SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Unlucky punches: the vulnerability-stress model for the development of impulse control disorders in Parkinson's disease.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2021-12-08

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-021-00253-zPMID: 34880241

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Impulse-control disorders are commonly observed during dopamine-replacement therapy in Parkinson's disease, but the majority of patients seems "immune" to this side effect. Epidemiological evidence suggests that a major risk factor may be a specific difference in the layout of the dopaminergic-reinforcement system, of which the ventral striatum is a central player. A series of imaging studies of the dopaminergic system point toward a presynaptic reduction of dopamine-reuptake transporter density and dopamine synthesis capacity. Here, we review current evidence for a vulnerability-stress model in which a relative reduction of dopaminergic projections to the ventral striatum and concomitant sensitization of postsynaptic neurons represent a predisposing (hypodopaminergic) vulnerability. Stress (hyperdopaminergic) is delivered when dopamine replacement therapy leads to a relative overdosing of the already-sensitized ventral striatum. These alterations are consistent with consecutive changes in reinforcement mechanisms, which stimulate learning from reward and impede learning from punishment, thereby fostering the development of impulse-control disorders. This vulnerability-stress model might also provide important insights into the development of addictions in the non-Parkinsonian population.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.