Importance Parkinson disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide. Although no available therapies alter the underlying neurodegenerative process, symptomatic therapies can improve patient quality of life. Objective To provide an evidence-based review of the initial pharmacological management of the classic motor symptoms of Parkinson disease; describe management of medication-related motor complications (such as motor fluctuations and dyskinesia), and other medication adverse effects (nausea, psychosis, and impulse control disorders and related behaviors); and discuss the management of selected nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson disease, including rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, cognitive impairment, depression, orthostatic hypotension, and sialorrhea. Evidence Review References were identified using searches of PubMed between January 1985 and February 2014 for English-language human studies and the full database of the Cochrane Library. The classification of studies by quality (classes I-IV) was assessed using the levels of evidence guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology and the highest-quality data for each topic. Results Although levodopa is the most effective medication available for treating the motor symptoms of Parkinson disease, in certain instances (eg, mild symptoms, tremor as the only or most prominent symptom, aged Conclusions and Relevance Strong evidence supports using levodopa and dopamine agonists for motor symptoms at all stages of Parkinson disease. Dopamine agonists and drugs that block dopamine metabolism are effective for motor fluctuations and clozapine is effective for hallucinations. Cholinesterase inhibitors may improve symptoms of dementia and antidepressants and pramipexole may improve depression. Evidence supporting other therapies for motor and nonmotor features is less well established.

https://jamanetwork.com/HttpHandlers/ArticlePdfHandler.ashx?journal=JAMA&articleId=1861807&pdfFileName=jrv140005.pdf

Pharmacological Treatment of Parkinson Disease: A Review

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has provided remarkable therapeutic benefits for people with a variety of neurological disorders. Despite the uncertainty of the precise mechanisms underlying its efficacy, DBS is clinically effective in improving motor function of essential tremor, Parkinson's disease and primary dystonia and in relieving obsessive-compulsive disorder. Recently, this surgical technique has continued to expand to other numerous neurological diseases with encouraging results. This review highlighted the current and potential future clinical applications of DBS.

/pdf/deep-brain-stimulation-4xbneft0x1.pdf

Deep brain stimulation.

Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale

The basal ganglia are subcortical nuclei controlling voluntary actions and have been implicated in Parkinson's disease (PD). The prevailing model of basal ganglia function states that two circuits, the direct and indirect pathways, originate from distinct populations of striatal medium spiny neurons (MSNs) and project to different output structures. These circuits are believed to have opposite effects on movement. Specifically, the activity of direct pathway MSNs is postulated to promote movement, whereas the activation of indirect pathway MSNs is hypothesized to inhibit it. Recent findings have revealed that this model might not fully account for the concurrent activation of both pathways during movement. Accordingly, we propose a model in which intrastriatal connections are critical and the two pathways are structurally and functionally intertwined. Thus, all MSNs might either facilitate or inhibit movement depending on the form of synaptic plasticity expressed at a certain moment. In PD, alterations of dopamine-dependent synaptic plasticity could alter this coordinated activity.

Direct and indirect pathways of basal ganglia: a critical reappraisal

The clinical use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) is among the most important advances in the clinical neurosciences in the past two decades. As a surgical tool, DBS can directly measure pathological brain activity and can deliver adjustable stimulation for therapeutic effect in neurological and psychiatric disorders correlated with dysfunctional circuitry. The development of DBS has opened new opportunities to access and interrogate malfunctioning brain circuits and to test the therapeutic potential of regulating the output of these circuits in a broad range of disorders. Despite the success and rapid adoption of DBS, crucial questions remain, including which brain areas should be targeted and in which patients. This Review considers how DBS has facilitated advances in our understanding of how circuit malfunction can lead to brain disorders and outlines the key unmet challenges and future directions in the DBS field. Determining the next steps in DBS science will help to define the future role of this technology in the development of novel therapeutics for the most challenging disorders affecting the human brain. Over the past 20 years, deep brain stimulation (DBS) has transformed the treatment of movement disorders. Now, new therapeutic possibilities for DBS are emerging for other neurological and psychiatric disorders. This Review considers the clinical and scientific advances facilitated by DBS and the crucial questions, challenges and opportunities that face this technology.

/pdf/deep-brain-stimulation-current-challenges-and-future-5cin0ssqno.pdf

Deep brain stimulation: current challenges and future directions

A B S T R AC T BACKGROUND Subthalamic stimulation reduces motor disability and improves quality of life in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease who have severe levodopa-induced motor complications. We hypothesized that neurostimulation would be beneficial at an earlier stage of Parkinson’s disease. METHODS In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 251 patients with Parkinson’s disease and early motor complications (mean age, 52 years; mean duration of disease, 7.5 years) to undergo neurostimulation plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone. The primary end point was quality of life, as assessed with the use of the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) summary index (with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and higher scores indicating worse function). Major secondary outcomes included parkinsonian motor disability, activities of daily living, levodopa-induced motor com plications (as assessed with the use of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, parts III, II, and IV, respectively), and time with good mobility and no dyskinesia. RESULTS For the primary outcome of quality of life, the mean score for the neurostimulation group improved by 7.8 points, and that for the medical-therapy group worsened by 0.2 points (between-group difference in mean change from baseline to 2 years, 8.0 points; P = 0.002). Neurostimulation was superior to medical therapy with respect to motor disability (P<0.001), activities of daily living (P<0.001), levodopa-induced motor complications (P<0.001), and time with good mobility and no dyskinesia (P = 0.01). Serious adverse events occurred in 54.8% of the patients in the neuro stimulation group and in 44.1% of those in the medical-therapy group. Serious adverse events related to surgical implantation or the neurostimulation device oc curred in 17.7% of patients. An expert panel confirmed that medical therapy was consistent with practice guidelines for 96.8% of the patients in the neurostimula tion group and for 94.5% of those in the medical-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS Subthalamic stimulation was superior to medical therapy in patients with Parkinson’s disease and early motor complications. (Funded by the German Ministry of Research and others; EARLYSTIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00354133.)

/pdf/neurostimulation-for-parkinson-s-disease-with-early-motor-2ldm5gniyk.pdf

C. Brefel Courbon

Papers

Neurostimulation for Parkinson's Disease with Early Motor Complications