摘要:

Fragile X syndrome is the leading inherited form of mental retardation, and second only to Down’s syndrome as a cause of mental retardation attributable to an identifiable genetic abnormality. Fragile X syndrome is caused by a defect in the fragile X mental retardation 1 gene (FMR1), located near the end of the long arm of the X chromosome.FMR1normally synthesises the fragile X protein (FMRP), but mutations inFMR1lead to a lack of FMRP synthesis, resulting in fragile X syndrome. While the specific function of FMRP is not yet fully understood, the protein is known to be important for normal brain development. The physical, cognitive and behavioural features of individuals with fragile X syndrome depend on gender (females have two X chromosomes, one active and one inactive) and the molecular status of the mutation (premutation, full mutation or mosaic). Features of the behavioural profile of individuals with fragile X syndrome include hypersensitivity to stimuli, overarousability, inattention, hyperactivity and (mostly in men) explosive and aggressive behaviour to others or self. Social anxiety, other anxiety disorders, depression, impulse control disorder and mood disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders diagnosed in individuals with fragile X syndrome, although no formal studies have been undertaken.There have been very few psychopharmacological studies of the treatment of behaviours associated with fragile X syndrome. These limited studies and surveys of psychotropic drugs used in individuals with fragile X syndrome suggest that stimulants are helpful for hyperactivity, that α2-adrenoceptor agonists and β-adrenoceptor antagonists help to control overarousability, impulsivity and aggressiveness, and that SSRIs can control anxiety, impulsivity and irritability, alleviate depressive symptoms and decrease aggressive and self-injurious behaviour. Typical and atypical antipsychotics in combination with other psychotropics have been used for control of psychotic disorders and severe aggressive behaviours. Mood stabilisers have been found to be useful when mood dysregulation or mood disorders are present with or without aggressive behaviour. Folic acid and L-acetylcarnitine (levacecarnine) have not been found to improve deficits or behaviours. As there is no specific psychotropic drug for any of the deficits or behaviours associated with fragile X syndrome, clinicians are advised to diagnose any psychiatric syndromes or disorders present and treat them with the appropriate psychotropic drug.If no psychiatric disorder can be diagnosed and the patient’s challenging behaviours cannot be controlled with environmental manipulation or behaviour modification techniques, the most benign psychotropic drug should be used. Antipsychotics should be reserved for psychotic disorders, for impulse control disorders (used in combination with other psychotropics), or when challenging behaviours constitute an emergency. In the future, new medications targeting molecules implicated in the modulation of anxiety, fear and fear responding will be useful for treating the social anxiety and overarousability exhibited by individuals with fragile X syndrome.

ISSN:1172-7047    

出版商:ADIS    

年代:2004

数据来源: ADIS

摘要:

Monoamine reuptake inhibitors still reign in the treatment of major depression, but possibly not for long. While medicinal chemists have been able to reduce the side effects of these drugs, their delayed onset of action and considerable non-response rate remain problematic. Of late, serious questions have been raised regarding the efficacy of monoamine reuptake inhibitors.The present review presents an inventory of what is (and until recently was) in the antidepressant pipeline of pharmaceutical companies. Novel antidepressant compounds can be categorised into four groups depending on their target(s):monoamine receptors;non-monoamine receptors;neuropeptide receptors; andhormone receptors.Other possible targets include components of post-receptor intracellular processes and elements of the immune system; to date, however, compounds specifically aimed at these targets have not been the subject of clinical trials.Development of several compounds targeted at monoamine receptors has recently been discontinued. At least five neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists were until recently in phase II of clinical testing. However, the apparent interest in the NK1receptor should not be interpreted as representing a departure from the monoamine hypothesis since neurokinins also modulate monoaminergic systems.In the authors’ view, development of future antidepressants will continue to rely on the serendipity-based monoamine hypothesis. However, an alternative approach, based on the hypothesis that chronic stress precipitates depressive symptoms, might be more productive. Unfortunately, clinical results using drugs targeted at components of the HPA axis have not been very encouraging to date. In the short run, the authors believe that augmentation strategies offer the best hope for improving the efficacy of antidepressant treatment. Several approaches to improve the efficacy of SSRIs are conceivable, such as concurrent blockade of monoamine autoreceptors and the addition of antipsychotics, neuromodulators or hormones (HPA axis and gender related). In the long-term, however, construction of a scientifically verified conceptual framework will be needed before more effective antidepressants can be developed. It can be argued that it is not depression itself that should be treated, but rather that its duration should be reduced by pharmacological means. Animal models that take this concept into consideration and identify mechanisms for acceleration of recovery from the effects of stress need to be developed.

ISSN:1172-7047    

出版商:ADIS    

年代:2004

数据来源: ADIS

摘要:

ObjectivesCabergoline is an ergoline derivative with a very long half-life that allows once-daily administration and the potential for more continuous stimulation of dopaminergic receptors than is possible with other dopamine receptor agonists (DAs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the possible advantage resulting from a more sustained dopaminergic effect of cabergoline would translate into delayed onset of motor complications, compared with levodopa, in patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson’s disease.Among patients not requiring supplemental levodopa, the frequency of motor complications was three times higher with levodopa (15.5% of 110 patients) than with cabergoline (5.3% of 76 patients). Among patients who did need supplemental levodopa, motor complications were more frequent in the levodopa arm (54.1% of 98 patients) than in the cabergoline arm (31.9% of 135 patients).Consistent improvements relative to baseline in average Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) daily living activities and motor function sections, and in Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and physician- and patient- rated global improvement scores, were seen in both treatment groups, with maximal effects occurring within 2 years. However, levodopa treatment was associated with a significantly (p < 0.001) greater improvement in motor disability (as measured by the UPDRS motor score) over time, with mean values of 13.8 versus 12.9 in the cabergoline versus levodopa arm recorded at 1 year, 18.6 versus 17.2 at 3 years and 19.2 versus 16.3 at 5 years, respectively.While the overall frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups, the cabergoline-treated group experienced marginally, but not significantly, higher frequencies of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia and gastritis (37.4% vs 32.2% in the levodopa group) and of dizziness and postural hypotension (31.3% vs 24% in the levodopa group). Cabergoline-treated patients also experienced a significantly higher frequency of peripheral oedema (16.1% vs 3.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). The cabergoline and levodopa groups had similar rates of sleepiness (17.5% vs 18.3%, respectively) and hallucinations (4.8% vs 4.4%, respectively); in an elderly population subset, hallucinations were reported in 7.1% and 6.5% of patients taking cabergoline and levodopa, respectively. Adverse events generally occurred more frequently in female patients (with the exception of dyskinesias, hyperkinesias and hallucinations, which occurred more frequently in men) and in the elderly.Study design and methodsThis study was a double-blind, multicentre trial that compared cabergoline and levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease. A total of 419 levodopa-, DA- and selegiline-naive patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson’s disease were randomised to receive either cabergoline (n = 211) or levodopa (n = 209). Treatment was titrated to an optimal dose over a period of up to 24 weeks and then continued at this dose until the study endpoint (confirmed motor complications) or up to a maximum of 5 years. At years 1–5, the cabergoline group was receiving cabergoline at average daily doses ranging from 2.8–2.9mg, with added levodopa at mean daily doses ranging from 322mg at year 1 to 431mg at year 5; over the same period, the levodopa group was receiving daily levodopa doses of 784mg. Thus, patients in the cabergoline group received <50% levodopa than patients in the levodopa group.Among patients not requiring supplemental levodopa, the frequency of motor complications was three times higher with levodopa (15.5% of 110 patients) than with cabergoline (5.3% of 76 patients). Among patients who did need supplemental levodopa, motor complications were more frequent in the levodopa arm (54.1% of 98 patients) than in the cabergoline arm (31.9% of 135 patients).Consistent improvements relative to baseline in average Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) daily living activities and motor function sections, and in Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and physician- and patient- rated global improvement scores, were seen in both treatment groups, with maximal effects occurring within 2 years. However, levodopa treatment was associated with a significantly (p < 0.001) greater improvement in motor disability (as measured by the UPDRS motor score) over time, with mean values of 13.8 versus 12.9 in the cabergoline versus levodopa arm recorded at 1 year, 18.6 versus 17.2 at 3 years and 19.2 versus 16.3 at 5 years, respectively.While the overall frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups, the cabergoline-treated group experienced marginally, but not significantly, higher frequencies of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia and gastritis (37.4% vs 32.2% in the levodopa group) and of dizziness and postural hypotension (31.3% vs 24% in the levodopa group). Cabergoline-treated patients also experienced a significantly higher frequency of peripheral oedema (16.1% vs 3.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). The cabergoline and levodopa groups had similar rates of sleepiness (17.5% vs 18.3%, respectively) and hallucinations (4.8% vs 4.4%, respectively); in an elderly population subset, hallucinations were reported in 7.1% and 6.5% of patients taking cabergoline and levodopa, respectively. Adverse events generally occurred more frequently in female patients (with the exception of dyskinesias, hyperkinesias and hallucinations, which occurred more frequently in men) and in the elderly.ResultsMotor complications were significantly delayed (p = 0.0175) and occurred less frequently in cabergoline-treated patients than in levodopa-treated patients (22.3% vs 33.7%). Cox model proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the relative risk of developing such complications was >50% lower (0.46; p < 0.001) in the cabergoline group compared with the levodopa group. In particular, development of dyskinesias was markedly delayed in the cabergoline group and occurred in 9.5% of patients compared with 21.2% in the levodopa group (p < 0.001).Among patients not requiring supplemental levodopa, the frequency of motor complications was three times higher with levodopa (15.5% of 110 patients) than with cabergoline (5.3% of 76 patients). Among patients who did need supplemental levodopa, motor complications were more frequent in the levodopa arm (54.1% of 98 patients) than in the cabergoline arm (31.9% of 135 patients).Consistent improvements relative to baseline in average Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) daily living activities and motor function sections, and in Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and physician- and patient- rated global improvement scores, were seen in both treatment groups, with maximal effects occurring within 2 years. However, levodopa treatment was associated with a significantly (p < 0.001) greater improvement in motor disability (as measured by the UPDRS motor score) over time, with mean values of 13.8 versus 12.9 in the cabergoline versus levodopa arm recorded at 1 year, 18.6 versus 17.2 at 3 years and 19.2 versus 16.3 at 5 years, respectively.While the overall frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups, the cabergoline-treated group experienced marginally, but not significantly, higher frequencies of nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia and gastritis (37.4% vs 32.2% in the levodopa group) and of dizziness and postural hypotension (31.3% vs 24% in the levodopa group). Cabergoline-treated patients also experienced a significantly higher frequency of peripheral oedema (16.1% vs 3.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). The cabergoline and levodopa groups had similar rates of sleepiness (17.5% vs 18.3%, respectively) and hallucinations (4.8% vs 4.4%, respectively); in an elderly population subset, hallucinations were reported in 7.1% and 6.5% of patients taking cabergoline and levodopa, respectively. Adverse events generally occurred more frequently in female patients (with the exception of dyskinesias, hyperkinesias and hallucinations, which occurred more frequently in men) and in the elderly.ConclusionThis study showed that, compared with levodopa, initial therapy with cabergoline in patients with Parkinson’s disease is associated with a lower risk of response fluctuations at the cost of a marginally reduced symptomatic improvement and some tolerability disadvantages that are mostly limited to a significantly higher frequency of peripheral oedema.

ISSN:1172-7047    

出版商:ADIS    

年代:2004

数据来源: ADIS

摘要:

▴ Ropinirole is a non-ergoline dopamine agonist that exhibits a high affinity for D2and D3receptors but little or no affinity for D1-like and non-dopaminergic receptors.▴ Symptoms of restless legs syndrome (RLS) [measured using the International Restless Legs scale and Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement Scale scores] significantly improved with ropinirole compared with placebo in large, randomised, double-blind trials.▴ Ropinirole reduced periodic leg movements and improved sleep efficiency relative to baseline and placebo in several trials (two of which were randomised, double-blind and relatively large) in patients with RLS.▴ Ropinirole was generally well tolerated in patients with RLS; adverse events were generally mild to moderate in nature and consistent with those expected of dopamine agonists. Few patients receiving ropinirole withdrew from therapy because of adverse events, the most predominant of which were nausea and headache.

ISSN:1172-7047    

出版商:ADIS    

年代:2004

数据来源: ADIS

ISSN:1172-7047    

出版商:ADIS    

年代:2004

数据来源: ADIS

ISSN:1172-7047    

出版商:ADIS    

年代:2004

数据来源: ADIS