SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

<i>Mucuna pruriens</i> Treatment for Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.

Parkinsons Dis · 2025-08-18

DOI: 10.1155/padi/1319419PMID: 40860042

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

Background: Research into alternative treatments for Parkinson's disease (PD) is gaining increasing attention. Mucuna pruriens (M. pruriens), a plant traditionally used in Ayurvedic medicine, contains a significant amount of L-dopa (4%-6%), the primary active component of conventional levodopa (LD) therapy-the gold standard treatment for PD. M. pruriens is also recognized for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiapoptotic, and antiparkinsonian properties, which collectively suggest therapeutic benefits for individuals with PD. Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of M. pruriens in managing symptoms of PD. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for clinical trials published up to February 2024. Studies comparing M. pruriens to LD were included. Quality assessment was performed, and findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Out of 466 articles identified, 5 clinical trials involving a total of 108 participants (mean age: 60 years) were included. Quality assessment rated one study as high quality, one as having some concerns, and three as low quality. Despite heterogeneity in M. pruriens interventions, the findings consistently showed improvements in PD symptoms and therapy-related complications. Treatment with M. pruriens was associated with a shorter time to reach the "on" disease stage, prolonged duration of this stage, and fewer adverse events, with no dyskinesia reported. Conclusion: M. pruriens shows promise in improving motor symptoms and reducing therapy complications in PD patients. However, current clinical evidence is limited, and further high-quality trials are needed to confirm its efficacy and safety.

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.