Mucuna pruriens in Parkinson's disease: a double blind clinical and pharmacological study

R Katzenschlager, A Evans, A Manson, P N Patsalos, N Ratnaraj, H Watt, L Timmermann, R Van der Giessen, A J Lees, R Katzenschlager, A Evans, A Manson, P N Patsalos, N Ratnaraj, H Watt, L Timmermann, R Van der Giessen, A J Lees

Abstract

Background: The seed powder of the leguminous plant, Mucuna pruriens has long been used in traditional Ayurvedic Indian medicine for diseases including parkinsonism. We have assessed the clinical effects and levodopa (L-dopa) pharmacokinetics following two different doses of mucuna preparation and compared them with standard L-dopa/carbidopa (LD/CD).

Methods: Eight Parkinson's disease patients with a short duration L-dopa response and on period dyskinesias completed a randomised, controlled, double blind crossover trial. Patients were challenged with single doses of 200/50 mg LD/CD, and 15 and 30 g of mucuna preparation in randomised order at weekly intervals. L-dopa pharmacokinetics were determined, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and tapping speed were obtained at baseline and repeatedly during the 4 h following drug ingestion. Dyskinesias were assessed using modified AIMS and Goetz scales.

Results: Compared with standard LD/CD, the 30 g mucuna preparation led to a considerably faster onset of effect (34.6 v 68.5 min; p = 0.021), reflected in shorter latencies to peak L-dopa plasma concentrations. Mean on time was 21.9% (37 min) longer with 30 g mucuna than with LD/CD (p = 0.021); peak L-dopa plasma concentrations were 110% higher and the area under the plasma concentration v time curve (area under curve) was 165.3% larger (p = 0.012). No significant differences in dyskinesias or tolerability occurred.

Conclusions: The rapid onset of action and longer on time without concomitant increase in dyskinesias on mucuna seed powder formulation suggest that this natural source of L-dopa might possess advantages over conventional L-dopa preparations in the long term management of PD. Assessment of long term efficacy and tolerability in a randomised, controlled study is warranted.

References

    1. Mov Disord. 1996 Jan;11(1):24-6
    1. Mov Disord. 1990;5(1):47-8
    1. Neurology. 1993 May;43(5):1036-9
    1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1971 Mar-Apr;12(2):212-7
    1. Eur Neurol. 1973;10(5):301-10
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 Jun;51(6):745-52
    1. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1969 Sep 26;81(39):677-9
    1. Mov Disord. 1999 Mar;14(2):242-5
    1. Clin Neuropharmacol. 1986;9(2):153-9
    1. Phytother Res. 2002 Sep;16(6):534-8
    1. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1995 Nov;22(11):837-40
    1. Arch Neurol. 1973 Feb;28(2):91-5
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Nov;67(5):624-9
    1. J Agric Food Chem. 1972 Sep-Oct;20(5):1046-7
    1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1972 Jul-Aug;13(4):584-94
    1. Mov Disord. 2000 Jan;15(1):164-6
    1. Neurology. 2000 Sep 26;55(6):795-9
    1. Mov Disord. 1994 Jul;9(4):390-4
    1. Neurology. 1994 Jan;44(1):77-80
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992 Aug;55(8):725-7
    1. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
    1. Acta Neurol Scand. 1985 Nov;72(5):506-11
    1. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 1972;272(4):437-40
    1. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1984 Dec;18(6):959-62
    1. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1974 May;26(5):377-9
    1. Clin Neuropharmacol. 1983;6 Suppl 1:S35-51
    1. Biochem J. 1937 Dec;31(12):2149-52
    1. Adv Neurol. 1999;80:565-74
    1. Neurology. 1974 May;24(5):431-41
    1. Drugs. 1976;11(5):329-77
    1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1971 Jan-Feb;12(1):117-25
    1. J Neurol Sci. 1972 Sep;17(1):45-51
    1. Ann Neurol. 1985 Nov;18(5):537-43
    1. Rinsho Shinkeigaku. 1994 Mar;34(3):264-6
    1. Clin Neuropharmacol. 1992 Dec;15(6):501-4
    1. Clin Neuropharmacol. 1997 Apr;20(2):165-7
    1. J Neurol Sci. 2000 Jun 15;176(2):124-7

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe