Experiencia clínica en el tratamiento de las fluctuaciones motoras en la enfermedad de Parkinson. Consenso Delphi de un grupo / Clinical experience in the treatment of motor fluctuations in Parkinsons disease. Delphi consensus of a group of experts in movement disorders

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las fluctuaciones motoras son una de las complicaciones más frecuentes en la enfermedad de Parkinson y su tratamiento sigue siendo complejo. Por ello, desde el Grupo de Trastornos del Movimiento de la Asociación Madrileña de Neurología presentamos nuestra experiencia clínica en el tratamiento de estas complicaciones, con la intención de que sea de utilidad en la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica diaria. DESARROLLO: Se elaboraron 19 preguntas a partir de una revisión bibliográfica y una encuesta abierta respondida por los miembros de dicho grupo. Dichas cuestiones se debatieron en dos fases, utilizando la metodología Delphi. Considerando los resultados de la encuesta, el ajuste de la dosis de levodopa y los agonistas dopaminérgicos son la opción con mejor relación eficacia/tolerabilidad en el tratamiento de las fluctuaciones motoras. La rotigotina es útil en las fluctuaciones motoras asociadas a gastroparesia, y la apomorfina subcutánea intermitente, en pacientes con off impredecible. El efecto adverso más relevante asociado a los agonistas dopaminérgicos es el trastorno del control de impulsos. Los inhibidores de la catecol-O-metiltransferasa son útiles en las fluctuaciones motoras de inicio, especialmente en el wearing off. Los inhibidores de la monoaminooxidasa son fármacos, en general, bien tolerados y útiles en las fluctuaciones motoras. En caso de que estas medidas no resulten eficaces, se deben indicar terapias de segunda línea de manera individualizada. CONCLUSIÓN: El perfil clínico del paciente con enfermedad de Parkinson es primordial para decidir la terapia más adecuada en el tratamiento de las fluctuaciones motora

INTRODUCTION. Motor fluctuations are one of the most common complications of Parkinsons disease and their treatment is still a complex matter. Therefore, from the Neurology Movement Disorders Group we present our clinical experience in the treatment of these complications, with the intention of it being useful in decision-making in daily clinical practice. DEVELOPMENT. Nineteen questions were developed based on a literature review and an open survey answered by members of this group. These issues were discussed in two phases, using the Delphi methodology. Considering the results of the survey, levodopa dose adjustment and dopamine agonists are the option with the best efficacy/tolerability ratio in the treatment of motor fluctuations. Rotigotine is useful in the motor fluctuations associated with gastroparesis, and intermittent subcutaneous apomorphine has positive effects in patients with unpredictable off periods. The most relevant adverse effect associated with dopamine agonists is impulse control disorder. Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors are useful in the initial stages of motor fluctuations, especially in wearing off. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors are generally drugs that are well-tolerated and useful in motor fluctuations. If these measures are not effective, second-line treatments should be indicated on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSION. The clinical profile of patients with Parkinson's disease is paramount in deciding the most appropriate therapy for the treatment of motor fluctuations

In vivo gastric detection of α-synuclein inclusions in Parkinson's disease.

α-Synuclein inclusions have been identified in the brain and some parts of the enteric nervous system in Parkinson's disease cases. We aimed to assess these inclusions in gastric mucosa samples from patients with symptomatic Parkinson's disease. Random biopsies were performed by gastroscopy in 28 patients with Parkinson's disease and in 29 age- and sex-matched controls. Gastroscopy was performed to start enteral levodopa (L-dopa) therapy in cases and for diagnostic purposes in controls (gastroesophageal reflux, anemia, and abdominal pain were the main indications). The clinical definition of cases and controls was made a priori. Six controls had data suggestive of "mild presymptomatic parkinsonism". Biopsy specimens were immunostained for α-synuclein. The neuropathological diagnosis was established post hoc. No differences were found in the baseline characteristics of the groups. Positive fibers for the α-synuclein protein were observed in 17 of 28 (60.7%) Parkinson's disease patients, 1 of 23 controls (4.3%), and 1 of 6 (16.7%) cases of incident "mild presymptomatic parkinsonism." Neuropathological diagnosis based on α-synuclein immunostaining showed a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62.1-96.8), specificity of 95% (95% CI 76.2-99.9) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-1.00). No adverse events occurred. Detection of α-synuclein inclusions in the gastric mucosa is a useful and safe tool providing in vivo evidence of the underlying neurodegenerative peripheral involvement linked to Parkinson's disease. Further studies are warranted to determine its pathophysiological implications.

Efficacy of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone versus levodopa/carbidopa in patients with early Parkinson's disease experiencing mild wearing-off: a randomised, double-blind trial.

To compare the efficacy and safety of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (LCE) with levodopa/carbidopa (LC) on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with mild, or only minimally disabling motor complications. A prospective 3-month, multicentre, parallel-group, double-blind, and randomised phase IV study was performed. The primary endpoint was to assess the efficacy of LCE compared to LC on ADLs using the UPDRS part II. Secondary endpoints were assessed by the UPDRS (I, III and IV) scores, QUICK and PDQ-39 questionnaires, and patient and investigator clinical global impression (CGI). Ninety-five patients were randomly assigned to treatment with LCE (100/25/200 or 150/37.5/200 mg tablets, n = 46) or LC (100/25 mg tablets, n = 49), at the same levodopa dose that were administered before randomization. Treatment with LCE resulted in significantly greater improvement in UPDRS part II (ADLs) scores compared to treatment with LC (adjusted mean difference between groups of -1.5 points) (p = 0.0288). Amelioration was also observed in UPDRS part III scores (p = 0.010), and CGI (patient and investigator) scores (p = 0.015, and p = 0.028, respectively). LCE and LC were generally well tolerated with 78 % of subjects completing the study. Most AEs (50 % in LCE and 71.4 % in LC) were classified as mild. No serious AEs were related to the treatment. Treatment with LCE results in improved efficacy compared to LC in PD patients with mild, or minimally disabling motor fluctuations, maintaining a good safety and tolerability profile.