Emerging perspectives in Parkinson's disease
A. Lieberman
IF: 9.9
1992-04-01
Neurology
Abstract:This supplement to Neurology brings together papers that were presented on April 20, 1991, at a symposium, “Emerging Perspectives in Parkinson’s Disease”-part of the American Academy of Neurology’s 43rd Annual Meeting in Boston-and on March 22, 1991, a t the Barrow Neurological Institute’s 18th Annual Symposium in Phoenix. The introduction of selegiline (deprenyl; Eldepryl) as neuroprotective therapy has been called the “second revolution in Parkinson’s disease,” following the introduction of levodopa as symptomatic therapy-the “first revolution.” Sometimes, initially, it is difficult to know when a revolution has occurred, so it is useful to look back at the first revolution. In 1967, a paper by George Cotzias appeared t h a t eventually changed the thinking about Parkinson’s disease (PD).’ At the time, PD was regarded as a degenerative disease; patients were diagnosed, catalogued, and provided with sympathy and mild symptomatic treatment with anticholinergics. PD was an abiotrophy, a premature, programmed death of the pigmented tyrosinehydroxylase-containing neurons in the substantia nigra. Abiotrophy said it all-premature, programmed cell death, a fact like growing old and dying; describable, lamentable, but immutable. Levodopa changed the course of PD. Pat ients obtained substantial benefit, for some bordering on the miraculous. If Oliver Sacks’ Awakenings had described events 2,200 years ago in Jerusalem rather than 22 years ago in the Bronx, it would be in the Bible rather than on the silver screen. Cotzias’s work was the culmination of the inspired and diligent research of many others. In 1957, Arvid Carlsson and colleagues demonstrated that D,L 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (dopa) reversed the bradykinesia of reserpine-treated, catecholamine-depleted mice.2 Three years la ter , Ehringer and Hornykiewicz,3 using newly developed techniques for detecting catecholamines in tissues, demonstrated that in PD, dopamine was markedly reduced in the substantia nigra, caudate nucleus, and putamen. While PD was still regarded as an abiotrophy, i t now also could be regarded as a dopamine deficiency syndrome that could be treated. Because dopamine does not cross the blood-brain barrier, Birkmayer and Hornykiewicz administered dopamine’s precursor, dopa, by intravenous inject i ~ n . ~ Published in a journal that is not read by many neurologists, nor by the editors of Time, Newsweek, and U.S . News and World Report, the amazing results went unappreciated. Unfortunately, intravenous dopa causes nausea, vomiting, and hypotension, and most patients became too sick to notice dopa’s benefits. Dopa was used in very low doses by investigators for several year^,^ and the consensus at the time was that dopa was a minor treatment with an efficacy less than that of the anticholinergics. Cotzias et a1 were investigating manganese poisoning in Chilean miners, a disorder resembling PD.6 Reasoning tha t dopa might chelate manganese, they noted substantial improvement with high doses of D, L dopa, giving Cotzias the idea of applying a similar strategy to patients with PD. After this study was published, most neurologists wouldn’t accept its findings until they were confirmed by Yahr et a17 and McDowell et al.s The first revolution dawned. Patients, heretofore helpless, improved dramatically. Neurologists not only had to rethink their ideas about PD but also had to learn about the metabolism of catecholamines, the role of aromatic amino acid decarboxylase inhibitors, the differences between dopamine receptors, and the role of dopamine agonists. Indeed, to cope with the knowledge explosion, the subspecialty of movement disorders was born.