Arvid Carlsson,Nobel Lecture A Half -Century of Research
Bioscience Reports, Vol. 21, No. 6, December 2001 ( 2002)
NOBEL LECTURE 8 DECEMBER, 1999
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research: Impact on
Neurology and Psychiatry
Arvid Carlsson
BEGINNINGS
My encounter with dopamine followed upon an incredible sequence of fortunate
events. I had been working on calcium metabolism, using radioactive isotopes, which
had then just become commercially available. This work had resulted in my doctoral
thesis in 1951 and a series of subsequent papers, including two doctoral theses by
students of mine. It had become somewhat visible internationally, resulting for
example, in an invitation to a Gordon Conference in New England in 1955. The
reason why I left this research field was that in connection with a competition for
an associate professorship in pharmacology the expert committee let me know that
in their opinion calcium metabolism did not occupy a central position in pharmacology.
I therefore turned to Professor Sune Bergstro¨m who was at that time head
of the Department of Physiological Chemistry of the University of Lund, Sweden.
This Department was located in the same building as our Pharmacology Department.
Professor Bergstro¨m had already been very helpful in several instances when
I had a professional problem of some kind. Incidentally, Dr. Bengt Samuelsson was
at that time working with Professor Bergstro¨m in the same Department. Thus the
three Swedes who were to become Nobel laureates in the period 1980–2000, happened
to be working under the same roof for a few years.
I asked Sune Bergstro¨m if he could help me to get in touch with an outstanding
American laboratory working in the area of biochemical pharmacology, which I felt
had a great future. He wrote to his friend Dr. Bernard Witkop, a highly talented
chemist working in the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. This letter
was forwarded via the late Dr. Sidney Udenfriend, to his boss the late Dr. Bernard
1Department of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
The Nobel Foundation 2000
691
0144-8463011200-06910 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
692 Carlsson
Fig. 1. Bernard B. Brodie (1907–1989).
B. Brodie (Fig. 1), head of the famous Laboratory of Chemical Pharmacology of
the National Heart Institute. That is how I came to work under Dr. Brodie for
about five months, starting in August 1955. The timing of my arrival there was
extremely fortunate. Brodie and his colleagues had just a few months before made
a breakthrough discovery, namely that the administration of reserpine, a recently
introduced antipsychotic and antihypertensive drug, caused the virtually complete
disappearance of serotonin from the brain and other tissues (Pletscher et al., 1955,
1956, Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Brain level of serotonin four hours after various intravenous doses of reserpine. From
Pletscher et al.(1956).
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 693
‘‘APPRENTICE TO GENIUS’’
Brodie was a remarkably charismatic and intensive person. He was generally
called Steve Brodie. This referred to a saloon keeper named Steve Brodie, who at
the beginning of the previous century had jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge in order
to win a bet. Bernard Brodie, too, was a sensation seeker who in his youth had
started on a career as a boxer but later switched to become an organic chemist. He
then confined his sensation seeking to non-physical adventures. He liked to call
himself a gambler. He had gained a tremendous reputation as a pioneer in the area
of drug metabolism and should perhaps rightly be called the father of modern biochemical
pharmacology. A large number of his apprentices, coming from various
parts of the world, later became prominent figures in pharmacology (see Kanigel,
1986, ‘‘Apprentice to Genius’). In the 1950s, after hearing about the sensational
clinical actions of the new antipsychotic drugs and the ability of the hallucinogenic
LSD to block serotonin effects on various peripheral organs he decided to enter the
field of psychopharmacology. While knowing very little about the brain he had a
tremendous trump card in being able to determine for the first time serotonin and
similar molecules in the brain, using the prototype of a new instrument developed
in his own lab together with Sidney Udenfriend and Dr. Robert Bowman. This
instrument, the spectrophotofluorimeter, was to replace previous bioassays and to
revolutionize drug research and neurotransmitter pharmacology for several decades.
This research soon led to the breakthrough discovery just mentioned, that is,
the depletion of serotonin stores by reserpine treatment. For the first time a bridge
seemed to have been built between the biochemistry of the brain and some important
brain functions, with some obvious neuropsychiatric implications.
Brodie and his colleagues, especially Dr. Parkhurst Shore, generously introduced
me into the new analytical methods and the use of the new instrument. I
proposed to Brodie that we investigate the effect of reserpine on the catecholamines
in view of their chemical similarity to serotonin. But Brodie thought this would be
waste of time. He was so sure that serotonin was the target to focus upon.
A ‘‘ROSETTA STONE’’?
But I felt that a look at the catecholamines might be worth while. To get started
quickly I would then need a partner specialized in the catecholamine field. Again I
was incredibly lucky. Of all the people working in that field at the time the most
clever partner in such a project was located in my home University, the University
of Lund: Professor Nils-A° ke Hillarp (Fig. 3). I wrote to him from Bethesda and
proposed a collaboration, and he agreed. Thus a most fruitful collaboration started,
lasting until his untimely death in 1965. Hillarp’s personality was different from that
of Brodie in many respects, but they were similar in terms of brilliance, charisma
and intensity. His background was histology and histochemistry, but his knowledge
extended far into physiology and biochemistry.
In the spring of the following year Hillarp and I got the first results. We demonstrated
the depletion of catecholamines from the adrenal medulla of rabbits following
treatment with reserpine (Carlsson and Hillarp, 1956). This was before I had
694 Carlsson
Fig. 3. Hillarp. Photo: Georg Thieme.
acquired my own miracle instrument, the so-called Aminco-Bowman Spetrophotofluorimeter.
The only instrument we had for the determination of catecholamines
was a colorimeter, using the method of von Euler and Hamberg (1949). But we did
not need any instrument because the absence of a color development in the samples
from reserpine-treated rabbits could be seen with the naked eye.
The same results were obtained when we analyzed heart and brain, in the latter
case using our new instrument. We also found that sympathetic nerves no longer
responded to nerve stimulation following reserpine treatment, apparently due to
depletion of transmitter (Carlsson et al., 1957a). Thus depletion of catecholamines
could be the cause of the behavioral inhibition induced by reserpine. To investigate
this we gave DOPA (3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine) to reserpine-treated animals and
thus discovered the dramatic reversal of the reserpine-induced syndrome by this
catecholamine precursor (Carlsson et al., 1957b, Fig. 4). The reason we used the
precursor was that the catecholamines are unable to penetrate from the blood into
the brain, because of the blood-brain barrier.
We then analyzed the brains of DOPA-treated animals and much to our disappointment
we were unable to detect any restoration of noradrenaline levels. Experiments
with monoamine oxidase inhibitors clearly showed that a monoamine rather
than DOPA itself was responsible for the behavioral response, and thus we were
forced to look for the intermediate in the conversion of DOPA to noradrenaline:
dopamine.
At that time dopamine was considered to be without any interest because of its
low physiological activity, when tested on various smooth-muscle preparations. We
had to develop a method for determining dopamine because no such method was
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 695
Fig. 4. Rabbits treated with reserpine (5 mgkg intravenously) before (top) and after
DL-DOPA (200 mgkg intravenously, bottom). From Carlsson (1960). Photo: Tor
Magnusson.
available at the time (Carlsson and Waldeck, 1958). We could then show that dopamine
occurs normally in the brain in an amount somewhat higher than that of
noradrenaline, that it is brought to disappear by reserpine treatment, and that the
antireserpine action of DOPA is closely correlated to the restoration of dopamine
levels in the brain. We also showed that the restoration of serotonin levels by treatment
with its precursor 5-hydroxytryptophan did not lead to any reversal of the
reserpine syndrome (Carlsson et al., 1958).
The classical method in physiology to prove a function of a natural constituent,
is to remove the constituent in question and demonstrate a loss of function, and
then to reintroduce the constituent, and demonstrate a restoration of the same function.
We thought we had done this in the case of dopamine. We could easily exclude
possible alternative explanations, such as a role of noradrenaline and serotonin and
a direct action of L-DOPA.
In fact, our enthusiasm made us think that now we had found the Rosetta stone
that would give us access to the chemical language of the brain.
Later we found the unique distribution of dopamine in the brain, with an accumulation
in the basal ganglia, that is structures known to be involved in motor
functions. This, taken together with the fact that a characteristic side effect of reserpine
is to mimic very faithfully the syndrome of Parkinsonism and to induce a similar
symptomatology in animals, led us to conclude that depletion of dopamine will
696 Carlsson
induce the Parkinson syndrome and that treatment with L-DOPA will alleviate that
syndrome by restoring the dopamine level. All this I presented at the First International
Catecholamine Symposium in October, 1958 (Carlsson, 1959; Bertler and
Rosengren, 1959).
A BATTLE IN LONDON
A year and a half later, in March 1960, a Ciba Foundation Symposium on
Adrenergic Mechanisms was held in London (Vane et al., 1960). I then presented
the same data and some additional support obtained from studies on the action of
monoamine oxidase inhibitors. At this meeting practically all of the most eminent
experts in this area participated. The central figure was Sir Henry Dale, a Nobel
Laureate aged 85 but still remarkably vital. He dominated the scene, and the participants,
many of whom were his former students, treated him with enormous respect,
like school children their headmaster, although many of them had indeed reached a
mature age.
To better understand how our dopamine story was received at this meeting it
may be useful to recapitulate briefly the development following Otto Loewi’s discovery
of chemical transmission in the frog heart (Loewi, 1921). During the following
decades evidence accumulated, supporting the existence of chemical transmission
in various parts of the peripheral nervous system. Dale and his collaborators played
an important role here. They had, however, been fiercely attacked by a number
of neurophysiologists, who argued in favor of an electrical transmission across the
synapses. The most eminent proponent of this view was Sir John Eccles. The debates
between Dale and Eccles had been quite vivid, as witnessed by several attendants of
these debates between what was called ‘‘the sparks’’ and ‘‘the soup’. Despite the
sometimes harsh wordings the debates between Dale and Eccles over the years ended
in mutual respect and admiration, as clearly indicated in the correspondence of more
than twenty years between the two (see Katz, 1996, Girolami et al., 1994). Doubts
about a chemical transmission were particularly strongly expressed concerning the
central nervous system. In the mid 1950s, however, Eccles had placed one foot in
the ‘‘soup’’ camp, based on his own observation that a recurrent collateral of the
motor neurone, impinging on the so-called Renshaw cells, seemed to operate by
cholinergic transmission. This was, however, a very special case, given the fact that
motor neurons are cholinergic. Apart from this finding, as pointed out by McLennan
(1963) in his monograph ‘‘Synaptic Transmission,’’ there was no evidence in favor
of chemical transmission in the central nervous system.
At this meeting in London the debate that followed upon our paper entitled
‘‘On the biochemistry and possible functions of dopamine and noradrenaline in the
brain’’ and a subsequent special discussion session, revealed a profound and nearly
unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view. Our data as such were not
questioned. Actually some confirmatory animal experiments were reported at the
meeting, and I referred to a paper by Degkwitz et al. (1960), in which an antireserpine
action of DOPA in humans was reported.. Dale expressed the view that
L-DOPA is a poison, which he found remarkable for an amino acid. Marthe Vogt
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 697
concluded that the views expressed by Brodie and us regarding a function of serotonin
and catecholamines, respectively, in the brain would not have a long life.
W. D. M. Paton referred to some unpublished experiments indicating that the
catecholamines are located in glia. In his concluding remarks John Gaddum stated
that at this meeting nobody had ventured to speculate on the relation between catechol
amines and the function of the brain. But this was what I had insisted upon
throughout the meeting, so the clear message to me was that I was nobody!
In retrospect I believe almost everybody would agree that our story and its
implications were straight forward and obvious. How come that these eminent
experts rejected the whole thing? I have no definite answer. Clearly the pharmacologists
had great difficulty in accepting that dopamine could be an agonist in its own
right, given its poor physiological effect on smooth-muscle preparations. The idea
of DOPA being a mysterious poison probably came out of some experiments
reported at the meeting where large doses of this amino acid, given to experimental
animals together with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor, could cause paralysis, convulsions
and death. In addition, I believe that the previous ‘‘sparks-and-soup’’
debates still had some impact. In these debates some elaborate criteria for a neurotransmitter
had been formulated. Our data were of a different kind and these criteria
were not applicable.
In this regard I and my collaborators, like my mentor Steve Brodie, simply had
the advantage of being ignorant and not so much burdened by dogma.
A PARADIGM SHIFT
But it wouldn’t be long until the scene would change dramatically. Hillarp also
attended the London meeting. On our trip back to Sweden we agreed we should
increase our efforts to convince the world that chemical transmission does indeed
exist in the brain. Our idea was that Hillarp join me to work full time on research
in our new and well-equipped Department of Pharmacology of the University of
Go¨ teborg, where I had been appointed professor and chairman the year before. We
managed to obtain a grant from the Swedish Medical Research Council to set Hillarp
free from his teaching duties in Lund. He could start full-time research in Go¨ teborg
already in the autumn of 1960.
We felt that the ability of catecholamines to yield fluorescent conversion products
might be useful for their visualization in the microscope. We first tried a modifcation
of the trihydroxyindole method (Carlsson et al., 1961). It worked beautifully
for the adrenal medulla but not in other tissues. Hillarp then turned to another
reaction that had been used for the quantitative assay of indoleamines, using formaldehyde
as a reagent. Together with his skillful research assistant, the late Georg
Thieme he worked out a model system, in which they managed to optimize the
reaction conditions. (These experiments were reported by Falck et al., 1962). Subsequently,
together with his former student Bengt Falck, Hillarp used air-dried preparations
of iris and mesenterium, and discovered that the reaction worked
beautifully, thus permitting the visualization of noradrenaline in adrenergic nerves
and serotonin in mast cells in the fluorescence microscope. This led to an intense
collaboration between our Department of Pharmacology in Go¨teborg and Hillarp’s
698 Carlsson
Fig. 5. Group picture, taken January 1965, showing the group of young researchers recruited by Hillarp
after his move to the Karolinska Institute in 1962. From Dahlstro¨m and Carlsson (1986). Photo: Lennart
Nilsson.
original Department of Histlogy in Lund, and finally, after Hillarp’s move to take
over the Chair of Histology at the Karolinska Institute in 1963, with an enthusiastic
group of young students in his new Department (see Fig. 5). Thus within a few years
the neuronal localization of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin in the central
and peripheral nervous system was clearly established (Fig. 6). Moreover, the major
Fig. 6. Dopaminergic cell bodies in rat substantia nigra. Green fluorescence developed following treatment
with formaldehyde vapour. Courtesy of Annica Dahlstro¨m.
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 699
Fig. 7. Monoaminergic pathways in brain. From Fuxe
and Ande´n (1966).
monoaminergic pathways could be mapped (Fig. 7), and the site of action of the
major psychotropic drugs clarified (see Dahlstro¨m and Carlsson, 1986, Carlsson
1966, Fig. 8).
As mentioned, a large number of people were engaged in this effort. Sadly, many
of these people have passed away, in many cases prematurely. Among these Georg
Fig. 8. Scheme of monoaminergic synapse, with the sites of action of major classes of psychotropic
drugs indicated.. From Carlsson (1966).
700 Carlsson
Fig. 9. Thieme (1926–1996). Fig. 10. Margit Lindqvist (1924–1978).
Thieme (Fig. 9) has already been mentioned. Margit Lindqvist (Fig. 10), a very skilful
laboratrory assistant, who matured to become a qualified research worker, played an
enormous role already from the outset of my scientific career. Nils-Erik Ande´n (Fig.
11) and Jan Ha¨ggendal (Fig. 12) were originally students of mine who became outstanding
pharmacologists and largely contributed to characterize both central and peripheral
monoaminergic transmission (for some of their early work, see Ande´n,
Carlsson and Ha¨ggendal, 1969). Hans Corrodi (Fig. 13), a very skilful organic chemist,
who moved to Sweden because of his love for the mountains in Northern Sweden, contributed
much to clarify the chemistry of the formaldehyde histofluorescence method
and to many other projects, especially the development of the first selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitor SSRI, see below).
In February 1965 an international symposium entitled ‘‘Mechanisms of Release
of Biogenic Amines’’ was held in Stockholm (v. Euler et al., 1966), with most of the
major figures of that research field participating. In his Introductory Remarks Professor
Uvna¨s mentioned that ‘‘. . . these amines play an important role as chemical
mediators in the peripheral and central nervous system. . . .’’ None of the participants
of this symposium expressed any doubt on this point. It looks as though a paradigm
shift had taken place between 1960 and 1965.
It goes without saying that the concept of chemical transmission has had a
profound impact on practically every aspect of brain research. In so far as neurology
and psychiatry are concerned, a couple of examples are summarized below.
‘‘AWAKENINGS’’
Following our above-mentioned proposal of a role of dopamine in Parkinsonism,
some important parallel and apparently independent developments took
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 701
Fig. 11. Nils-Erik Ande´n (1937–1990). Fig. 12. Jan Ha¨ggendal (1932–1992).
Fig. 13. Hans Corrodi (1929–1974).
702 Carlsson
place in Austria, Canada and Japan. These will now be briefly commented upon,
starting out with Austria.
Later in the same year as the Symposium on Adrenergic Mechanisms, there
appeared in Klinische Wochenschrift a paper in German, describing a marked
reduction of dopamine in the brains of deceased patients who had suffered from
Parkinson’s disease and postencephalitic Parkinsonism (Ehringer and Hornykiewicz,
1960). This was soon followed by a paper by Birkmayer and Hornykiewicz (1961),
in which a temporary improvement of akinesia was reported following a single intravenous
dose of L-DOPA to Parkinson patients.
As far as I can gather from an autobiography of Hornykiewicz (1992) as well
as a personal communication from him, the following had happened. I wish to
mention this in some detail, because it illustrates how the interaction of different
minds can lead to important progress. In 1958 Hornykiewicz was approached by a
mentor Professor Lindner or, according to a different version, by his chief Professor
Bru¨ cke, who tried to persuade him to analyze the brain of a Parkinson patient, which
the neurologist Walter Birkmayer wanted to be analyzed for serotonin. Presumably
Birkmayer had been impressed by Brodie’s already mentioned discovery in 1955 of
the depletion of this compound by reserpine, and in contrast to many neurologists
at that time he was aware of its possible implications. Shortly afterwards, in 1959,
Hornykiewicz read about our work on dopamine and its role in the Parkinson syndrome.
He then decided to include dopamine and noradrenaline in the study. In
fact, in the subsequent work serotonin had to be left out initially because of some
technical problems.
Hornykiewicz and his postdoctoral fellow Ehringer were now facing a challenge,
because they had no adequate equipment to measure dopamine. But they
managed to overcome this problem by using the purification of the brain extracts
by ion exchange chromatography that our research group had worked out. The
subsequent measurement was performed using the colorimetric method of Euler and
Hamberg. Although this method by itself is highly unspecific, specificity could be
obtained by using our purification step together with our finding that dopamine is
by far the dominating catecholamine in the basal ganglia, where it occurred in high
concentrations. They had to work up several grams of tissue and to concentrate the
extracts by evacuation to dryness. Following this heroic procedure they were richly
rewarded, because the samples from the Parkinsonian brains, in contrast to the
controls, turned out to be colorless, as revealed by the naked eye!
The corresponding development of Parkinson research in Canada is summarized
in a paper by Barbeau et al. (1962), presented at a meeting in Geneva in September
the previous year. The main findings of the Canadian workers was a
reduction of the urinary excretion of dopamine in Parkinson patients and an alleviation
of the rigidity of such patients following oral treatment with L-DOPA.
In Japan some remarkable progress was made, which has not been adequately
paid attention to in the Western countries (see reviews by Nakajima 1991, and Foley
2000). In a lecture on the 5th of August, 1959, less than a year after my lecture at
the International Catecholamine Symposium mentioned above, the basic concept
regarding the role of dopamine in the basal ganglia in Parkinson’s disease was presented
by I. Sano (1959). In this lecture data on the distribution of dopamine in the
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 703
human brain were presented for the first time. In a lecture in Tokyo on the 6 February,
1960, Sano reported on reduced amounts of dopamine in the basal ganglia of
a Parkinson patient, analyzed post mortem, and in the same year he published a
paper describing alleviation of rigidity in a Parkinson patient following intravenous
administration of DL-DOPA (Sano, 1960).
Thus treatment of Parkinson patients with DOPA was initiated simultaneously
in three different countries only a few years after the discovery of the anti-reserpine
action of this agent and the subsequent formulation of the concept of a role of
dopamine in extrapyramidal functions. While this treatment led to results of great
scientific interest, it took several years until it could be implemented as routine treatment
of Parkinson patients. The reason was that the treatment regimens used
initially were inadequate and led to but marginal improvement of questionable
therapeutic value (Hornykiewicz, 1966). It remained for George Cotzias (1967) to
develop an adequate dose regimen. After that L-DOPA treatment rapidly became
the golden standard for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
When I had seen Cotzias’ impressive film demonstrating the effect of escalating
oral doses of L-DOPA at a meeting in Canada I hastened back to Go¨teborg and
initiated studies together with Drs. Svanborg, Steg and others, which quickly confirmed
Cotzias’ observations (Ande´n et al., 1970), like in many other places at the
same time. This success story was soon afterwards told to the general public by
Oliver Sacks in ‘‘Awakenings’’ (Sacks, 1973), which became a bestseller and was
also made into a movie.
ROLE OF SEROTONIN IN DEPRESSION: ZIMELIDINE,
THE FIRST SSRI
The so-called tricyclic antidepressants, with imipramine as the prototype, were
serendipitously discovered in the late 1950s, thanks to Kuhn, a psychiatrist and a
keen clinical observer. In the early 1960s these agents were found to block the reuptake
of noradrenaline by nerve terminals, thus enhancing the adrenergic transmission
mechanism. In 1968 we discovered that many antidepressants also could block the
reuptake of serotonin (Carlsson et al. 1968), and this prompted us to develop a
compound that selectively blocked the reuptake of serotonin without acting on noradrenaline.
Such agents are now known as SSRIs. This first agent was called zimelidine,
whose preclinical properties we first described in Berntsson et al. (1972).
Zimelidine turned out to be an active antidepressant agent with a very favorable
side effect profile (Carlsson et al., 1981), apart from a very rare, but serious side
effect, presumably based on an immunological mechanism, that led to its withdrawal
from the market. But zimelidine was followed by several other SSRIs, among which
Prozac is especially well known, not least because of a bestseller titled ‘‘Listening to
Prozac,’’ authored by P. D. Kramer (1993). In this book Prozac is stated to be able
to treat not only patients with depression and a variety of anxiety disorders, as had
previously been amply demonstrated for many SSRIs, but also to be able to change
the personality of people with psychological problems. Kramer was especially astonished
by the fact that disturbances, which would have taken several months of psychotherapy
to control, could be alleviated within a few days of treatment with Prozac.
704 Carlsson
This favorable action, making people feel and function better, even if they were not
mentally ill in the conventional sense, is a fascinating but, needless to say, controversial
issue. Less controversial is probably the 25% reduction in suicide rates in
Sweden in the 1990s, apparently related to the introduction of the SSRIs (Isacsson
2000). In any event the SSRIs represent a major therapeutic advance as well as a
milestone in rational drug development (Carlsson, 1999).
The development of zimelidine was based on our discovery that certain antihistamines
are serotonin-reuptake blocking agents, albeit non-selective. The most
powerful agents among these were the pheniramines and diphenhydramine (Carlsson
et al., 1969). We started out from the pheniramines and developed zimelidine. The
Lilly scientists started out from our diphenhydramine data and developed Prozac,
which was found to act very much like zimelidine, though devoid of its serious side
effect.
DOPAMINERGIC STABILIZERS—A NOVEL PHARMACOLOGIC
PRINCIPLE
In 1963 Margit Lindqvist and I presented the first evidence supporting the view
that the most important group of antipsychotic agents, represented by agents such
as chlorpromazine and haloperidol, act by blocking receptors for dopamine, and to
some extent also receptors for noradrenaline (Carlsson and Lindqvist, 1963, Fig.
14). This conclusion has later been confirmed and extended in numerous laboratories,
and techniques have been developed to screen for such agents in test tube
Fig. 14. Accumulation of of the basic catecholamine metabolites normetanephrine and
3-methoxytyramine, enhanced by treatment with major neuroleptic agents following
monoamine oxidase inhibition. From Carlsson and Lindqvist 1963.
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 705
experiments. One might have expected then that this should have led to the development
of drugs with stronger efficacy and less side effects. Unfortunately, this has
not happened.
We have hypothesized that the cause of this failure is that treatment with dopamine
receptor antagonists can hardly avoid the serious and unpleasant side effects
induced by dopamine hypofunction. Even though there is evidence of elevated dopaminergic
activity in schizophrenia, this may be limited to psychotic episodes. In fact,
we may be dealing with an instability of the dopamine release rather than a continuously
elevated baseline. Thus, between psychotic episodes, the patient would then
suffer from a dopaminergic hypofunction, especially during treatment with the currently
used antipsychotic agents, showing up as a severe disturbance of the reward
system and of cognition, and also as motor disturbances. This may make it impossible
to attain an adequate dose level (for discussion and references, see Carlsson et
al., 2001).
We believe that we can now get around this problem by using a new principle
of intervention that we call dopaminergic stabilization. The underlying mechanism
is complicated but in principle it rests on the existence of mutually antagonistic
subpopulations of dopamine D2 receptors, as regards the final functional outcome.
For example, the presynaptically located dopaminergic autoreceptors are inhibitory
on the overall dopaminergic activity. Dopaminergic stabilizers are dopamine D2
antagonists or partial D2 agonists capable of occupying mutually opposing receptor
subpopulations in such proportions as to leave the normal baseline dopaminergic
activity level essentially unchanged. This leads to stabilization by dampening fluctuations
of dopamine release, simply because fewer dopamine receptors are unoccupied
and thus available for the endogenous neurotransmitter.
Using the dopaminergic stabilizer (−)-OSU6162 (Fig. 15), developed by our
research group, partly in collaboration with Upjohn (now merged into Pharmacia
Fig. 15. Chemical structure of (−)-OSU6162.
706 Carlsson
Fig. 16. Stabilizing action of (−)-OSU6162 in rats.. Filled bars: no treatment with (−)-
OSU6162. Open bars: (−)-OSU6162. ‘‘Ctr’. Actively exploring control rats. ‘‘hab’: Rats
habituated to their environment. ‘‘d-amph’: rats treated with d-amphetamine. Note.
Treatment with one and the same dose of (−)-OSU6162 can induce stimulation of
behavior when baseline activity is low (habituated rats) and inhibition when the activity
is high (d-amphetamine pretreatment).
Corporation), we have demonstrated the stabilization phenomenon in experimental
animals (Fig. 16) and, in preliminary clinical studies, its pharmacotheraputic potential
in L-DOPA-induced dyskinesias in Parkinson patients, in Huntington’s disease
(Fig. 17), and in schizophrenia (Tedroff et al., 1999, Ekesbo, 1999, Gefvert et al.,
2000).
The partial dopamine receptor agonist preclamol ((−)–3-PPP) has likewise a
dopaminergic stabilizer profile. This agent was discovered by our research group
and is in development in collaboration with Dr. Tamminga and her colleagues at
the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center (Lahti et al., 1988).
Our experience with dopaminergic stabilizers suggests that research into neurotransmitter
pathophysiology has until now focussed too much on the hyper- versus
hypofunction dichotomy. Although the instability concept is by no means new, there
has not been much of a goal- directed strategy aiming to stabilize neurocircuits
involved in neuropsychiatric disorders. Our preliminary data suggest that such an
approach can lead to enormous gains in the treatment of a great variety neurological
and psychiatric disorders.
OUTLOOK
During the past half-century brain research has been dominated by biochemical
approaches, in contrast to the previous half-century, which had a strong electrophysiological
emphasis. This switch is understandable in view of the entrance of
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 707
Fig. 17. Choreatic events at baseline and following 0.5 mgkg (−)-OSU6162 as
an intravenous infusion during 30 minutes to a patient with Huntington’s disease.
From Tedroff et al. (1999).
the neurohumoral transmission concept into brain research in conjunction with the
spectacular progress of molecular biology. However, it must be recognized that the
brain is not a chemical factory but an extremely complicated survival machine. In
order to bring all the forthcoming biochemical observations into a meaningful
framework it will prove necessary to emphasize more strongly aspects of neurocircuits
and connectivity and to do so both at the microscopic and macroscopic level.
For example, the old questions dealing with neurocircuits within a cerebral region
such as the cortex and those addressing the interaction between the different regions
will in all probability come into focus more strongly in order to make full use of the
new knowledge gained from neurotransmitter physiology and molecular biology.
Here the new imaging techniques in conjunction with advanced computer-dependent
statistics involving pattern recognition derived from a wealth of data with great
complexity will probably prove extremely useful and very much help to bridge the
gap between animal and human observations. If nothing else, such approaches will
help to reveal the enormous width of our present ignorance of the human brain.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During my scientific career I have had the privilege to work with hundreds of
other research workers, highly qualified technicians and other personnel, to whom I
owe a lot. Only about forty of these people are mentioned in this text including the
reference list. Sadly, a considerable number of these people have passed away, in
many cases prematurely. Some of these, to whom I have a special debt of gratitude,
have been commemorated with pictures.
708 Carlsson
Throughout my professional career I have enjoyed excellent working conditions,
first for almost two decades at the University of Lund, Sweden, and thereafter,
for four decades, at the University of Gothenburg. My 5-month visit to the
National Institutes of Health had obviously a decisive and extremely positive impact
on my career.
I have received generous support from numerous sources, among which the
following need to be mentioned specially: The Swedish Medical Research Council,
The Swedish Board of Technical Development, The Knut och Alice Wallenberg
Foundation, and during the critical late 1950s and early 1960s, U.S. Air Force and
National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., and more recently from the Theodore & Vada
Stanley Foundation, U.S.A. In addition I have enjoyed a fruitful collaboration with
generous financial support from several major pharmaceutical companies, especially
AstraHa¨ssle, Sweden, The Upjohn Company, U.S.A, Organon, The Netherlands
and Aventis (previously Hoechst Marion Roussel), Germany.
To express in a few words my debt of gratitude to my wife Ulla-Lisa and to
the rest of my family is not possible. Here I wish to refer to my autobiography
(Carlsson, 1998), in which I have also had the opportunity to go into further detail
in several other respects.
REFERENCES
Ande´n N.-E., Carlsson A., and Ha¨ggendal, J.(1969) Adrenergic mechanisms. Ann. Reû. Pharmacol.
9:119–134.
Ande´n N.-E., et al. (1970) Oral L-DOPA treatment of Parkinsonism. Acta Med. Scand.187:247–255.
Barbeau, A., Sourkes, T. L., and Murphy, G. F. (1962) Les catecholamines dans la maladie de Parkinson.
In: Monoamines et Syste`me Nedrûeux Central. Ge´ne`ve, Georg et Cie, S.A., pp. 247–262.
Berntsson, P. B., Carlsson, P. A. E., and Corrodi, H. R. (1972) Belg. Pat. 781105 (72-4-14).
.Bertler,A°
. and Rosengren, E. (1959) Occurrence and distribution of dopamine in brain and other tissues.
Experientia 15:10.
Birkmayer, W. and Hornykiewicz, O. (1961) Der L-3,4-Dioxyphenylalanin (GL-DOPA)-Effekt bei der
Parkinson-Akinese. Wien Klin. Wschr. 73:787–788.
Carlsson, A. (1959) The occurrence, distribution and physiological role of catecholamines in the nervous
system. Pharmacol. Reû. 11:490–493
Carlsson, A. (1960) Zur Frage der wirkungsweise einiger psychopharmaka. Psychiat. Neurol. 140:220–
222.
Carlsson, A. (1966) Physiological and pharmacological release of monoamines in the central nervous
system. In: Mechanisms of Release of Biogenic Amines (U. S. von Euler, S. Rosell, and B. Uvna¨s,
eds.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 331–346.
Carlsson, A. (1998) Autobiography. In: The History of Neuroscience in Autobiography, Volume 2 (L. R.
Squire, ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 28–66.
Carlsson, A. (1999) The discovery of the SSRIs: A milestone in neuropsychopharmacology and rational
drug design. In: Selectiûe Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (S. C. Stanford, ed.), R. G. Landes Company,
Austin, pp. 1–8.
Carlsson, A. and Hillarp, N.-A° . (1956) Release of adrenaline from the adrenal medullaof rabbits produced
by reserpine. Kungl. Fysiogr. Sa¨llsk. i Lund. Fo¨rhandl. 26:8.
Carlsson, A. and Lindqvist, M. (1963) Effect of chlorpromazine or haloperidol on the formation of 3-
methoxytyramine and normetanephrine in mouse brain. Acta Pharmacol. (Kbh) 20:140–144.
Carlsson. A. and Lindqvist, M. (1969) Central and periphgeral monoaminergic membrane-pump blockade
by some addictive analgesics and antihistamines. J. Pharm. Pharmac. 21:460–464.
Carlsson, A. and Waldeck, B. (1958) A fluorimetric method for the determination of dopamine (3-
hydroxytyramine). Acta Physiol. Scand. 44:293–298.
A Half-Century of Neurotransmitter Research 709
Carlsson, A., Rosengren, E., Bertler, A°
., and Nilsson, J. (1957a) Effect of reserpine on the metabolism
of catecholamines. In: Psychotropic Drugs (S. Garattini and V. Ghetti, eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 363–372.
Carlsson, A., Lindqvist, M., and Magnusson, T. (1957b) 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylalanine and 5-hydroxytryptophan
as reserpine antagonists. Nature 180:1200.
Carlsson, A., Lindqvist, M., Magnusson, T., and Waldeck, B. (1958 On the presence of 3-hydroxytyramine
in brain. Science 127:471.
Carlsson, A., Falck, B., Hillarp, N.-A° ., Thieme, G, and Torp, A. A new hitstochemical method for
visualization of tissue catecholamines. Med. Exp. 4:123–125.
Carlsson, A., Fuxe, K., and Ungerstedt, U. (1968) The effect of imipramine on central 5-hydroxytryptamine
neurons. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 20:150–151.
Carlsson, A., Gottfries, C.-G., Holmberg, G., Modigh, K., Svensson, T. H., and O¨ gren, S.-O. (eds.)
(1981) Recent advances in the treatment of depression. Acta Physiol. Scand. Suppl. 290.
Carlsson, A., Waters, N., Waters, S., and Carlsson, M. L. (2000) Network interactions in schizophrenia–
therapeutic implications. Brain Res. Reû. 31:342–349.
Cotzias, G. C., Van Woert, M. H., and Schiffer, L. M. (1967) Aromatic amino acids and modification
of Parkinsonism. New Eng. J. Med. 276:374–379.
Dahlstro¨m, A. and Carlsson, A. (1986) Making visible the invisible. (Recollections of the first experiences
with the histochemical fluorescence method for visualization of tissue monoamines). In: Discoûeries
in Pharmacology, Vol. 3 (M. J. Parnham and J. Bruinvels, eds.), Elsevier, AmsterdamNew York
Oxford, pp. 97–128.
Degkwitz, R., Frowein, R., Kulenkampff, C., and Mohs, U. (1960) U¨ ber die Wirkungen des L-dopa
beim Menschen und deren Beeinflussung durch Reserpin, Chlorpromazin, Iproniazid und Vitamin
B6 . Klin. Wschr. 38:120–123.
Ehringer, H. and Hornykiewicz, O. (1960) Verteilung von Noradrenalin und Dopamin (3-Hydroxytyramin)
im Gehirn des Menschen und ihr Verhalten bei Erkrankungen des extrapyramidalen Sytstems.
Klin. Wschr. 38:1236–1239.
Ekesbo, A. (1999) Functional consequences of dopaminergic degeneration. Thesis, Uppsala University,
pp. 1–59.
Euler, U. S. von and Hamberg, U. (1949) Colorimetric determination of noradrenaline and adrenaline.
Acta Physiol. Scand. 19:74–84.
Euler, U. S. von, Rosell, S., and Uvna¨s, B. (eds.) (1966) Mechanisms of Release of Biogenic Amines.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 331–346.
Falck, B., Hillarp, N.-A° ., Thieme, G., and Torp, A. (1962) Fluorescence of catecholamines and related
compounds condensed with formaldehyde. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 10:348–354.
Foley, P. (2000) The L-DOPA story revisited. Further surprises to be expected? The contribution of
Isamo Sano to the investigation of Parkinson’s disease. In: Adûances in Research on Neurodegeneration,
Volume 8 (P. Riederer, D. B. Calne, R. Horowski, Y. Mizuno, C. V. Olanow, W. Poewe,
M. B. H. Youdim, eds.), Springer-Verlag, Vienna, pp. 1–20.
Gefvert, O. et al. (2000) (−)-OSU6162 induces a rapid onset of antipsychotic effect after a single dose. A
double-blind placebo-controlled study. Abstract. Nordic. J. Psychiat. 54:93–94.
Girolami, P., Taborikova, H., Nistico, G. (eds.) (1994) In Memory of Sir Henry Dale. Accademia di
Scienze Mediche e Biologiche, Rome, pp. 1–67.
Hornykiewicz, O. (1966) Metabolism of brain dopamine in human Parkisonism: Neurochemical and
clinical aspects. In: Biochemistry and Pharmacology of the Basal Ganglia (E. Costa, L. K. J. Coˆ te´,
and M. D. Yahr, eds.), Raven Press, New York, pp. 171–186.
Hornykiewicz, O. (1992) From dopamine to Parkinson’s disease: A personal research record. In: The
Neurosciences: Paths of Discoûery II (F. Samson and G. Adelman, eds.) Birkha¨user, Boston, pp. 125–
148.
Isacsson, G. (2000). Suicide prevention—a medical breakthrough? Acta Psychiat. Scand. 102:113–117.
Kanigel, R. (1986) Apprentice to Genius, The Making of a Scientific Dynasty. Macmillan, New York, pp.
1–271.
Katz B. (1996) In: The History of Neuroscience in Autobiography. Volume 1 (L. R. Squire, ed.), Society
for Neuroscience, Washington, pp. 348–381.
Kramer, P. D. (1993) Listening to Prozac, Penguin Books, New York.
710 Carlsson
Lahti, A. C., Weiler, M. A., Corey, P. K., Lahti, R. A., Carlsson, A., and Tamminga, C. A. Antipsychotic
properties of the partial dopamine agonist(−)–3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-n-propylpiperidine (preclamol)
in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiat. 43:2–11.
Loewi, O. (1921) U¨ ber humorale U¨ bertra¨gberkeit der Herznervenwirkung. (I. Mitteilung). Pflu¨g. Arch.
ges Physiol. 189:239–242.
McLennan, H. (1963) Synaptic Transmission,W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, pp. 1–134.
Nakajima, T. (1991) Discovery of dopamine deficiency and the possibility of dopa therapy in Parkinsonism.
In: Parkinson’s Disease. From Clinical Aspects to Molecular Basis (T. Nagatsu, H. Narabayashi,
and M. Yoshida M, eds.), Springer Verlag, Vienna, pp. 13–18.
Pletscher, A., Shore, P. A, and Brodie, B. B. (1955) Serotonin release as a possible mechanism of reserpine
action. Science 122:374–375.
Pletscher, A., Shore, P. A., and Brodie, B. B. (1956) Serotonin as a mediator of reserpine action in brain.
J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 116:84–89.
Sacks, O. (1973) Awakenings, Gerald Duckworth, London, pp. 1–408.
Sano, I. (1959) Biochemical studies of aromatic monoamines in the brain. In: Japanese Medicine in 1959,
The report on scientific meetings in the 15th General Assembly of the Japan Medical Congress, Vol.
V, pp. 607–615.
Sano I. (2000) Biochemistry of extrapyramidal motor system. Shinkey Kenkyu no Shinpo (Adû. Neurol.
Sci.) 5:42–48. English translation in: Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, Vol. 6 (2000), pp. 3–6.
Tedroff, J., Ekesbo, A., Sonesson, C., Waters, N., and Carlsson, A. (1999) Long-lasting improvement
following (−)-OSU6162 in a patient with Huntington’s disease. Neurology 53:1605–1606.
Vane, J. R., Wolstenholme, G. E. W., and O’Connor, M. (eds.) (1960) Ciba Foundation Symposium on
Adrenergic Mechanisms, J. & A. Churchill Ltd., London, pp. 1–632.
The stomach is the gateway
Absorption and Metabolism of L‐Dopa by the Stomach
European Journal of Clinical Investigation (Impact Factor: 3.37). 09/1971; 1(5):313 – 320. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.1971.tb00637.x
ABSTRACT The absorption and gastric metabolism of L-dopa (L-dihydroxyphenylalanine) were studied in 14 Parkinsonian patients. Patients were given p. o. 25 μCi (500 mg) 14C L-dopa labelled at the β-carbon mixed with 2 g polyethylene glycol as a dilution marker. Absorption was evaluated by determining the gastric rate of absorption, gastric clearance, serum levels, and urinary excretion of 14C. L-dopa and its metabolites in the gastric juice and serum were fractionated by column chromatography. Patients with gastric juice pH of 1.2-2.1 had a gastric rate of absorption of 62.6±4.7 mg/h with a gastric clearance of 31.7.4.1 ml/h. The gastric emptying time was 228±96min. 17.2–26.4% of total radioactivity in the gastric juice were dopa metabolites. Patients with gastric pH of 6.9-7.2 had a very rapid emptying time (an average of 22 min.) with no gastric absorption. The amount of metabolites in their gastric juice was insignificant. Gastric absorption and emptying time were reduced in patients when the gastric pH was raised to 3.5-4.5 with antacids. Serum peak concentrations were higher and more rapidly achieved in patients with high gastric pH than in those with low pH.The most rapidly achieved and highest serum peak levels were observed in patients with partial gastrectomy and in those who were given the drug by duodenal infusion. It appears that direct absorption of L-dopa by the stomach may be limited by gastric metabolism of the drug, a possibility supported by the study in vitro of human stomach tissue obtained at surgery. The inverse relationship between the gastric emptying time and serum levels suggests that the intestine is the major site of L-dopa absorption. Thus factors that prolong gastric emptying time may lower serum levels of L-dopa by delaying access of the drug to the site of absorption and by increasing metabolism before absorption.
Be Aware-Generic Brands
The effective control of Parkinson’s disease requires
that we are staBilised on usually a combination of medicines taken at set times which optimises symptom control. This usually requires a degree oftrial and error with the medications prescribed and the times of the day when
they are taken.
Once an individual patient with Parkinson’s is stabilised on a particular
medicine or a combination of medicines, it is important that they get the
same medicine dispensed on each occasion. Fear of loss of control of
symptoms is a source of great anxiety for patients with Parkinson’s. Patients
may experience symptoms of ‘freezing’ or dyskinesia, the former may occur
if blood levels of medication fall two low and the latter may occur if blood
levels are too high. Each patient therefore needs to have confidence in the
medicines dispensed, and if different generic medicines are dispensed on
different occasions they may well become anxious as to whether the medicine
will control their symptoms as well as the branded medicines they are used to.
A crucial element in the proposal for generic substitution from the Department
of Health is that the prescriber should have the means when writing the
prescription to specify that if a brand name is written that is what should be
dispensed. It is proposed that the prescriber can do this by means of ticking a
box for ‘no substitution’ somewhere on the FP 10 form.
Whilst this may seem reasonable, the question is will doctors always
remember to ‘tick the box’ for patients with Parkinson’s who are being
prescribed a combination of branded medicines like Sinemet CR + Requip?
The answer is almost certainly no. This would be particularly likely to occur
when a doctor is signing a large batch of repeat prescriptions, and may well
not take the time with each prescription to properly evaluate whether generic
substitution is right for a particular patient before signing the prescription.
Generic substitution can lead to more than one switch
in generic medicines.
Generic medicines always have a different
size, shape, colour and packaging from each
other, and to branded medicine
Therefore, a patient could receive a different
medication, with a different appearance with every prescription
. In a European study, one in three
patients who had experienced a generic
substitution had to become accustomed to a
different colour or shape medication
Bioavailability and formulation issues
Generic medicines have the same active
ingredient as the branded medicine.
However, they are not always identical to
the branded medicine
. The amount of drug
that finally reaches the site of action is
known as the ‘bioavailability’. The
bioavailability is very important, because
this will determine how effective the
medicine will be. Too little drug reaching
the target could lead to less effective
treatment, but too much could increase side
effects. The bioavailability can vary between
branded and generic medicines, and
between different generic medicines, with
the same amount of active ingredient. This
is because the formulation and excipients
(other ingredients included in the medicine)
affect the absorption and metabolism of the
drug.
Branded medicines undergo a rigorous
process of clinical trials assessing safety and
effectiveness before they are approved for
human use. However, generic medicines can
be approved on the basis of
pharmacokinetic studies carried out on a
minimal number of healthy volunteers,
where they are shown to be ‘bioequivalent’
to the branded medicine. This means that
the rate and extent of their bioavailability
lies within ‘acceptable predefined limits’
compared with the original branded
medicine. For a generic medicine to be
considered bioequivalent, the European
Medicines Agency (EMEA) requires the
measures of bioavailability (area under the
curve and Cmax) to be within 0.8 and 1.25 of
the original medicine’s values.26, 27
Thus, the relative bioavailability of the generic
medicine can lie anywhere between 80%
and 125% of the original medicine’s values.
Bearing in mind that patients can be
switched between different branded products
Patients with certain conditions requiring
carefully balanced combinations of
medications would also be
disproportionately affected by medicine
substitutions. For example, people with
Parkinson’s disease often take a
combination of medications, which must be
taken at the correct time for them to avoid
worsening of their symptoms. Patients
with Parkinson’s disease could be
understandably concerned about apparent
changes in their medication. In addition,
changes in formulation type could affect
symptom control
Explaining your medication needs
1. I have Parkinson’s disease which affects——————.details————-
2. Currrent medication for this is ————details———–.
3. My daytime medication effectively controls symptoms for periods of between 30 and 90 minutes on each occasion, effective about an hour after taking medication. I can be approximate but not precise as to the effectiveness or duration of action of each dose of medication as it does vary.
4. I have some limited benefit from the medication both when it is taking effect and when it is wearing off. The average time for which the medication is effective, is approximately 1 hour with half an hour on either side for ‘’wearing off and coming on’’.
5. When my medication wears off entirely my functionality, both physical and mental are seriously impaired
6. I cannot be sure that the effect of each dose of medication will be sufficient to enable me to perform or complete a particular task. The extent and time taken to sustain a task or to take it to completion are variables beyond my every day control .
7. The timing of medication is critical to me.
8. The timing of medication is a consideration essential to accommodating my personal self care needs in relation to hygiene, meal preparation and social events.
9. Side effects of my medications can cause me to experience involuntary episodes of drowsiness and to make me feel excessively sleepy. This drowsiness is the direct side effect of the medication taken to counter the effects of my Parkinson’s disease.This is a direct result of treatment prescribed and the absence of alternative therapies.
10. I am dependant on medication.
Levadopa its Strength and Weakness
By;Eduardo Tolosa
Oral levodopa was developed in laboratories in the US owned by the
Atomic Energy Commission: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long
Island, New York.
A neurologist from Crete – George Cotzias –
published a crucial paper in 1967 in the New England Journal of
Medicine about how he administered melanocyte-stimulating
hormone (MSH) to patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).
1967
He thought the problem was that patients needed melanin as the substantia nigra was depigmented. However, when he gave MSH the patients actually got worse and their skin darkened.
Cotzias’ focus then moved to levodopa, a precursor to melanin. In
the same paper he described how he administered D,L-dopa to
16 patients .
It was the first time this compound had been given orally in such massive amounts. Eight patients improved dramatically with the large doses of D,L-dopa, but many experienced profound nausea.
Improvements were seen and lasted for several months.
Nevertheless,in this study, dyskinesias were already being described – the first time they had been described in the literature.
Furthermore, D,L-dopa was toxic to bone marrow, and the dosing led to granulocytopoenia. Cotzias was forced to cease administration.
Despite these problems, Cotzias had achieved notable successes, including
laying the foundations of levodopa dosing:
- many doses
- slow titration
- increasing dosage as much as necessary
- daily doses distributed throughout the day.
1969
In 1969, Cotzias, still in the employ of the Atomic Energy Commission,
switched from D,L-dopa to levodopa. Again, all patients who received
the compound improved dramatically and had sustained improvements
in all symptoms for up to two years.
Even tremor improved – many
neurologists are reluctant to say that levodopa is as effective for tremor
as for bradykinesia, but Cotzias’ study shows that it is; it just takes a
little longer.
As early as this 1969 paper, Cotzias mentioned the emergence of
certain clinically significant symptoms in six patients: the ‘off’
phenomenon.
He noted that 14 patients also had involuntary
movements.
Furthermore, he described the antagonistic effect on
levodopa by pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and a high-protein diet.
Therefore,at this time Cotzias was already describing both the main benefits and the main weaknesses of levodopa as we know them today
.
In addition to levodopa, Cotzias laid the foundations for subsequent
work on oral dopamine agonists. He was the first to attribute the
effect of apomorphine to its dopamine-like structure.
2009
Levodopa and Parkinson’s Disease – 30 Years Later
There is no question that levodopa is the most effective symptomatic
treatment of PD. However, it has only recently been compared with
other treatments, particularly orally active dopamine agonist
monotherapy.
All trials to date have shown that levodopa has a more
potent antiparkinsonian effect, especially in the first years, than
dopamine agonists such as bromocriptine, ropinirole, pergolide,
cabergoline and pramipexole.3–7
To compare the benefits of initiating therapy with levodopa or the
dopamine agonist bromocriptine, the Parkinson’s Disease Research
Group of the United Kingdom (PDRGUK) conducted a long-term
(10-year) open-label, randomised study in 782 previously untreated
PD patients.3 The study found that although bromocriptine-treated
patients had a lower incidence of dyskinesia and dystonia than the
levodopa-treated patients, they also had significantly worse disability
scores throughout the first five years of therapy.
The History of Madopar
F O C U S O N P A R K I N S O N ’ S D I S E A S E
VOLUME 1 6 – SUP P L EMENT A – 2 0 0 4 A7
LEVODOPA
GUGGENHEIM
The levodopa story started 90 years ago, when Roche was a
young pharmaceutical company with a total of 145 employees.
The profits made with the main product – Sirolin®, cough
syrup, allowed a new plant to be built and more to be invested
in research. At this time, the company’s main objective of
research was to extract highly potent substances from plants
and other natural products. A young chemist was recruited,
Dr M. Guggenheim, whose main scientific interests were the
‘proteinogenic amines’. He therefore noticed with great interest
2 articles from Torquati2,3 describing the presence of a
nitrogen-containing substance in the seeds and green pods of
Windsor beans. Mr F. Hoffmann, the founder of the firm
Hoffmann-La Roche, was apparently fond of Windsor beans
and had a field planted with them which Guggenheim’s laboratory
overlooked. Guggenheim asked his boss if he could get
‘some beans’ and with his assistant picked 10 kg the next
morning.4 Rumour has it that Madame Hoffmann was not
amused. Guggenheim repeated and varied the extraction procedure
of Torquati to produce crystals and identified the isolated
substance as l-dioxyphenylalanine, levodopa.5 A patent
application was guaranteed a year later.
Levodopa was tested in animals (on the general behaviour
of conscious rabbits) and isolated organs (isolated rabbit
uterus and intestine). Guggenheim had hypothesized that
levodopa would be a precursor of adrenalin, but against all
expectations, the intravenous application of 20 mg levodopa
had no measurable effect on blood pressure or lung function in
the rabbits. Guggenheim decided therefore to test levodopa
himself. He took 2.5 g of levodopa per os: 10 minutes after
intake he felt terribly sick and vomited twice. He mentions in
the publication “that therefore not all the substance was
absorbed.”5 No other effects were observed.
Three years later, in 1916, Guggenheim caused a lab
explosion and lost eyesight completely, but from 1918 onward
he continued his work as a research director at Roche. With
the help of his secretary, Mrs I. Schramm (for many years
THE HISTORY OF MADOPAR
Roman Amrein, MD
L a n d h a u s w e g 3 1 , 4 1 2 6 B e t t i n g e n , S w i t z e r l a n d
SUMMARY
Madopar® – a combination of levodopa with the decarboxylase
inhibitor (DCI) benserazide – was first introduced 30 years ago
during July 1973, a few months earlier than the second
levodopa/decarboxylase-inhibitor combination – Sinemet®.
These 2 preparations have revolutionized the treatment of
Parkinson’s disease (PD) and are still considered to be the gold
standard for its treatment.1 The constituents of Madopar®
resulted from long-lasting systematic basic research, but the
idea to combine the 2 components was based on a working
hypothesis with inaccurate prerequisites. Intense systematic
basic and clinical research, excellent clinical observation,
openness for the unforeseen, serendipity, and fortune are all
present in the pedigree of Madopar®.
KEYWORDS: MADOPAR – LEVODOPA
Figure 1. Sirolin 1920.
F O C U S O N P A R K I N S O N ’ S D I S E A S E
A8 VOLUME 16 – SUPPLEMENT A – 2004
she was reading him all
scientific publications)
he published the material
he had collected in
the field of biogenic
amines in a book which
was published in 1920.6
In the meantime, his
group had improved the
manufacturing process
for levodopa, and the
substance was sold for
scientific investigations.
However, the importance of the discovery was not evident at
that time: Guggenheim mentions levodopa in the 376 pages of
his book only with 2 sentences. During the following years at
Roche, levodopa was tested in additional animal models, as
well as for antibacterial properties, but without success.
Guggenheim continued his interest in biogenic amines as
documented by the subsequent editions of his book,7,8 but
levodopa was still an orphan drug without an indication when
he retired in 1948.
BIRKMAYER AND HORNYKIEWICZ
Walther Birkmayer qualified in medicine in 1935 and afterwards
specialized in neurology and psychiatry up to 1939.
During the Second World War, he was first an army physician
in Russia and then was transferred to Vienna, Austria, as chief
physician of an army hospital for patients with head injuries.
He treated over 3,000 patients and described his observations
in a book. After the war, he was eager to continue his scientific
work, but since this was difficult at the time, he accepted a
post in charge of the neurological ward of the Municipal
Home for the Aged in Lainz (Vienna) to take care of resident
patients with PD, multiple sclerosis (MS), or following
strokes.9 His medical activity in Lainz was mainly charitable,
and medical research was limited to reading, clinical observation,
and dissection.
Birkmayer stored
dozens of brains of
deceased PD, MS, and
post-stroke patients. In
1957, he contacted
Hornykiewicz at the
Institute for Experimental
Pathology in
Vienna and suggested
he analysed neurotransmitters
in the brains of
deceased parkinsonian
patients. Hornykiewicz
showed no interest and
refused for lack of time,9 but his interest became intense in
January 1959 after the publications of Bertler and Rosengren,
who reported the localization of dopamine in the basal ganglia
of the dog;10 the publication of Carlsson et al. on the presence
of 3-hydroxytyramine in the brain;11 and the publication of
Sano et al.,12 showing that in the human brain most of the
dopamine is concentrated in the basal ganglia. Prof. Brücke,
the head of Hornykiewicz’s Institute, contacted Birkmayer to
get permission to analyse the brains of deceased parkinsonian
patients that Birkmayer had stored. An agreement was made
that all future results from this would be published together.
The analytical work of Hornykiewicz was very successful, and
with his ‘collaborator in training’, Herbert Ehringer, he published
the results 1 year later.13 Birkmayer was very angry
when he realized that he was not a co-author of this publication
and was determined to get his revenge. In January 1961,
Hornykiewicz asked Birkmayer to try out levodopa in his resident
PD patients. He provided him with 2 g of levodopa
donated for in vitro studies by A. Pletscher, medical director
at Hoffmann-La Roche, and suggested that this should be
administered intravenously. Birkmayer accepted but delayed
beginning the study by at least 6 months. Ten years later he
wrote in a letter to Hornykiewicz: “Da du mich damals so
abfahren liessest, habe ich mich mit der sechsmonatigen
Blockade deiner Dopatherapie gerächt” (Because at that time
you had turned me down so bluntly, I took revenge on you by
blocking for 6 months your levodopa therapy).14
During the summer of 1961, 20 patients suffering from
post-encephalitic parkinsonism or PD received single intravenous
doses of levodopa (50–150 mg). An impressive reduction
of their akinesia was seen a few minutes after injection,
and this effect lasted for several hours. Results were documented
in a film.
Birkmayer visited Roche in Basle on 26 October 1961
and reported the results that he had seen after the injection of
levodopa, and showed his film. Birkmayer’s results were so
spectacular that they were difficult to believe: he described
Figure 2. M. Guggenheim.
Figure 3. W. Birkmayer.
Figure 4. H. Ehringer and O. Hornykiewicz.
F O C U S O N P A R K I N S O N ’ S D I S E A S E
VOLUME 1 6 – SUP P L EMENT A – 2 0 0 4 A9
and demonstrated patients with intense akinesia who had
been bedridden for several months or even years. After a
single intravenous injection of levodopa, the akinesia disappeared
to a large extent, and the patients could get up and
walk around the room.15 Was this the action of levodopa after
transformation to dopamine, was this a placebo effect induced
by a charismatic and enthusiastic doctor, or was this just
trickery?
Birkmayer had the impression that nobody believed him,
and he was right: there was a complete consensus within the
scientific community of Roche that the data shown by
Birkmayer were too good to be true.15 At least Birkmayer was
subsequently given the quantity of levodopa needed for additional
work, and some scientific collaboration with Roche was
initiated. Together with Hornykiewicz, he gave the same
lecture as at Roche at the monthly scientific session of
Vienna’s Medical Society on 10 November 196116 and published
the study the same day.17
In addition to the data presented in Basle, it was shown
that co-medication with a monoamine oxidase (MAO)
inhibitor intensifies and prolongs the effect of levodopa.
Overall, the results were well accepted, especially since
F. Gerstenbrand from the Neurological University Clinic in
Vienna confirmed them based on his own very recent experience.
However, Prof. H. Hoff, a famous neurologist, warned
against therapeutic over-optimism since levodopa treatment
would, in his mind, alleviate some of the parkinsonian symptoms
for a time, but the patients would still suffer from PD.
BARBEAU
In the same year, Barbeau in Canada published that patients
with PD excrete dopamine in the urine in much lower quantities
compared with normal subjects.18 He repeated and expanded
the biochemical study in a total of thirty PD patients. To
clarify the biochemical findings, he gave them single oral doses
of levodopa (100 or 200 mg) alone or combined with an
MAO inhibitor or with methyldopa and compared the results
with those from single
applications of placebo,
methyldopa, and other
reference substances.
Methyldopa given alone
or in combination with
levodopa increased the
tremor, whereas levodopa
reduced the rigidity
to half. The levodopa
effect was increased and
prolonged by the application
of the MAO
inhibitor parnate, but
blood pressure increased
dramatically under this combination from 125/80 to 230/125.
The results were reported in part at the 7th International
Congress of Neurology in Rome, Italy, 10–15 September
1961,19 and in full a few days later at the Bel-Air symposium.20
All these publications stimulated an enormous interest in
the scientific community, and institutions all over the world
published their experience with levodopa. Overall, the results
were not really conclusive, with outcomes varying from
enthusiastic positive to completely negative. There were
several reasons for this. In the 1960s, it was difficult to obtain
levodopa since the basic material for synthesis was L-tyrosine
produced by hydrolytic decomposition of natural silk, fish
meal, casein, or maize gluten. It was also possible to synthesize
a racemic mixture of dopa directly from vanillin and hippuric
acid and then, using a complex procedure, to subsequently
isolate levodopa.21
In addition to Roche, very few companies produced levodopa,
and the investigators usually had only small quantities
available, sufficient only for single-dose experiments or for a
very small series of experiments. Hence, the doses used were
often much too small to show a reliable clinical effect, and the
number of patients investigated was usually very limited. In
addition, most of the papers simply confirmed a pharmacological
effect without offering a proper therapeutic approach. This
gap was filled in 1967 by the studies of George Cotzias in New
York, who increased the levodopa dosage in a stepwise way to
very high levels (up to 16 g per day). The results were dramatic
in 20 out of 28 patients. This was the beginning of levodopa
offering substantial symptomatic relief, but at the price of
frequent side-effects, mainly nausea and vomiting. The first
results presented at a congress were published in 1969.22,23
MADOPAR
PLETSCHER
In 1961, Dr Hegedüs in the basic-research department of
Hoffmann-La Roche prepared Ro 4-4602, a molecule chemically
related to α-methyldopa
(Aldomet®), for
clinical investigation.24
Known as benserazide,
this molecule was nearly
100 times more active as
a DCI than α-methyldopa
in vitro and in
vivo. It was therefore
hoped that benserazide
would behave as a strong
antihypertensive agent,
by inhibiting the formation
of endogenous cateFigure
5. A. Barbeau. cholamines, especially Figure 6. A. Pletscher.
F O C U S O N P A R K I N S O N ’ S D I S E A S E
A10 VOLUME 16 – SUPPLEMENT A – 2004
noradrenaline. In addition, the molecule was put forward for
investigation in anxious–depressed patients. Benserazide was
well tolerated, but no antihypertensive effect was found (even
at doses as high as 10 g/day) in the exploratory clinical programme,
in which also Professor Birkmayer administered it to a
few elderly patients.15 Pletscher suggested to Birkmayer that he
should give the inhibitor to PD patients simultaneously with
levodopa.
Pletscher’s hypothesis was that preventing the decarboxylation
of levodopa would inhibit the formation of dopamine and
thereby inhibit the therapeutic action of levodopa. This would
provide evidence for the proposed mechanism of action of
levodopa or suggest that Birkmayer’s previous levodopa results
were strongly influenced by placebo effects.4,15 When
Birkmayer visited Basle a few months later, the basic
researchers were surprised when he related an enhancement,
not an inhibition, of the levodopa effect. Prof. Pletscher did
not declare that Birkmayer was mad – as others did – ; instead,
he was prepared to reconsider his working hypothesis. A short
period of enormous scientific effort followed, resulting in the
insight that benserazide hardly penetrates the blood–brain barrier,
acting mainly in the periphery – in the intestine, the liver,
the heart, the capillaries of the brain, but not in its parenchyma.
25
After the intake of the combination, much more levodopa
is therefore available in the blood for transition into the brain,
since the peripheral formation of dopamine is reduced. The
most frequent side-effects seen after the intake of high levodopa
doses, nausea and vomiting, are attributable to high
dopamine concentrations in the periphery. The clinical observation
that the use of benserazide increases the efficacy of
levodopa, and decreases the severity and the incidence of the
side-effects, had found its rational explanation.
Figure 7 shows the inhibition of the decarboxylase enzyme
in heart and brain tissue of rats after intraperitoneal injection
of increasing doses of benserazide. The effect in the brain is
more than 10 times less pronounced than in the heart.
Birkmayer’s first reports26,27 on the results of his pilot study
with the benserazide/levodopa combination generated enormous
interest, but the transition from fascinating human pharmacology
to clinical trials, resulting in a new therapy, was long
and difficult.
For a short period, another DCI, Ro 8-1756, was clinically
tested to ensure that Ro 4-4602, found by serendipity for the
treatment of PD, was not only the first, but also the best DCI
that Roche had at its disposal. In a short time, the neurosurgeon
Siegfried et al. accumulated the results from treating
500 patients with one or the other inhibitor.28
Dose finding and selection of the optimal proportion of
levodopa/DCI were difficult, since at the time no consensus
had been reached on the optimal dosing regimen for levodopa
given alone. It was clear from the beginning that the new
treatment should be based on a fixed combination of the
2 components. The idea was to minimize the daily dose of
levodopa by significantly blocking the decarboxylase in the
periphery. Over time, clinicians were encouraged to use the
combination in a variety of ratios, and the following fixed
combinations were used: DCI:levodopa of 1:4; 2:3; 1:4; 1:1;
and 3:1. The publication by Cotzias et al. on the long-term
results of high-dose levodopa treatment23 was of the utmost
significance for the ongoing studies with the combinations,
since, prior to that, the plasma concentrations of levodopa
needed for the effective treatment of parkinsonism were not
known.
Roche was immediately confronted with a new problem:
it was imperative to find a way to make the synthesis of levodopa
more efficient and a simpler process, otherwise it would
not be possible to produce the large quantities needed at an
acceptable price. However, this was achieved by the efforts of
2 groups of chemists, who simplified the extraction of levodopa
from the racemic mixture.29,30
In 1979, it was felt that the clinical studies with the levodopa/
DCI combinations had developed sufficiently to take a
decision on the final steps for large-scale use of the combination
in patients with PD. The Fourth Symposium Bel-Air,
under the presidency of Prof. J. de Ajuriaguerra and Prof.
G. Gauthier, offered the opportunity to discuss the results
with levodopa and its combinations, in terms of basic research
and therapeutic potential.
Several contributions reported results with levodopa
alone, demonstrating the high long-term success rate of this
treatment, but also the high incidence of side-effects.
Birkmayer et al.,31 Siegfried,32 and Tissot and Gauthier33
reported the results of open studies with the levodopa/DCI
combination: an increased efficacy of various degrees, combined
with better tolerability. Barbeau performed the first
randomized comparative study in which doses were gradually
increased over time. A total of 800 mg levodopa/day given
together with daily doses of 150–200 mg benserazide, resulted
100
1 10
Heart Brain
100
80
60
40
20
0
Inhibition (%)
Dose of Ro 4–4602 (mg/kg)
Figure 7. Benserazide inhibition of levodopa decarboxylase
in heart and brain. (Bartholini G, et al.25).
F O C U S O N P A R K I N S O N ’ S D I S E A S E
VOLUME 1 6 – SUP P L EMENT A – 2 0 0 4 A11
in good or excellent improvement in 75% of patients, compared
with 65% in patients given daily doses of 4.3 g levodopa
alone. Treatment with the combination was accompanied by a
dramatic decrease in side-effects, namely nausea, bradykinesia,
hypotonia, and psychic disturbances.
The final presentations at the symposium were dedicated
to the toxicological findings in animal and man. The inhibitor
produced the usual insignificant changes in mice, rabbits, and
dogs, but in rats, severe skeletal deformities as a consequence
of stimulation of the periosteal mesenchyma were observed.
The pathogenesis of these skeletal changes was completely
unknown.34 However, extensive clinical monitoring of
patients who had received benserazide had not revealed any
toxic reactions.35 Nevertheless, the toxicological findings in
rats were a big problem, and pessimists predicted the end of
the programme.
Fortunately, the toxicologist in charge of the levodopa/
DCI combination (subsequently named Madopar®),
Dr Schärer, could give the all-clear 18 months later: he
showed that in rats, the growth zones of most bones are not
closed during adult life, in contrast to man, where all the epiphyseal
cartilage plates are ossified soon after puberty. Drugs
like benserazide, that cause alterations in these structures, can
therefore only react in humans until the end of puberty, compared
with during the entire life span in rats. “When alterations
of this kind are produced in older rats, no conclusions
can be drawn for adult humans, as old rats can only be compared
with growing humans as far as skeletal growth is concerned,”
Schärer reported.36 The contraindication ‘Madopar®
must not be given to patients less than 25 years old (skeletal
development must be complete)’ is based on these findings.
Fortunately, not one single case of skeletal deformities has
occurred in humans, although more than 1 million patients
have been treated with Madopar® for several years.
The multicentre studies with the fixed-combination ratios of
DCI:levodopa of 1:4 and 3:2 were performed with extreme
caution and with very frequent analysis, especially for any
changes in laboratory parameters. In the early 1970s, most
European case reports did not exceed 10–25 pages, but for the
Madopar® studies, it was not unusual for a patient record to
transcend 400 pages, with laboratory examinations being
carried out nearly every week. During the course of the studies,
it became clear that the 3:2 combination, containing the high
amount of inhibitor, did not offer any advantage. Hence, studies
with this ratio were no longer pursued.
In summer 1972, Roche started to compile the new drug
application (NDA) under the leadership of R. Dubuis and
J. Fischlewitz. The assistants B. Schonlau, H. Bastova and
M. Tock encoded the patient data together with a small group
of temporary engaged students, whereas M. Christeller and his
crew was responsible for entering the data on a total of more
than 200,000 80-column punch cards and for the subsequent
statistical evaluation of the data. Enthusiasm and working
overtime resulted in a first submission in January 1973.
The NDA contained study reports on 463 Madopar® cases,
1,059 cases with levodopa alone, and 154 cases with the
3:3 combination ratio, as well as 30 publications (including
the personal experience of the clinicians) on a total of more
than 1,000 other cases. On average, there was a reduction of
the parkinsonian symptoms of 30% within the first 2 weeks of
treatment. After 3 months of treatment, the sum of symptoms
on the Webster scale was reduced by a half. All symptoms did
improve, but rigidity, gait, self-care, and facial expression
showed greater improvement than tremor. Madopar® was first
introduced to the market in Switzerland during July 1973 and
shortly afterwards in more than 100 countries all over the
world.
The history of Madopar® is associated with 2 Nobel prizes.
The story started when Carlsson had identified dopamine as a
transmitter and had shown that animals suffering from reserpine-
induced pseudoparkinsonism can be successfully treated
with levodopa. For these discoveries he was awarded the
Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2000.
At the time when Madopar® was being developed, Roche’s
synthesis of levodopa started with the production of a racemic
mix of dopa from vanillin and hippuric acid. Vanillin was
purchased in bulk from Monsanto. In the early 1960s,
W.S. Knowles from Monsanto was involved in an exploratory
programme with the aim of producing catalysts that provided
a high enantiomeric excess. By testing enantiomers of phosphines
with a varied structure, Knowles and his colleagues
quickly succeeded in producing catalysts (transition metals)
that allowed nearly 100% pure levodopa to be obtained at the
end of the hydrogenation reaction. This so-called asymmetric
hydrogenation or mirror-image catalysis resulted in a dramatic
improvement in the industrial production of levodopa, and
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2 4 6
Week
Webster score, baseline (%)
8 10 12
Bradykinesia W1
Rigidity W2
Posture W3
Upper-extremity W4
Gait W5
Tremor W6
Facies W7
Seborrhoea W8
Speech W9
Self-care W10
Total score
Figure 8. Madopar® Webster score over time; NDA 1972
(n = 463).
F O C U S O N P A R K I N S O N ’ S D I S E A S E
A12 VOLUME 16 – SUPPLEMENT A – 2004
soluble hydrogenation catalysts started a new era in catalytic
processes. Asymmetric hydrogenation is now used in a number
of industrial syntheses of pharmaceutical products, such as
antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and heart medicines. In
recognition of this work, the Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences awarded William S. Knowles the Nobel Prize for
Chemistry in 2001.37
Acknowledgement
I thank Prof. J. Birkmayer, son of Prof. W. Birkmayer, and the
librarians at Roche for their help to retrieve historical documents on
Madopar®, as well as a copy of Prof. W. Birkmayer’s film on one
of the first patients treated with L-dopa.
REFERENCES
1. Olanow CW. The role of dopamine agonists in the treatment of early Parkinson’s
disease. Neurology 2002;58 Suppl 1:S33-41.
2. Torquati T. Über die Gegenwart einer stickstoffhaltigen Substanz in den Keimlingen
von Vicia faba. Arch Pharmacol Sper 1913;15:213-23.
3. Torquati T. Über die Gegenwart einer stickstoffhaltigen Substanz in den grünen
Hülsen von Vicia faba. Arch Pharmacol Sper 1913;15:308-12.
4. Klingler M. Research into new treatments: past and future in Gordon Holmes
Centenary Symposium; 1976 Mar 1-4; London. Roche internal document; 1976. p. 10.
5. Guggenheim M. Dioxyphenylalanin, eine neue Aminosäure aus Vicia faba.
Hoppe-Seylers Hoppe Seylers Z Physiol Chem 1913;88:276-84.
6. Guggenheim M. Die biogenen Amine und ihre Bedeutung für die Physiologie und
Pathologie des pflanzlichen und tierischen Stoffwechsels. Monographien aus dem
Gesamtgebiet der Physiologie der Pflanzen und der Tiere. In: Czapek NF, Parnas J,
editors. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer; 1920. p. 1-376.
7. Guggenheim M. Die biogenen Amine und ihre Bedeutung für die Physiologie und
Pathologie des pflanzlichen und tierischen Stoffwechsels. 3rd edition. Basel: Karger;
1940. p. XVI, 564.
8. Guggenheim M. Die biogenen Amine und ihre Bedeutung für die Physdiologie und
Pathologie des pflanzlichen und tierischen Stoffwechsels. 4th edition. Basel: Karger;
1951. p. 619.
9. Birkmayer W. Madopar – Ratio und Fortuna, wie ich es erlebte, in L-dopa
Substitution der Parkinson-Krankheit. Umek PRaH, editor. New York: Springer-
Verlag; 1985. p. 145-50.
10. Bertler, A, Rosengren E. Occurrence and distribution of dopamine in brain and other
tissues. Experientia 1959;15:10-5.
11. Carlsson A, Lindqvist M, Magnusson T, et al. On the presence of 3-hydroxytyramine
in brain. Science 1958;127:471.
12. Sano I, Gamo T, Kakimoty Y, et al. Distribution of catechol compounds in human
brain. Biochem and biophys acta 1959;32:586-7.
13. Ehringer H, Hornykiewicz O. Distribution of Noradrenalin and Dopamin
(3-Hydroxytryramin) in the human brain and their behaviour in diseases of the
extrapyramidal system. Klin Wochenschr 1960;38:1236-9.
14. Hornykiewicz O. Levodopa in the 1960s: starting point Vienna, in 20 years of
Madopar – New avenues. A.J. Lees AJ, editor. Basel: Editiones Roche; 1994. p. 11-7.
15. Pletscher A. Die Geburt von Madopar: Ratio und Fortuna, in L-dopa Substitution der
Parkinson-Krankheit. Umek PRaH, editor. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1985. p. 3-12.
16. Hornykiewicz O, Birkmayer W. Biochemisch – pharmakologische Grundlagen für die
Anwendung von L-Dioxyphenylalanin beim Parkinsonsyndrom. Wien Med
Wochenschr 1961;73:839-40.
17. Birkmayer, W, Hornykiewicz O. Der L-3,4-Dioxyphenylalanin (= Dopa)-Effekt bei der
Parkinson-Akinese. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1961;73:787-8.
18. Barbeau A, Murphy G, Sourkes T. Excretion of dopamine in diseases of basal ganglia.
Science 1961;133:1706-7.
19. Barbeau A. Biochemistry of Parkinson’s disease. In: Proceedings of the 7th
International congress of Neurology. Rome: Societa Grafica Romana; 1961. p. 925.
20. Barbeau A, Sourkes TL, Murphy GF. Les catecholamines dans la maladie de
Parkinson. In: De Ajuriaguerra J, editor. Monoamines et système nerveux central.
Paris: Masson; 1962. p. 247-62.
21. Reimann R. Der Forschungsbericht über die Entwicklung der Behandlung des Morbus
Parkinson (1817-1970). In: Kapp W, Leickert KH, editors. Basle: Hoffmann-La Roche
AG; 1971. p. 23-35.
22. Cotzias G, Papavasiliou P. Therapeutic studies of Parkinsonian patients: long-term
effects of D-L and L-dopa. In: Barbeau A, Brunette J-R, editors. Amsterdam: Excerpta
Medica; 1967. p. 357-65.
23. Cotzias G, Papavasiliou P, Gellene R. Modofication of parkinsonism: Chronic
treatment with L-dopa. N Engl J Med 1969;280:337-45.
24. Burkard WP, Gey FK, Pletscher A. A new inhibitor of decarboxylase of aromatic
amino-acids. Experientia 1962;18:411.
25. Bartholini G, Burkard WP, Pletscher A. Increase of cerebral catcholamines caused by
3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine after inhibition of peripheral decarboxylase. Nature
1967;215:852-3.
26. Birkmayer W, Mentasti M. Weitere experimentelle Untersuchungen über den
Catcholaminstoffwechsel bei extrapyramidalen Erkrankungen. Arch Psychiat
Nervenkr 1967;210:29-35.
27. Birkmayer W. Experimentelle Ergebnisse über die Kombinationsbehandlung des
Parkinsonsyndroms mit L-dopa und einem Decarboxylasehemmer (Ro 4-4602).
Wien Med Wochenschr 1969;81:677-9.
28. Siegfried J, Klaiber R, Perret E, et al. Treatment of Parkinson’s disease with L-dopa
combined with a decarboxylase inhibitor. Pharmacol Clin 1969;94:2678-81.
29. Jaffe GM, Rehl WR. Process for the preparation of L-dopa in the United States patent
3714242. Hoffmann-La-Roche Inc., USA. 7 June 1970.
30. Kaiser A. Process for the preparation of L-dopa in the United States patent 3969397.
Hoffmann-La-Roche Inc., USA. 27 December 1968.
31. Birkmayer W, Linauer W, Mentasti M. Traitement à la L-DOPA combinée avec un
inhibiteur de la décarboxylas (Ro-4–4602). In: Gauthier JDAAG, editor. Monoamines
noyaux gris centraux et syndrome de Parkinson. Geneva: Georg & Cie; Paris: Masson
& Cie; 1971.
32. Siegfried J. La L-dopa associée an un inhibiteur de la décarboxylase dans le traitment
actuel de la maladie de Parkinson. In: Gauthier G, editor. Monoamines noyaux gris
centraux et syndrome de Parkinson. Geneva: Georg & Cie; Paris: Masson & Cie;
1971.
33. Tissot R, Gauthier J. Thérapeutique du syndrome parkinsonien par la L-dopa associée
a des inhibiteurs de la décarboxylase.In: Gauthier G, editor. Monoamines noyaux gris
centraux et syndrome de Parkinson. Genève: Georg & Cie; Paris: Masson & Cie;
1971.
34. Theiss E, Schärer K. Toxicity of L-dopa and a decarboxylase inhibitor in animal
experiments. In: Gauthier G, editor. Monoamines noyaux gris centraux et syndrome
de Parkinson. 1971. Genève: Georg & Cie; Paris: Masson & Cie; 1971.
35. Ziegler WH, Falcato J, Kapp W. Toxicity of L-dopa and a decarboxylase inhibitor in
humans. In: Gauthier G, editor. Monoamines noyaux gris centraux et syndrome de
Parkinson. Genève: Georg & Cie; Paris: Masson & Cie; 1971.
36. Schärer K. Experimental data on rat epiphyseal cartilages and their significance for
growing and adult humans. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 1974;58:294-7.
37. Knowles WS. Asymmetric hydrogenations, Nobel lecture.
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/2001/knowles-lecture.pdf, 2001.
Taking Medication
Management of illness through oral medication is the usual route of drug delivery. The limiting efficiency is the individual.
Significant to all is gastric emptying time, delayed or rapid, the result is fluctuations in response with each dose of medication taken.
GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT
The stomach is divided into 3 regions:
- fundus, reservoir for undigested material
- body
- antrum is for mixing motions and is a pump for gastric emptying.
EXIT OF MEDICATION
- To get out of the stomach a pill has to pass through the pyloric valve into the small intestine and its size needs to be 1 to 2 mm.
STOMACH PH
- Empty stomach 1.5 to 2.0
- Fed stomach is 2.0 to 6.0.
A large volume of water with medication raises the PH of stomach contents to 6.0 to 9.0.
Some drugs have a better chance of dissolving in fed state than in a fasting state.
STOMACH EMPTYING
The rate of your stomach emptying depends on the density volume and calories consumed.
Nutritive density of meals helps determine gastric emptying time.
It doesn’t matter for this part of the process whether the meal has high protein, fat, or carbohydrate it. It is the calorific load that is significant.
FACTS
- Increase in acidity and caloric value slows down gastric emptying time.
- Biological factors such as age, body mass index (BMI), posture and disease status influence gastric emptying.
- In elderly persons, gastric emptying is slowed down.
- Generally females have slower gastric emptying rates than males.
- Stress increases gastric emptying rates
- Depression slows it down.
- Fluids taken at body temperature leave the stomach faster than colder or warmer fluids.
- Studies have revealed that gastric emptying of some pills in the fed state can also be influenced by size. Small-size tablets leave the stomach earlier in the digestive process than larger ones.
CONCLUSION
Drug absorption in the gastrointestinal tract is a highly
variable procedure.
Delivery systems are emerging as an effective means
of enhancing the bioavailability by improving the controlled release of many drugs.
The increasing sophistication of new delivery technology will
ensure the development of an increased number of drugs that have at present absorption window, low bioavailability.
-
Recent
- Arvid Carlsson,Nobel Lecture A Half -Century of Research
- Neuro Ted Top 10 Videos – The Brain and Learning – Brain Training – Dubai – UAE
- Travelling with PD
- Braaks Gut Theory
- The stomach is the gateway
- Poem
- The night I saved the hamster
- Be Aware-Generic Brands
- Parkinson’s disease and Acid reflux
- Volunteer join other people in research
- The Scientific Power of Naps – YouTube
- A balanced carbohydrate: protein diet in the management of Parkinson’s disease
-
Links
-
Archives
- February 2015 (2)
- October 2014 (2)
- August 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (10)
- June 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (1)
- November 2013 (1)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (3)
- November 2011 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS