4.1 Review

Continuous jejunal levodopa infusion in patients with advanced Parkinson disease:: Practical aspects and outcome of motor and non-motor complications

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 151-166

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0b013e31814b113e

关键词

Parkinson disease; levodopa; jejunal infusion; motor complications; continuous dopaminergic stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We report here on the experience with continuous jejunal levodopa infusion in 13 German parkinsonian patients who have motor and nonmotor complications despite individually optimized oral treatment. The tolerability, efficacy, and the need for dose adjustment of levodopa infusion were followed-up prospectively. Thereby, we describe clinically relevant details for how to successfully initiate and handle this new treatment strategy. Methods: Thirteen patients with advanced Parkinson disease (PD) who have motor fluctuations and dyskinesia were switched off their conventional PD medication to continuous levodopa infusion and followed-up within a maximum period of 12 months. Results: Time in off represented a mean of 50% ( +/- 14; n= 13) of awake time before levodopa infusion and was reduced to a mean of 11% (+/- 9; n = 11) of awake time after 6 months. Time in on with disabling dyskinesias represented a mean of 17% (+/- 15; n = 13) of awake time before levodopa infusion and was reduced to a mean of 3% (+/- 6; n = 11) of awake time after 6 months, thereby increasing the time in good on state. A positive effect on nonmotor symptoms (anxiety, sleep, disturbances) was also observed. In most cases, dose adjustment was required within the first 6 months (predominantly after months 1-3). The therapy was safe and effective. However, problems with the technical device were common. Conclusions: Continuous jejunal levodopa infusion is an effective and feasible alternative treatment option for patients with advanced PD who can cope with and tolerate the device.

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

4.1
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