Comparison of lisuride and bromocriptine in the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease. Pergolide compared with bromocriptine in Parkinson's disease: a multicenter, crossover, controlled study. Five-year follow-up of early lisuride and levodopa combination therapy versus levodopa monotherapy in de novo Parkinson's disease. The French Lisuride Study Group. A double-blind study of bromocriptine and L-dopa in de novo Parkinson's disease. Short-term results. Double-blind comparison of pramipexole and bromocriptine treatment with placebo in advanced Parkinson's disease. International Pramipexole-Bromocriptine Study Group. Long-term double masked trial of early treatment with L-dopa plus bromocriptine versus L-dopa alone in Parkinson's disease. Interim results. Does combined levodopa and bromocriptine therapy in Parkinson's disease prevent late motor complications? Double-blind comparison of cabergoline and bromocriptine in Parkinson's disease patients with motor fluctuations. Early institution of bromocriptine in Parkinson's disease inhibits the emergence of levodopa-associated motor side effects. Long-term results of the PRADO study.
Twenty patients with advanced idiopathic Parkinson's disease were studied, all having a deteriorating response to levodopa and suffering from daily fluctuations in disability. A double-blind randomized cross-over study was conducted. Basic levodopa and anticholinergic treatment was continued unchanged in all patients. The dose increment period of 4-8 weeks was followed by a 4 week treatment period on a fixed optimal dose. In both treatment groups the mean optimal daily dose of lisuride was 1.3 mg (range 0.2-2.4 mg) and that of bromocriptine about 15 mg (range 3.75-30.0), without any significant differences between the treatment groups. The addition of lisuride or bromocriptine to levodopa treatment resulted in a significant and equal further improvement of parkinsonian disability. The therapeutic profiles of both lisuride and bromocriptine were similar. There was significantly more improvement in tremor than in other parkinsonian symptoms. Both lisuride and bromocriptine elicited a significant improvement in fluctuations of disability. No significant differences between the treatments were observed. The occurrence of clinical side effects seemed to be similar with both treatment regimens. In advanced parkinsonian patients the therapeutic efficacy of lisuride seems to be equal to that of bromocriptine as far as parkinsonian disability and fluctuations in disability are concerned. We compared the efficacy and safety of pergolide and bromocriptine in 57 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) with a declining response to levodopa therapy in a single-blind, crossover study. Patients were placed randomly on the sequence bromocriptine-pergolide (12 + 12 weeks) or vice versa. Regular evaluations using the New York University Parkinson's Disease Scale were performed by a clinician blinded to treatment assignment. Patients' and clinicians' impressions also were recorded. The average daily dose of pergolide was 2.3 +/0- 0.8 mg, and that of bromocriptine was 24.2 +/- 8.4 mg. Significantly greater efficacy was demonstrated by both drugs as adjunctive therapy to levodopa compared with previous treatment of levodopa alone (pergolide, p = 0.0001; bromocriptine, p = 0.0005; Wilcoxon t test). Pergolide was more effective than bromocriptine in daily living scores (p = 0.020) and motor scores (p = 0.038). No difference in dyskinesias, dystonias, and psychosis was observed. Adverse events were more frequent in bromocriptine-treated patients. Most patients and physicians preferred pergolide to bromocriptine. Pergolide as adjunctive therapy to levodopa was more effective than bromocriptine in this short-term trial. The value of an early initial coadministration of levodopa (L-dopa) and lisuride in Parkinson's disease was the main goal of the present study. Eighty-two patients with recently diagnosed idiopathic Parkinson's disease were randomized into two groups for treatment with L-dopa alone or L-dopa + lisuride. The trial was double-blinded for the first year and open for the following 4 years. Selegiline (10 mg/day b.i.d.) was added in both groups at the end of the first year. Outcome measures were evolution of L-dopa dosage and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores and subscores, and incidence of motor complications. The dropout rate was higher in the L-dopa group (63.4%) than in the combination group. Motor improvement was better (p < 0.01) in the L-dopa + lisuride group. Expected motor complications were rare, moderate and equivalent in the two groups despite a difference in L-dopa dosage (446.7 vs. 387.5 mg/day). Long-term follow-up demonstrated the L-dopa-sparing effect of lisuride (average 1 mg/day), the beneficial effect of early combination therapy on motor status and the paucity of motor complications in both groups.
                Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel The first phase of a longitudinal multicenter study comparing bromocriptine and L-dopa (as Sinemet) as de novo therapy for Parkinson's disease using a double-blind randomized design has recently been completed. Over a period of 5.5 months, bromocriptine and L-dopa were equipotent in reducing functional and neurological disability. These observations complement and extend earlier studies and suggest a role for bromocriptine as de novo therapy of Parkinson's disease. Pramipexole is a new, selective, nonergoline dopamine agonist that acts on D2 and preferentially on D3 dopamine receptors. Phase II and III clinical trials have shown this drug to be useful in treating both early and advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. A double-blind, randomized, multicenter study was performed to compare the safety, tolerance, and efficacy of pramipexole versus placebo in patients with advanced PD with motor fluctuations. A bromocriptine treatment group was included to enable comparisons between bromocriptine and placebo groups, but the study was not powered to show statistical differences between the active treatment groups. The study included 247 patients with "wearing off." Patients were Hoehn and Yahr stages II to IV during "on" times. The trial included three phases: dose escalation, 6 months' maintenance, and dose reduction. The primary end points were the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts II and III. Up to 4.5 mg per day of pramipexole and 30 mg per day of bromocriptine were used. The results of the study showed that the UPDRS part II improved by 26.7% for pramipexole (p = 0.0002) and 14% for bromocriptine (p = 0.02) versus 4.8% for placebo. The UPDRS part III showed improvements of 34% for pramipexole (p = 0.0006) and 23.8% for bromocriptine (p = 0.01) versus 5.7% for placebo. There were no major differences in safety data. In the active treatment groups there were more reports of dyskinesia and nausea compared with placebo. In regard to comparison of the Global Clinical Assessment of Efficacy between active treatment groups, there was a trend to significance (p = 0.056) in favor of pramipexole. We conclude that pramipexole-treated patients with advanced PD improved significantly more than placebo for both primary end points. The quality and duration of control in two groups of parkinsonian patients under treatment with an L-dopa-based drug alone or L-dopa-based drug which has been partially substituted with bromocriptine are being compared over a 5-year period using a double-blind placebo-controlled study design. The aim is to establish whether early addition of bromocriptine will minimise late L-dopa complications. Results are presented after 1 year. Of 31 patients randomised, 13 were treated with combined L-dopa/bromocriptine and 14 with L-dopa/placebo. 4 patients were withdrawn for various reasons. In both groups any dose adjustments were aimed at maintaining the pre-entry clinical condition. In the group receiving bromocriptine combination therapy, progressive reduction of L-dopa was possible without deterioration of the patients' condition. In patients receiving L-dopa alone, the dose of L-dopa at 12 months was almost similar to that recorded on entry to the study. The total number of patients reporting adverse events in the L-dopa/bromocriptine combination and L-dopa alone groups were 8 and 7, respectively. At the present interim stage of the study it is not possible to compare the incidence of L-dopa long-term complications in either group. Levodopa-carbidopa (LD) in low dosages adequately controls symptoms in most patients with Parkinson's disease and delays the appearance of fluctuations and dyskinesias. It has been suggested that early combination therapy with bromocriptine and levodopa delays or prevents the onset of late treatment complication associated with LD monotherapy in Parkinson's disease. We have conducted this study to assess the possible benefit of combined therapy compared with levodopa monotherapy. Seventy-eight previously untreated patients with Parkinson's disease were recruited over a period of 54 months and randomly allocated to either a levodopa-carbidopa (LD) Group or a levodopa-carbidopa in combination with low-dose bromocriptine (LD-Br) Group. The appearance of motor complications determined the end point of the study. We gradually increased the doses of bromocriptine (2.5-15 mg/d) or levodopa (125-500 mg/d) until the maximum "on" time was reached. In six patients, the doses of levodopa had to be increased up to the optimal dose (625-1000 mg/day). In the last evaluation the on-time and parkinsonian disability were similar in both treatment groups. We did not find statistically significant differences in the frequency of motor complications when comparing the two groups of treatment. Our study suggests that early combination of levodopa and bromocriptine does not confer any clinical benefit over levodopa alone in treating early Parkinson's disease, nor will it influence the evolution of the disease.Copyright Lippincott-Raven Publishers In the present study we compared the efficacy and safety of the new dopamine agonist cabergoline (CBG) with bromocriptine (BCR) in Parkinson's disease (PD). CBG has a very long half-life and can be administered as a single daily dose. Forty-four PD patients with uncontrolled motor fluctuations participated in the study. Patients were randomly and blindly assigned to equivalent doses of either CBG or BCR in addition to preexisting levodopa. Dosage was titrated to optimal, using up to 6 mg of CBG or 40 mg of BCR daily. CBG was given as a single morning dose whereas BCR was administered tid. Sixteen patients were followed for 1 year and 16 additional patients for 6 months. The mean follow-up duration was 9 +/- 5 months. The main effect of both drugs was observed on motor UPDRS scores, rigidity, bradykinesia items, and the percentage of awake hours spent during "on" and "off". In general, the effect of CBG was similar to that of BCR. The percentage of awake hours spent during "on" was higher with CBG as compared with BCR. Adverse events included dyskinesias, orthostatism, confusion, edema, and paresthesias in limbs. These effects were seen at similar frequencies with both drugs. The study shows that CBG given as a single morning dose is at least as efficacious as BCR given tid. CBG is a promising dopamine agonist for the treatment of motor fluctuations in PD. Long-term levodopa treatment in Parkinson's disease is typically associated with "motor side effects" consisting in dyskinesias and/or fluctuations in motility referred to as the on-off phenomena. The main objective of this prospective, randomized, multi-centre study was to determine to what extent the development of such complications could be prevented by partial substitution of levodopa monotherapy (L-DOPA/benserazide) by bromocriptine in patients with early symptoms of the disease. The basic trial population included 674 newly diagnosed Parkinsonian patients that were randomly allocated to monotherapy with levodopa or a combination therapy based upon a nearly 40% replacement of levodopa by bromocriptine. The two target regimens had to be consistently maintained for 42 months. Parkinsonian symptoms were assessed by means of the Webster rating scale, the Hoehn and Yahr scale, and the Zung Self-Rating Depression scale. Motor side effects and adverse events were recorded at each regular clinic visit. Neurological symptoms improved and stabilized in a similar manner during treatment with both regimens throughout the study period. Motor side effects were observed in more patients on levodopa alone than on combination therapy (28.8 vs 20%; p = 0.008). According to Kaplan-Meier estimates the cumulative probability of experiencing motor side effects was 0.43 on monotherapy, compared to 0.28 on combination therapy, which was equal to a one third reduction of risk (p = 0.025). In regard to motor side effects, the degree of substitution of levodopa proved relevant: patients with > 50% substitution by bromocriptine exhibited half the risk observed in those with < 30% (p = 0.045). The overall burden of motor side effects, as reflected by a sum score based upon the relevance, the severity and the extent of motor dysfunction, was also significantly less on combination therapy (p = 0.046). In conclusion, partial substitution of levodopa by bromocriptine (> 30%) as first-line treatment of Parkinson's disease proves active in the prophylaxis of levodopa associated motor side effects. Early combination therapy therefore extends the period of optimal disease control.
The small size of this study and other methodological problems do not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn regarding the efficacy and safety of lisuride compared with bromocriptine in advanced Parkinson's disease with motor complications.