FAQ/Help |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
01-17-2010, 01:58 AM | #1 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
their role in obssessive-compulsive disorder or the newly named, dopa agonist blamed, ICD. Well, there is so much interesting stuff flying back and forth, I think it is getting lost in the original thread. I think you ask the key question early on... Why is levodopa always exonerated? It can't just be author bias; there are far too many studies isolating agonists so there must be a rigorous statistical measure being used (we can only hope). I became curious as to how agonists fared in other treatments. It's used as a monotherapy in treating RLS and in 2007, The Mayo Clinic was the first to report correlation between compulsive behaviors and agonist treatment of RLS. The newest study I could find further isolates: Among the study patients with PD, new-onset compulsive gambling or hypersexuality was documented in 7 (18.4%) of 38 patients taking therapeutic doses of dopamine agonists but was not found among untreated patients, those taking subtherapeutic agonist doses, or those taking carbidopa/levodopa alone. Behaviors abated with discontinuation of agonist therapy or dose reduction. from "Frequency of New-Onset Pathologic Compulsive Gambling or Hypersexuality After Drug Treatment of Idiopathic Parkinson Disease" J. Michael Bostwick, MD, Kathleen A. Hecksel, MD, et al. MayoClinic Proceedings. April 2009. I think the clincher is that stopping or reducing the agonist ended the behavior. I do wonder if the compulsive behavior problems are more prevalent in males (anecdotally, I hear more horror stories from them, but more men than women have PD) and what ages are prevalent when looking at many different studies? In the end, I think this goes along with the fact that some of us are more prone to addictive behaviors to begin with...drug addiction also center on dopamine transmission. If you think of how agonists work vs. straight levodopa, I'm not surprised that given the right environment an agonist can do more harm than good. Laura |
|||
Reply With Quote |
01-17-2010, 02:36 AM | #2 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
I agree Laura. I really don't know why we (on the other thread) are having the argument. We've all acknowledged that both carbo-levo-dopa and agonists elicit different side effects in different people. We each have our own stories about our own drug side effects. My experience doesn't negate another person's experience. What's true for one is not true for another.
That's a huge problem when it comes to treatment of PD. No one should be given a bottle of pills and told to come back in a year; yet that is often standard practice. Treating PD is an art that requires trial, error and patience. Sinemet has its own set of problems that rarely are used as excuses to stop treatment. In fact, a whole area of research has grown around the question of how to treat Sinemet side effects. It keeps coming back to the same conclusion for me - they, we, us - don't know exactly what we are dealing with. I hope I'm still around when they figure it out!
__________________
Carey “Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world’s estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.” — Susan B. Anthony |
|||
Reply With Quote |
"Thanks for this!" says: | lindylanka (01-17-2010) |
01-17-2010, 06:55 AM | #3 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
What other thread was there? I am at a loss for words, which is probably an improvement. So there has been, for a year, a warning that Levo-dopa causes the same destructive behavior as Mirapex does, but no one seems to have known about the warning, which comes 60 years after the drug was introduced? It required an Anuket to go and find out.
I don't know what is science and what is corporate game playing. Mirapex was under attack; what studies prompted Levo-dopa to quietly insert a new warning claiming that their product causes just as much damage as the one that has all the lawsuits for damages? I used to think I understood the situation; now I can't make head nor tail of it. |
||
Reply With Quote |
01-17-2010, 11:05 AM | #4 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Indigo,
you mention: 'a whole area of research has grown around the question of how to treat Sinemet side effects' which reminded me of the last newsletter that came out of MJFF and the headline article was: MJFF AWARDS $1 MILLION FOR CRITICAL STEP TOWARD NEW DYSKINESIA TREATMENTS. I have to admit to doing a double take when I saw this, for exactly what you mention above, dyskinesia is not a symptom, it is a side-effect. So the question that is going round my head is, just how much does this tell us about the state of play in the non-patient PD world......? Combined with the new Merck/Schering Plow combo and their adoption of a matrix for diabetic tablet drugs and l-dopa that will extend delivery to nine hours........ there are no products as of yet, and we know what the timeline is from drug design to patient...... I have to admit being confused by what is going on in the wonderful world of levodopa, too................. Laura, you raise some interesting issues on compulsive behaviours, I wonder if gambling and hypersexuality issues are less prevalent among women on agonists because of disposition, perhaps the compulsions that women are more prone to display are different, rather than occurring less - who for instance is documenting punding behaviours that people display in their homes, out of view, or perserverant behaviours that manifest in excessive anxiety which also come in on the compulsive spectrum, and have also been discussed over time on boards like this......and that can have equally devastating effects on day to day living..... I agree, as yet none of us know what we are dealing with..... at the end of the day it is the patient who has to haul him/herself out of bed, and start another day living with PD... |
||
Reply With Quote |
"Thanks for this!" says: | Conductor71 (01-17-2010) |
01-17-2010, 11:22 PM | #5 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Here's the link to the 4-page "discussion."
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/thread112146.html Have fun! Peg |
|||
Reply With Quote |
01-20-2010, 12:09 AM | #6 | ||
|
|||
Member
|
Hi Laura
I wasn’t going to post anymore on this subject because it never seems to go well, but given your questions, I am going to post the briefest synopses I can of the most glaring problems of each gambling/ICD study I have ever read, There will be at least six – I am going to post them as separate posts – they won’t be in chronological order. The biggest lesson I have learned is that it is not enough to read just the abstract and the news coverage. One must read the actual study – and do it carefully – because abstracts and news coverage can be and are spun. The studies are, too, but it is harder to hide in the full study because more data must be provided. the first three form the foundation upon which this idea that DAs cause these problems and they do so all by themselves rests. |
||
Reply With Quote |
01-20-2010, 12:14 AM | #7 | ||
|
|||
Member
|
[the above should read "stacy et al"]
Assertion The authors cite a prevalence of pathological gambling (PG) of 0.3% to 1.3% in the general population and find a prevalence of 1.5% among those taking Mirapex. They conclude that there is an association between dopamine agonists and pathological gambling. Problem The fact that the authors put forward the two prevalences in the context of the assertion that there is an association between the drug and the behavior naturally implies that the difference between the two numbers is statistically significant such that it confirms their conclusion. But the authors do not SAY it is statistically significant. That could be because the difference between 0.4% to 1.3% and 1.5% is not statistically significant. 0.3% is the only portion of the range for the general population for which 1.5% represents a statistically significant difference. (calculations verified by a statistician) I have looked around quite a bit and the absolute lowest prevalence I have found for PG in the general population is 0.4%, and that was in Canada. I would check the authors’ source, except they do not provide one. This means not that the authors found an association, but that they failed to find one. Also, in spite of the fact that all PGers were also taking levodopa, it is exonerated. Last edited by boann; 01-20-2010 at 12:41 AM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
01-20-2010, 12:23 AM | #8 | ||
|
|||
Member
|
this study can be downloaded for free from The Archives of Neurology
Assertion The authors put forward 11 cases in which people gambled pathologically while taking a DA as their evidence of a causal association. Problem The authors fail to convey “out of how many?” 11 out of 11 would be compelling, while 11 out of 10,000 would not. It was impossible given the info presented for the authors to draw ANY conclusions about the presence *or absence* of an association. I can cite two subsequent papers that make the same observation about this study. Also, in spite of the fact that eight out of 11 PGers were also taking levodopa, it is exonerated. |
||
Reply With Quote |
01-20-2010, 12:39 AM | #9 | ||
|
|||
Member
|
Assertion
The authors mined the FDA’s database of adverse drug events (AERS), which contains over 2.5 million voluntarily reported events dating back to 1968, for correlations between PG and drugs. They found an unusually high correlation between reports of PG and Mirapex. Problem The authors failed to reveal that, of the 39 reports linked to Mirapex, 38 came in after the publicizing of the 2003 study. If there were *really* an association, one would expect to see that reports had come in before the 2003 study was so heavily publicized – and then an uptick after the 2003 study – that there was only one between 1997, when it hit the market, and 2003 (there were three for levodopa in the same time period) increases the likelihood that the 38 that came in after the 2003 study were not really attributable to the drug. *** Just to give you an idea what the AERS is like -- the way it works is that someone has an adverse experience… or two, or twenty (no joke). Whoever reports it (could be the doctor, patient, drug co., author of a study, etc.) to the AERS reports every adverse reaction the patient is experiencing, regardless of how many; reports all the medications the patient is on, and picks one as the primary suspect and another as the secondary suspect. So, scenarios like a report that lists diabetes mellitus and dyslexia, with mirapex as primary suspect, are not uncommon. In other words, any report that attributes behavioral changes to mirapex could also attribute, say, dyslexia to it, or dermatitis, or diabetes – there is no evaluation of the existence of a relationship between any drug and the reported adverse events. That is just an FYI – not really relevant to the problem cited above. |
||
Reply With Quote |
01-20-2010, 12:55 AM | #10 | ||
|
|||
Member
|
this study can be downloaded for free by clicking here.
Assertion The authors claim to have found an 18.4% prevalence of new onset pathological gambling and pathological hypersexuality combined. (This one's little harder to put into a nutshell) Problem
Upshot if you include those who were excluded based on agonist dosage, and exclude the four people the basis of whose inclusion is unclear, the numbers change as follows: Pathological gambling 4.5% hypersexuality 1.5% aggregated 6.0% While the authors mention the DSM IV, they do not say they used its stringent criteria to identify PG. Rather, they say they used the DSM IV definition of “pathological.” Utilizing the strict DSM IV criteria, Richard Kessler 2008 found a prevalence of PG of 0.6% in the general population – but he also found a *problem gambling” prevalence of 2.3% - “problem gambling” is defined as meeting one of the 10 possible DSM IV criteria for PG – Bostwick et al’s selection parameters were more along the lines of pathological AND problem gambling, for which Kessler finds the aggregated prevalence of 2.9%. PG prevalence of 4.5% is a little bit on the high side, agreed, but it's a heck of a lot lower than 18.4%. The hypersexuality prevalence is much lower than it is in the general population, where it is estimated to be 5-6%. The aggregated total is lower than it would be for the general population. Also, in spite of the fact that five out of seven PGers were also taking levodopa, is exonerated. Finally, it should be noted that of the seven designated as agonist-related PGers in this study, three were also described in Dodd’s 2005 study summarized earlier. |
||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Walk to defeat ALS held Saturday | ALS News & Research | |||
Initial use of bromocriptine (agonist) vs levodopa | Parkinson's Disease | |||
Walk To Defeat ALS | ALS | |||
Disease doesn't defeat man's determination to climb | ALS | |||
Cannabinoid Agonist Significantly Increases ALS Life Span, Study Says | ALS |