Sophie Molloy

Patients suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) will typically experience a range of motor and nonmotor symptoms during the course of their illness, each of which will affect a particular individual to varying degrees. However, patients' perceptions of troublesome symptoms often differ from the clinician's view, and these discrepancies can hamper effective management of PD. In this study, we have assessed 265 consecutive PD patients by asking them to rank their three most troublesome symptoms in the last 6 months, so to gain further insight from the impact of illness on patients' quality of life. Patients were divided into early (<6 years) and late PD groups (>/=6 years) from symptom onset. The division at 6 years was based on the mean time from symptom onset to the development of motor complications. In the early PD group, the 5 most prevalent complaints (ranked in descending order) are slowness, tremor, stiffness, pain, and loss of smell and/or taste. In the advanced PD group, fluctuating response to their medication (most common: wearing-off phenomenon followed by dyskinesia), mood changes, drooling, sleep problems (most common: middle and late night insomnia followed by daytime sleepiness), and tremor were the top 5. Our findings provide further evidence for the diversity of experience in PD and suggest that as the disease advances the most troublesome issues that patients perceive are the lack of response to medication and the nonmotor aspects of the disease, highlighting the importance of assessment and patient-centered management in the follow-up of these patients.

Levodopa-induced dyskinesias (LIDs) are the most common and disabling adverse motor effect of therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. In this study, we investigated serotonergic mechanisms in LIDs development in PD patients using 11C-DASB PET to evaluate serotonin terminal function and 11C-raclopride PET to evaluate dopamine release. PD patients with LIDs showed relative preservation of serotonergic terminals throughout their disease. Identical levodopa doses induced markedly higher striatal synaptic dopamine concentrations in PD patients with LIDs compared with PD patients with stable responses to levodopa. Oral administration of the serotonin receptor type 1A agonist buspirone prior to levodopa reduced levodopa-evoked striatal synaptic dopamine increases and attenuated LIDs. PD patients with LIDs that exhibited greater decreases in synaptic dopamine after buspirone pretreatment had higher levels of serotonergic terminal functional integrity. Buspirone-associated modulation of dopamine levels was greater in PD patients with mild LIDs compared with those with more severe LIDs. These findings indicate that striatal serotonergic terminals contribute to LIDs pathophysiology via aberrant processing of exogenous levodopa and release of dopamine as false neurotransmitter in the denervated striatum of PD patients with LIDs. Our results also support the development of selective serotonin receptor type 1A agonists for use as antidyskinetic agents in PD.

BACKGROUND: Depression associated with Parkinson disease (PD) has a different symptom profile to endogenous depression. The etiology of depression in PD remains uncertain though abnormal serotonergic neurotransmission could play a role. OBJECTIVE: To assess with PET serotonergic function via in vivo serotonin transporter (5-HTT) availability in antidepressant-naive patients with PD. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with PD and 10 healthy matched control subjects had a clinical battery of tests including the patient-report Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), the clinician-report Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), and the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). They underwent ¹¹C-DASB PET, a selective in vivo marker of 5-HTT binding in humans. RESULTS: BDI-II scores correlated with HRSD scores. Ten of 34 patients with PD (29.4%) had BDI-II and HRSD scores above the discriminative cutoff for PD depression though only half of these patients could be classed on SCID-I criteria as having an anxiety/mood disorder. Patients with PD with the highest scores for depression symptoms showed significantly raised ¹¹C-DASB binding in amygdala, hypothalamus, caudal raphe nuclei, and posterior cingulate cortex compared to low score cases, while ¹¹C-DASB binding values in other regions were similarly decreased in depressed and nondepressed patients with PD compared to healthy controls. CONCLUSION: Depressive symptoms in antidepressant-naive patients with PD correlate with relatively higher 5-HTT binding in raphe nuclei and limbic structures possibly reflecting lower extracellular serotonin levels. Our data are compatible with a key role of abnormal serotonergic neurotransmission contributing to the pathophysiology of PD depression and justify the use of agents acting on 5-HTT.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.