Explore the vast range of titles available.

Iron deposition in the substantia nigra has been implicated in Parkinson’s disease. Chelation with deferiprone reduced brain iron content but led to worse scores on scales of the movement disorder at 36 weeks.

Lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of diabetes, has shown neuroprotective properties in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease. In this phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the effect of lixisenatide on the progression of motor disability in persons with Parkinson's disease. Participants in whom Parkinson's disease was diagnosed less than 3 years earlier, who were receiving a stable dose of medications to treat symptoms, and who did not have motor complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to daily subcutaneous lixisenatide or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 2-month washout period. The primary end point was the change from baseline in scores on the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III (range, 0 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater motor disability), which was assessed in patients in the on-medication state at 12 months. Secondary end points included other MDS-UPDRS subscores at 6, 12, and 14 months and doses of levodopa equivalent. A total of 156 persons were enrolled, with 78 assigned to each group. MDS-UPDRS part III scores at baseline were approximately 15 in both groups. At 12 months, scores on the MDS-UPDRS part III had changed by -0.04 points (indicating improvement) in the lixisenatide group and 3.04 points (indicating worsening disability) in the placebo group (difference, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 5.30; P = 0.007). At 14 months, after a 2-month washout period, the mean MDS-UPDRS motor scores in the off-medication state were 17.7 (95% CI, 15.7 to 19.7) with lixisenatide and 20.6 (95% CI, 18.5 to 22.8) with placebo. Other results relative to the secondary end points did not differ substantially between the groups. Nausea occurred in 46% of participants receiving lixisenatide, and vomiting occurred in 13%. In participants with early Parkinson's disease, lixisenatide therapy resulted in less progression of motor disability than placebo at 12 months in a phase 2 trial but was associated with gastrointestinal side effects. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effects and safety of lixisenatide in persons with Parkinson's disease. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; LIXIPARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439943.).

Prasinezumab is a monoclonal antibody to α-synuclein, a protein involved in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease. In a placebo-controlled trial, prasinezumab did not slow the progression of disease over a period of 52 weeks.

In this 2-year trial involving patients with Parkinson's disease and early motor complications, subthalamic stimulation plus medical therapy resulted in better quality of life and motor function than medical therapy alone. Parkinson's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects dopaminergic neurotransmission, resulting in bradykinesia, rigidity, and rest tremor. After an initial honeymoon period, during which there is a sustained response to dopaminergic treatment, beneficial effects are hampered by levodopa-induced motor complications, 1 progressively compromising quality of life. 2 – 4 Because levodopa-responsive parkinsonian symptoms are improved by high-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus, 5 , 6 neurostimulation has become an established treatment for advanced Parkinson's disease with medically intractable fluctuations and dyskinesia 7 – 10 and has shown long-term efficacy. 11 – 13 It is typically used after the disease has been present for 11 to 13 years, 7 – . . .

Parkinson's disease psychosis, which includes hallucinations and delusions, is frequent and debilitating in people with Parkinson's disease. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of pimavanserin, a selective serotonin 5-HT2A inverse agonist, in this population. In our 6 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥40 years) with Parkinson's disease psychosis. Antipsychotic treatments were not permitted during the study, but controlled antiparkinsonian medication or deep brain stimulation was allowed. Eligible participants entered a 2 week non-pharmacological lead-in phase to limit the placebo response, after which they were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive pimavanserin 40 mg per day or matched placebo. The primary outcome was antipsychotic benefit as assessed by central, independent raters with the Parkinson's disease-adapted scale for assessment of positive symptoms (SAPS-PD) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had a SAPS assessment at baseline and at least one follow-up. We assessed safety and tolerability in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01174004. Between Aug 11, 2010, and Aug 29, 2012, we randomly allocated 199 patients to treatment groups. For 90 recipients of placebo and 95 recipients of pimavanserin included in the primary analysis, pimavanserin was associated with a −5·79 decrease in SAPS-PD scores compared with −2·73 for placebo (difference −3·06, 95% CI −4·91 to −1·20; p=0·001; Cohen's d 0·50). Ten patients in the pimavanserin group discontinued because of an adverse event (four due to psychotic disorder or hallucination within 10 days of start of the study drug) compared with two in the placebo group. Overall, pimavanserin was well tolerated with no significant safety concerns or worsening of motor function. Pimavanserin may benefit patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis for whom few other treatment options exist. The trial design used in this study to manage placebo response could have applicability to other studies in neuropsychiatric disease. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals.

Depression is common in patients with Parkinson's disease, but evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants in this population is lacking. Because depression in patients with Parkinson's disease might be related to dopaminergic dysfunction, we aimed to assess the efficacy of the dopamine agonist pramipexole for treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease. We did a 12-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled (1:1 ratio) trial of pramipexole (0·125–1·0 mg three times per day) compared with placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease. Patients from 76 centres in 12 European countries and South Africa were included if they were on stable antiparkinsonian therapy without motor fluctuations and had depressive symptoms (15-item geriatric depression scale score ≥5 and unified Parkinson's disease rating scale [UPDRS] part 1 depression item score ≥2). Patients were randomly assigned by centre in blocks of four by use of a randomisation number generating system. Clinical monitors, the principal investigator, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change in Beck depression inventory (BDI) score and all treated patients who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment were included in the primary analysis. We also did a pre-specified path analysis with regression models to assess the relation between BDI and UPDRS part 3 (motor score) changes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297778, and EudraCT, number 2005-003788-22. Between March, 2006, and February, 2008, we enrolled 323 patients. Of 296 patients randomly assigned to pramipexole or placebo, 287 were included in the primary analysis: 139 in the pramipexole group and 148 in the placebo group. BDI scores decreased by an adjusted mean 5·9 (SE 0·5) points in the pramipexole group and 4·0 (0·5) points in the placebo group (difference 1·9, 95% CI 0·5–3·4; p=0·01, ANCOVA). The UPDRS motor score decreased by an adjusted mean 4·4 (0·6) points in the pramipexole group and 2·2 (0·5) points in the placebo group (difference 2·2, 95% CI 0·7–3·7; p=0·003, ANCOVA). Path analysis showed the direct effect of pramipexole on depressive symptoms accounted for 80% of total treatment effect (p=0·04). Adverse events were reported in 105 of 144 patients in the pramipexole group and 101 of 152 in the placebo group. Adverse events in the pramipexole group were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug. Pramipexole improved depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease, mainly through a direct antidepressant effect. This effect should be considered in the clinical management of patients with Parkinson's disease. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Conventional oral levodopa therapy for the treatment of Parkinson's disease can be associated with variations in plasma concentrations. Levodopa infusion strategies might provide more consistent drug delivery and fewer motor fluctuations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a continuous 24 h/day subcutaneous infusion of ND0612 (a levodopa–carbidopa solution) compared with oral immediate-release levodopa–carbidopa for the treatment of motor fluctuations in people with Parkinson's disease. We conducted a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, multicentre trial at 117 academic and community neurology sites in 16 countries, including in Europe, Israel, and the USA. Eligible participants were men and women aged 30 years or older with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (Hoehn and Yahr stage ≤3 in the on state) who experienced at least 2·5 h/day of off time. Participants underwent an open-label run-in phase (<12 weeks), during which time optimal regimens were established for both oral immediate-release levodopa–carbidopa and for 24 h/day subcutaneous ND0612 infusion (levodopa–carbidopa 60·0/7·5 mg/mL), with supplemental oral levodopa–carbidopa if needed. Participants were then randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with their optimised regimen of either subcutaneous ND0612 or oral levodopa–carbidopa, with matching oral or subcutaneous placebo given as required to maintain blinding. Randomisation was done via an interactive web response system, stratified by region, using a permuted block schedule. Participants, study partners, treating investigators, study site personnel, and the sponsor were masked to treatment group allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (ie, time of randomisation, when all patients were receiving an optimised open-label ND0612 regimen) to end of the double-blind phase in total daily on time without troublesome dyskinesia, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04006210, and is complete. Between Sept 30, 2019, and April 8, 2022, 381 participants were enrolled, of whom 259 (68%) were randomly assigned, 128 (49%) to subcutaneous ND0612 and 131 (51%) to oral levodopa–carbidopa. 243 (94%) participants completed the study. Treatment with subcutaneous ND0612 provided an additional 1·72 h (95% CI 1·08 to 2·36) of on time without troublesome dyskinesia compared with oral levodopa–carbidopa (change from baseline of –0·48 h [–0·94 to –0·02] with subcutaneous ND0612 vs –2·20 h [–2·65 to –1·74] with oral levodopa–carbidopa; p<0·0001). Significant treatment differences favouring subcutaneous ND0612 were also found in the first four of nine prespecified hierarchical outcomes of daily off time (–1·40 h [95% CI –1·99 to –0·80]), Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part II scores (–3·05 [–4·28 to –1·81]), Patients Global Impression of Change (odds ratio [OR] 5·31 [2·67 to 10·58]), and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (OR 7·23 [3·57 to 14·64]). Hierarchical testing ended after the fourth secondary endpoint. Adverse events were reported by 287 (89%) of 322 participants during open-label ND0612 optimisation, and by 103 (80%) of 128 in the ND0612 group and 97 (74%) of 131 in the oral levodopa–carbidopa group during the double-blind phase. The most common adverse events were infusion-site reactions (266 [83%] participants during open-label ND0612, and 73 [57%] in the ND0612 group vs 56 [43%] in the oral levodopa–carbidopa group during the double-blind phase), most of which were mild. Serious adverse events in four participants in the ND0612 group were related to study treatment (infusion-site cellulitis [n=2], infusion-site abscess and infusion-site ulcer [n=1]; and paraesthesia and peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy [n=1]). One participant in the ND0612 group died during the double-blind phase, but the death was not related to study treatment (fall leading to traumatic brain injury). Results of this phase 3 study showed that subcutaneous ND0612 used in combination with oral immediate-release levodopa–carbidopa increased on time without troublesome dyskinesia and reduced off time, with a favourable benefit–risk profile. ND0612 might offer a safe and efficacious subcutaneous levodopa infusion approach to managing motor fluctuations in people with Parkinson's disease. The ongoing open-label extension phase will provide further information on the long-term efficacy and safety of treatment. NeuroDerm.

Whether initial treatment for Parkinson's disease should consist of levodopa, dopamine agonists, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (MAOBI) is uncertain. We aimed to establish which of these three classes of drug, as initial treatment, provides the most effective long-term control of symptoms and best quality of life for people with early Parkinson's disease. In this pragmatic, open-label randomised trial, patients newly diagnosed with Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (by telephone call to a central office; 1:1:1) between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or MAOBI) and levodopa alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Primary outcomes were the mobility dimension on the 39-item patient-rated Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) quality-of-life scale (range 0–100 with six points defined as the minimally important difference) and cost-effectiveness. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN69812316. Between Nov 9, 2000, and Dec 22, 2009, 1620 patients were assigned to study groups (528 to levodopa, 632 to dopamine agonist, 460 to MAOBI). With 3-year median follow-up, PDQ-39 mobility scores averaged 1·8 points (95% CI 0·5–3·0, p=0·005) better in patients randomly assigned to levodopa than those assigned to levodopa-sparing therapy, with no increase or attrition of benefit during 7 years' observation. PDQ-39 mobility scores were 1·4 points (95% CI 0·0–2·9, p=0·05) better in patients allocated MAOBI than in those allocated dopamine agonists. EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0·03 (95% CI 0·01–0·05; p=0·0002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·61–1·08, p=0·14), admissions to institutions (0·86, 0·63–1·18; p=0·4), and death (0·85, 0·69–1·06, p=0·17) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0·0001). Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. MAOBI as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was at least as effective as dopamine agonists. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and UK Department of Health.

Levodopa-induced dyskinesias (LIDs) are the most common and disabling adverse motor effect of therapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. In this study, we investigated serotonergic mechanisms in LIDs development in PD patients using 11C-DASB PET to evaluate serotonin terminal function and 11C-raclopride PET to evaluate dopamine release. PD patients with LIDs showed relative preservation of serotonergic terminals throughout their disease. Identical levodopa doses induced markedly higher striatal synaptic dopamine concentrations in PD patients with LIDs compared with PD patients with stable responses to levodopa. Oral administration of the serotonin receptor type 1A agonist buspirone prior to levodopa reduced levodopa-evoked striatal synaptic dopamine increases and attenuated LIDs. PD patients with LIDs that exhibited greater decreases in synaptic dopamine after buspirone pretreatment had higher levels of serotonergic terminal functional integrity. Buspirone-associated modulation of dopamine levels was greater in PD patients with mild LIDs compared with those with more severe LIDs. These findings indicate that striatal serotonergic terminals contribute to LIDs pathophysiology via aberrant processing of exogenous levodopa and release of dopamine as false neurotransmitter in the denervated striatum of PD patients with LIDs. Our results also support the development of selective serotonin receptor type 1A agonists for use as antidyskinetic agents in PD.

Background Catechol‐O‐methyl transferase (COMT) inhibitors are routinely used to manage motor fluctuations in Parkinson's disease (PD). We assessed the effect of opicapone on motor symptom severity in levodopa‐treated patients without motor complications. Methods This was a randomized, double‐blind, 24‐week, placebo‐controlled study of opicapone 50 mg as adjunct to levodopa (NCT04978597). Levodopa‐treated patients without motor complications were randomized to 24 weeks of double‐blind treatment with adjunct opicapone 50 mg or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline to week 24 in Movement Disorder Society‐Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS‐UPDRS‐III) total score. Results A total of 355 patients were randomized (opicapone 50 mg n = 177, placebo n = 178) and 322 (91%) completed the double‐blind period. The adjusted mean [95% CI] change from baseline to week 24 in MDS‐UPDRS‐III subscore was −6.5 [−7.9, −5.2] in the opicapone group versus −4.3 [−5.7, 3.0] in the placebo group resulting in a significant difference of −2.2 [−3.9, −0.5] favoring opicapone (p = 0.010). There was no difference in the incidence of patients who developed motor complications (5.5% with opicapone vs. 9.8% with placebo) and the incidence of adverse events considered related to study medication was similar between groups (opicapone 10.2% vs. placebo 13.5%). Conclusions Treatment with once‐daily adjunct opicapone was well tolerated, improved motor severity, and did not induce the development of motor complications. These results support the clinical usefulness of opicapone in the management of PD patients without motor complications.