I'm gonna forward, one at a time, some articles I picked up off the WWW. This one's about Deprenyl.... Deprenyl - A 1994 Update The American Parkinson Disease Association Summer 1994 Newsletter Copyright 1994, Reproduced with Permission EDITOR'S NOTE: In 1989 APDA published "Deprenyl Update" an educational supplement authored by A. Lieberman, M.D., Chairman of the APDA Medical Advisory Board. At that time Deprenyl had just been approved by the FDA for use in this country. A short time ago an article on Selegiline (Eldepryl-Deprenyl) authored by E. Brunt, M.D., appeared in Parkinson Magazine highlighting the presentations made at a June 1993 neurologists meeting in Budapest, the city where Prof. Knoll developed this drug 30 years earlier. APDA is grateful to both Dr. Brunt and to Parkinson Magazine for sharing this article with our readers. Originally developed as a "psychic energizer" selegiline, also known as I-deprenyl or Eldepryl, appeared to be an irreversible inhibitor of the MAO-B enzyme. The MAO-B enzyme constitutes the main degrading pathway for dopamine, the transmitter which is deficient in the brain in Parkinson's disease (PD). An important advantage of selegiline compared with other MAO inhibitors was its lack of the "cheese effect". This effect is caused by the uptake of a food constituent, tyramine, which is present in high concentrations in cheese and Chianti wine, and causes the sudden, marked elevation of blood pressure in patients treated with other, previously used MAO inhibitors. In the seventies, Prof. Birkmayer, Prof. Csanda and Dr. Lees were among the first to apply, in the medical treatment of PD patients, the concept of slowing down the dopamine degradation by selegiline. The addition of selegiline to levodopa therapy appeared to be successful, as patients with motor fluctuations showed improvement and levodopa dosage could be reduced. In 1985 Birkmayer reported a nine year retrospective study from which appeared that addition of selegiline to levodopa therapy in PD patients also lengthened their lifetime. Thus, selegiline not only improved the response to levodopa, but also appeared to have a protective action against deterioration in PD. Support for a possible protective role of selegiline came from studies on two animal models of PD. In the "MPTP model" and the "6- hydroxy-dopa model", simultaneous administration of selegiline appeared to prevent the development of parkinsonism. The MPTP animal model of PD originates from the discovery that this substance, methylphenytetrahydropyridine was responsible for the development of a PD-like disease in users of a synthetic heroine-like drug in California in the early eighties. MPTP was found to be oxidized in the brain by the MAO-B enzyme into MPP+, which could destroy dopamine producing cells after being taken up into these cells, causing a PD-like syndrome. In this model, blocking of MAO-B enzyme prevents death of dopaminergic cells by MPTP. In the 6-hydroxy-dopa model of PD, this substance is injected into the brain of rodents in the tract formed by the dopamine nerve cell fibers running from the brainstem to their target in the basal ganglia. After being taken up into the nerve endings, 6-hydroxy-dopa also causes death of these cells, again producing a PD-like syndrome. Also in this model, selegiline prevents the damage, by blocking the uptake of the substance into the nerve cells. Thus in the second half of the previous decade, both human and animal studies suggested a possible neuroprotective action of selegiline in PD. To evaluate the results of previous open studies and to investigate the supposed neuroprotective effect of selegiline, several controlled studies have been performed by the groups of Dr. Langston, the Parkinson Study Group in the United States, and by the groups of Dr. Myllyla in Finland and Dr. Allain in France. The largest and most important of these studies was a multicenter study called "DATATOP" (deprenyl and tocopherol antioxidant therapy of Parkinson). Over 800 newly diagnosed PD patients from 40 centers in the US and Canada were included in this study and randomized to treatment with selegiline, vitamin E (tocopherol) or placebo. This study showed a strongly significant delay of the need to add levodopa therapy in the selegiline treated group. However, the interpretation as to whether this effect was due to a symptomatic or protective effect remained controversial. In other words it could not be ascertained whether the delay was due to improvement of PD symptoms, or to slowing down of the progression of the disease. Critics argued that the one-month "wash-out" period following the withdrawal of selegiline, after which the groups of patients had been compared, was too short. Indeed, early this year, it was reported that the difference in favor of the selegiline treated group was no longer obvious after a prolonged wash-out period of 3 months. As the time needed for the restoration of MAO-B in humans is now estimated to be about 40 days, the current interpretation of the DATATOP study is that selegiline does have a symptomatic effect, and possibly a protective effect. A comparable conclusion on the action of selegiline was drawn by Dr. Myllyla in Finland from the interim analysis of a recently concluded study on the effect of selegiline in newly treated PD patients. Also in this study, the group treated with selegiline required introduction of levodopa at a later date. In addition, in the following years patients in the selegiline treated group needed less levodopa than those in the placebo treated group. In a recent report on the French selegiline multicenter trial, Dr. Allain also reported both an improvement of symptoms and a delay in progression in the selegiline treated group. As mentioned before, selegiline not only is being used in many countries in the treatment of PD, but also has had a major impact upon the research on PD and other neurodegenerative diseases. The exciting story of selegiline includes study on the possible role of MAO-B enzyme in the pathogenesis of PD and evidence for protective or even rescue effect of the drug upon endangered and damaged nerve cells. Investigations on the MAO enzymes have made clear that the two different types, A and B. have their own distribution both outside and inside the human brain, - and act upon different substances. The wide differences found between individuals on the amounts of MAO-A and MAO-B present in skin and blood may be important in the study of diseases such as PD. Although preferably metabolized by MAO-B, dopamine is also degraded by MAO-A and auto-oxidation. In the brain about 60% of MAO is of B type and the amount of MAO-B increases after age 60. After its production and excretion from the nerve cell to act upon the receptors of other nerve cells, dopamine is re-uptaken and subsequently degraded. This degradation takes place mainly outside the nerve cells, possibly in the nearby support glial cells, which are known to contain the highest concentration of MAO-B enzyme. It appears that in the normal process of dopamine degradation by MAO enzymes, toxic compounds such as hydrogen peroxide are formed, which may react to form "free radicals". These "free radicals" are aggressive oxidative substances which can impair the energy production or damage the membrane of nerve cells, causing their death. At the Budapest meeting, Profs. Olanow, Jenner and Youdim presented data suggesting that in dopamine cells of PD patients the production of the oxidizing substances is increased, while at the same time the defense mechanisms against this "oxidative stress' is reduced. As selegiline reduces the turnover of dopamine by impeding its degradation and increases one of the defending enzymes, reduction of "oxidative stress" may be one way in which it may protect nerve cells. Evidence to support a protective role of selegiline was also provided by Prof. Knoll. He has found a reduction of age related changes in the dopamine nerve cells of the substantia nigra and increased longevity in rats treated with selegiline. Maybe the most exciting findings on the action of selegiline were discussed at this meeting by Prof. Tatton. Several experiments suggest an action of selegiline which differs from MAO-inhibition or protection from oxidative free radicals. The first example is the MPTP-mouse model in which low dose selegiline given following MPTP administration at a time when lethal damage to neurons has been completed, triples the number of surviving nerve cells. At this dosage selegiline causes less than 50% inhibition of the MAO-B enzyme, so this cannot explain the rescue. Another example is an experiment in which one facial nerve is cut in rats of two weeks of age. At this age the cells of the facial nerve are dependent on nurturing substances ('trophic" or "growth" factors) from the muscles with which they are connected. These trophic factors are transported via the nerve and cutting of the nerve normally results in death for most of the nerve cells. Selegiline given to these rats both in high and in low dosage, more than doubled the number of surviving cells, apparently providing a substitute for the trophic factors. The suggestion that selegiline provides a substitute for trophic factors is also supported by the observation that in cultures of brain cells, selegiline promotes the growth of these cells and increases the production of growth factors. These examples suggest that selegiline, used in low dosage, may have a "rescue" effect, comparable to the effect of trophic factors. Several of these neurotrophic factors have been identified and they play an important role both in the growth and in maintenance of nerve cells, and they have also been shown to be important in fetal cell transplantation. It can be concluded that selegiline has proven to be a fascinating drug for its use in the treatment of PD and for its inspiration of a vast area of research on neurodegeneration. Actions of selegiline at different dosages include; MAO-B inhibition, dopamine re-uptake inhibition, reinforcement of defense against "oxidative stress", and substitution for trophic factors. A symptomatic and levodopa sparing effect of selegiline in the treatment of PD patients has become evident, supporting its use in patients already treated with levodopa. A protective action in PD patients, by diminishing the rate of progression of the disease, awaits further clinical proof. Therefore, the decision to use selegiline as monotherapy in early stage PD and during its further course is currently based upon the suggestion of possible benefit rather than evidence. Its suggested rescue effect and substitution of trophic factors for nerve cells opens most exciting perspectives. Selegiline has now taken a place in the treatment of PD and experimental work has opened exciting perspectives. Whether these promises will become a reality for the patients depends on clinical results. In the end only these count. Much work needs to be done, but the hope for a better treatment of this disease is a good reason for doing it.