate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis investigated the impact of Levodopa and COMT inhibitors on levels of homocysteine, vitamin B-12, and folate in Parkinson's disease patients. The results showed that Levodopa treatment was associated with increased Hcy levels and decreased vitamin B-12 and folate levels, while COMT inhibitors were found to decrease Hcy and vitamin B-12 levels and increase folate levels compared to Levodopa treatment.
Levodopa (L-dopa) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibition are widely used therapeutics in Parkinson's disease (PD). Despite their therapeutic effects, it was raised that nutrients involved in one-carbon metabolism can be deteriorated by PD therapies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of L-dopa and COMT inhibitors on levels of homocysteine (Hcy), vitamin B-12 and folate in patients with PD. A total of 35 case-control studies from 14 different countries were selected through PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar and were meta-analyzed. In the L-dopa group, the Hcy level was higher compared to the PD without L-dopa group (SMD: 5.11 mu mol/L, 95% CI: 3.56 to 6.66). Moreover, vitamin B-12 and folate levels in the L-dopa group were lower compared to the healthy control (SMD: -62.67 pg/mL, 95% CI: -86.53 to -38.81; SMD: -0.89 ng/mL, 95% CI: -1.44 to -0.33, respectively). The COMT inhibitor group showed lower levels of Hcy (SMD: -3.78 mu mol/L, 95% CI: -5.27 to -2.29) and vitamin B-12 (SMD: -51.01 pg/mL, 95% CI: -91.45 to -10.57), but higher folate levels (SMD: 1.78 ng/mL, 95% CI: -0.59 to 4.15) compared to the L-dopa group. COMT inhibitors may ameliorate L-dopa-induced hyper-homocysteine and folate deficiency but exacerbate vitamin B-12 deficiency.

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