HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Correspondence: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Correspondence are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zappia, M. Articles by Quattrone, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zappia, M. Articles by Quattrone, A.

Pharmacodynamics of the long-duration response to levodopa in PD

From the Institute of Neurology (Drs. Zappia, Bosco, Plastino, Oliveri, Aguglia, Gambardella, and Quattrone), University of Catanzaro, Italy; and the Institute of Experimental Medicine and Biotechnology (Drs. Nicoletti, Branca, Oliveri, Gambardella, and Quattrone), National Research Council, Piano Lago di Mangone (Cosenza), Italy.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Prof. Aldo Quattrone, Clinica Neurologica, Facoltà di Medicina, Via T. Campanella, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the latency, magnitude, and duration of the long-duration response (LDR) to levodopa in PD in relationship to the administration of levodopa at different interdose intervals.

METHODS: In six patients with PD, two different 15-day treatment regimens were used in which the drug was administered with interdose intervals of 24 or 8 hours.

RESULTS: The LDR built up within a few days with either regimen, but a faster rate of administering levodopa shortened the latency to the appearance of a sustained LDR. Once a sustained response had been reached, the magnitude of the LDR showed a stable ceiling effect that was independent of the levodopa schedule. After discontinuation of treatment, the decay of the LDR was similar for both regimens.

CONCLUSIONS: The system underlying the LDR to levodopa may be completely saturated when a sustained response has been fully developed. The intervals between doses of levodopa shorter than the interval effective to reach a sustained LDR should not be used in the clinical management of patients with PD because the antiparkinsonian benefit deriving from the LDR is already maximal and briefer intervals do not provide a greater benefit.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Wider, H. Russmann, J.-G. Villemure, B. Robert, J. Bogousslavsky, P. R. Burkhard, and F. J. G. Vingerhoets Long-duration response to levodopa in patients with advanced Parkinson disease treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation. Arch Neurol, July 1, 2006; 63(7): 951 - 955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Moro, R. J. A. Esselink, A. L. Benabid, and P. Pollak Response to levodopa in parkinsonian patients with bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation Brain, November 1, 2002; 125(11): 2408 - 2417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Nutt and T. G. Nygaard Response to Levodopa Treatment in Dopa-Responsive Dystonia Arch Neurol, June 1, 2001; 58(6): 905 - 910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Nutt Response to L-dopa in PD: The long and the short of it Neurology, May 23, 2000; 54(10): 1884 - 1885. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Zappia, R. L. Oliveri, D. Bosco, G. Nicoletti, D. Branca, M. Caracciolo, I. D. Napoli, A. Gambardella, and A. Quattrone The long-duration response to L-dopa in the treatment of early PD Neurology, May 23, 2000; 54(10): 1910 - 1915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]