Search

The efficacy of amantadine in the symptomatic treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease, discovered serendipitously more than 50 years ago, has stood the test of time and the drug is still commonly used by neurologists today. Its pharmacological actions are unique in combining dopaminergic and glutamatergic properties, which account for its dual effect on parkinsonian signs and symptoms and levodopa-induced dyskinesias. Furthermore, amantadine has additional and less well-defined pharmacological effects, including on anticholinergic and serotonergic activity. Evidence from randomised controlled trials over the past 5 years has confirmed the efficacy of amantadine to treat levodopa-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson's disease, and clinical studies have also provided support for its potential to reduce motor fluctuations. Other uses of amantadine, such as in the treatment of drug-induced parkinsonism, atypical parkinsonism, Huntington's disease, or tardive dyskinesia, lack a strong evidence base. Future trials should examine its role in the management of motor and non-motor symptoms in patients with early Parkinson's disease and those with other movement disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subcutaneous apomorphine infusion is a clinically established therapy for patients with Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations not optimally controlled by oral medication. Open-label studies have shown that apomorphine infusion is effective in reducing off time (periods when antiparkinsonian drugs have no effect), dyskinesias, and levodopa dose, but confirmatory evidence from double-blind, controlled studies is lacking. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of apomorphine infusion compared with placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease with persistent motor fluctuations despite optimised oral or transdermal treatment.Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial, we enrolled patients at 23 European hospitals who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease more than 3 years previously and had motor fluctuations not adequately controlled by medical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation code, stratified by site, to receive 3-8 mg/h apomorphine or placebo saline infusion during waking hours (16 h a day [range 14-18 was acceptable]) for 12 weeks. The flow rate of the study drug and other oral medications could be adjusted during the first 4 weeks on the basis of individual efficacy and tolerability, after which patients entered an 8-week maintenance period. The primary endpoint was the absolute change in daily off time based on patient's diaries, and was assessed in the full analysis set, which was defined as all patients who received at least one dose of allocated study drug and had efficacy data available at any timepoint post-baseline. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of apomorphine or placebo. All study participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Both the 12-week double-blind phase and the 52-week open-label phase of this study are now complete; this paper reports results for the double-blind phase only. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02006121).Findings: Between March 3, 2014, and March 1, 2016, 128 patients were screened for eligibility and 107 were randomly assigned, of whom 106 were included in the full analysis set (n=53 in both groups). Apomorphine infusion (mean final dose 4·68 mg/h [SD 1·50]) significantly reduced off time compared with placebo (-2·47 h per day [SD 3·70] in the apomorphine group vs -0·58 h per day [2·80] in the placebo group; difference -1·89 h per day, 95% CI -3·16 to -0·62; p=0·0025). Apomorphine was well tolerated without any unexpected safety signals. Six patients in the apomorphine group withdrew from the study because of treatment-related adverse events.Interpretation: Apomorphine infusion results in a clinically meaningful reduction in off time in patients with Parkinson's disease with persistent motor fluctuations despite optimised oral or transdermal therapy.Funding: Britannia Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opicapone is a novel, once-daily, potent third-generation catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa compared with placebo or entacapone in patients with Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations.Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled trial of opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease with end-of-dose motor fluctuations. Patients aged 30-83 years were enrolled at 106 specialist centres across 19 European countries and Russia and were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) by a proprietary computer-generated sequence to oral treatment with opicapone (5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg once daily), placebo, or entacapone (200 mg with every levodopa intake) for 14-15 weeks. Patients and investigators (ie, outcome assessors) were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to end of study treatment in absolute time in the off state, as assessed by daily paper patient diaries; the primary analysis followed a hierarchical procedure for each opicapone dose in which superiority compared with placebo in the full analysis set was first tested and then, if positive, non-inferiority to entacapone was tested in the per-protocol set with a margin of 30 min. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2010-021860-13, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01568073.Findings: Between March 31, 2011, and Nov 30, 2013, of 679 patients screened, 600 were randomly assigned. 590 patients were included in the full analysis set (120 in the placebo group, 120 in the entacapone group, 119 in the opicapone 5 mg group, 116 in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 115 in the opicapone 50 mg group) and 537 in the per-protocol set (112 in the placebo group, 104 in the entacapone group, 110 in the opicapone 5 mg group, 105 in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 106 in the opicapone 50 mg group). The mean change in time in the off state was -56·0 min (SE 13·4; 95% CI -82·3 to -29·7) for placebo, -96·3 min (13·4; -122·6 to -70·0) for entacapone, -91·3 min (13·5; -117·7 to -64·8) for opicapone 5 mg, -85·9 min (13·7; -112·8 to -59·1) for opicapone 25 mg, and -116·8 min (14·0; -144·2 to -89·4) for opicapone 50 mg. Treatment with opicapone 50 mg was superior to placebo (mean difference in change from baseline -60·8 min, 95% CI -97·2 to -24·4; p=0·0015) and non-inferior to entacapone (-26·2 min, -63·8 to 11·4; p=0·0051). Treatment with opicapone 5 mg (p=0·056) or 25 mg (p=0·080) was not significantly different from treatment with placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 60 (50%) of 121 patients in the placebo group, 69 (57%) of 122 in the entacapone group, 63 (52%) of 122 in the opicapone 5 mg group, 65 (55%) of 119 in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 62 (54%) of 115 in the opicapone 50 mg group. The most common adverse events were dyskinesia (in five patients in the placebo group, ten in the entacapone group, 17 in the opicapone 5 mg group, nine in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 18 in the opicapone 50 mg group), insomnia (in one, seven, two, seven, and seven patients, respectively), and constipation (in three, five, four, none, and seven patients, respectively). Serious adverse events were reported in six patients in the placebo group, eight in the entacapone group, four each in the opicapone 5 mg and opicapone 50 mg groups, and one in the opicapone 25 mg group.Interpretation: The addition of opicapone 50 mg to levodopa treatment in patients with Parkinson's disease and end-of-dose motor fluctuations could enable a simplified drug regimen that allows physicians to individually tailor the existing levodopa daily regimen, by potentially reducing the total daily levodopa dose, increasing the dosing interval, and ultimately reducing the number of intakes, thereby maximising its benefit.Funding: BIAL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease. We investigated the analgesic efficacy of prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN PR) in patients with Parkinson's disease and chronic, severe pain.Methods: We did this phase 2 study in 47 secondary care centres in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the UK. We enrolled patients with Hoehn and Yahr Stage II-IV Parkinson's disease, at least one type of severe pain, and an average 24-h pain score of at least 6 (assessed on an 11-point rating scale from 0=no pain to 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) with a validated automated system (block size four) to either oral OXN PR or placebo for 16 weeks (starting dose oxycodone 5 mg, naloxone 2·5 mg, twice daily). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2011-002901-31) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01439100).Findings: We enrolled 202 patients; 93 were assigned to OXN PR and 109 to placebo; the full analysis population consisted of 88 patients versus 106 patients. Least squares mean average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population was 5·0 (95% CI 4·5 to 5·5) in the OXN PR group versus 5·6 (5·1 to 6·0) in the placebo group (difference -0·6, 95% CI -1·3 to 0·0; p=0·058). Similar proportions of patients in each group had adverse events (60/92 [65%] vs 76/109 [70%]), treatment-related adverse events (52/92 [57%] vs 62/109 [57%]), and serious adverse events (5/92 [5%] vs 7/109 [6%]). Treatment-related nausea was more common in the OXN PR group than in the placebo group (16/92 [17%] vs 10/109 [9%]), as was treatment-related constipation (16/92 [17%] vs 6/109 [6%]).Interpretation: The primary endpoint, based on the full analysis population at week 16, was not significant. Nonetheless, the results of this study highlight the potential efficacy of OXN PR for patients with Parkinson's disease-related pain and might warrant further research on OXN PR in this setting.Funding: Mundipharma Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background Multiple system atrophy is a complex neurodegenerative disorder for which no effective treatment exists. We aimed to assess the effect of rasagiline on symptoms and progression of the parkinsonian variant of multiple system atrophy. Methods We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial between Dec 15, 2009, and Oct 20, 2011, at 40 academic sites specialised in the care of patients with multiple systemic atrophy across 12 countries. Eligible participants aged 30 years or older with possible or probable parkinsonian variant multiple system atrophy were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of four), to receive either rasagiline 1 mg per day or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by study centre. The investigators, study funder, and personnel involved in patient assessment, monitoring, analysis and data management were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to study end in total Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS) score (parts I and II). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00977665 . Findings We randomly assigned 174 participants to the rasagiline group (n=84) or the placebo group (n=90); 21 (25%) patients in the rasagiline group and 15 (17%) in the placebo group withdrew from the study early. At week 48, patients in the rasagiline group had progressed by an adjusted mean of 7·2 (SE 1·2) total UMSARS units versus 7·8 (1·1) units in those in the placebo group. This treatment difference of −0·60 (95% CI −3·68 to 2·47; p=0·70) was not significant. 68 (81%) patients in the rasagiline group and 67 (74%) patients in the placebo group reported adverse events, and we recorded serious adverse events in 29 (35%) versus 23 (26%) patients. The most common adverse events in the rasagiline group were dizziness (n=10 [12%]), peripheral oedema (n=9 [11%]), urinary tract infections (n=9 [11%]), and orthostatic hypotension (n=8 [10%]). Interpretation In this population of patients with the parkinsonian variant of multiple system atrophy, treatment with rasagiline 1 mg per day did not show a significant benefit as assessed by UMSARS. The study confirms the sensitivity of clinical outcomes for multiple system atrophy to detect clinically significant decline, even in individuals with early disease. Funding Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and H Lundbeck A/S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: 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. Methods: 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. Findings: 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. Interpretation: 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. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Findings: 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)., Interpretation: 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., Funding: NeuroDerm., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AJE, FS, RP, AA, AE, JJF, NG, TG, SH-B, JH-V, SHI, KK, PAL, LL-M, WP, HS, and OR were investigators in the study and they or their institution received fees for participation. CWO and KK have stock ownership in Clintrex, which was contracted by NeuroDerm to provide services for this study. TY, LA, LS, NL, and NS are employed by NeuroDerm. RC was employed by NeuroDerm at the time of the study and is now employed by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America. AJE has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Michael J Fox Foundation; personal compensation as a consultant or scientific advisory board member for NeuroDerm, Herantis Pharma, Amneal, Acadia, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, Sunovion, and Supernus; personal compensation as honoraria for speakership for Avion; and publishing royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Cambridge University Press, and Springer. AJE cofounded REGAIN Therapeutics (a biotech startup developing non-aggregating peptide analogues as replacement therapies for neurodegenerative diseases) and is co-owner of a patent that covers synthetic soluble non-aggregating peptide analogues as replacement treatments in proteinopathies. FS reports honoraria and consulting fees from BIAL, Sunovion, AbbVie, Luosofarmaco, Kyowa, Synagile, Lundbeck, TEVA, UCB, Zambon, Blue Rock, NeuroDerm, Contera, Zambon, Biogen, Ever, and Britannia; speaker fees from BIAL, Sunovion, AbbVie, Luosofarmaco, Kjowa, Synagile, Lundbeck, TEVA, UCB, and Zambon; and travel support from Bial, Zambon, Synagile, and AbbVie. RP reports grants from Abbott, AbbVie, Alexza, Annovis, Biogen, Bluerock, Bukwang, Cerevel, Global Kinetics, Jazz, the Michael J Fox Foundation, NeuroDerm, Neuraly, the Parkinson's Foundation, Praxis, Roche, Sage, Scion, Sun Pharma, UCB, and Voyager; and consulting fees from Abbott, AbbVie, ACADIA, Acorda, Allevion, Amneal, Artemida, BioVie, CalaHealth, Convatec, Global Kinetics, Inbeeo, Insightec, Jazz, Kyowa, Lundbeck, Merz, Neurocrine, NeuroDerm, Ono, PhotoPharmics, Sage, Sunovion, Supernus, UCB, and Wren. AA has received speaker's honoraria from Ipsen and Merz; is President of the International Association on Parkinsonism and Related Disorders; and is Section Editor for Frontiers in Movement Disorders. AE reports honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda, Adamas, Affiris, Allergan, Arbor, Biohaven, BioVie, Cerevel, Ipsen, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, NeuroDerm, Praxis, Revance, Supernus, Teva, US WorldMeds, and XW Labs. JJF has provided consultancy for AbbVie, BIAL, Biogen, Lundbeck, and Sunovion; received grants from Angelini, Novartis, Medtronic, AbbVie, Zambon, BIAL, Biogen, and Grunenthal; and received speaker fees for BIAL, Ono, SK Chemical, and Infucure. NG serves as consultant to NeuroDerm, Sanofi, and Biogen. NG also reports payment for lectures, travel support, or both from BIAL, NeuroDerm, and Biogen; stock options in Vibrant and Longevity AI; and a patent pending for GaitBetter. TG has served as consultant to NeuroDerm, AbbVie, Medisson, Truemed, and Tradis Gat; has received research support from the Movement Disorders Society; and has received the Center of Excellence grant from the Parkinson's Foundation. TG reports fees for lectures, travel support, or both from AbbVie, Medisson, Teva, Boston Scientific, and Alphamedix; stock options in Cytora and Neurosteer; and a patent for an automated analysis of speech and development of vocal biomarkers in Parkinson's disease. SH-B serves as consultant to NeuroDerm, AbbVie, Teva, Takeda, Medison, Trumed, and Abbott; has received payment for lectures from AbbVie, Medisson, and Teva; and has received research support from AbbVie and the Michael J Fox Foundation. JH-V reports grants from Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria; honoraria for lectures, travel support, or both from BIAL, Zambon, Italfarmaco, and AbbVie; and stock in Sense4care. SHI reports honoraria for CME, consultant fees, research grants, or promotional speaker fees on behalf of AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda, Adamas, Addex, Affiris, Alexva, Allergan, Amarantus, Amneal, Aptinyx, Axial, Axovant, Benevolent, Biogen, Britannia, Cadent, Cala, Cerecor, Cerevel, Cipla, Eli Lilly, Enterin, GE Healthcare, Global Kinetics, Impax, Impel, Intec Pharma, Ipsen, Jazz, Kyowa, Lundbeck, Merz, the Michael J Fox Foundation, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Neuralys, Neurocrine, NeuroDerm, Parkinson Study Group, Pharma2B, Prilenia, Promentis, Revance, Roche, Sanofi, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Teva, Theravance, UCB, and Zambon. KK reports equity interest in Clintrex and Hoover Brown; patents for information management; and participation in safety monitoring boards for Roche, Lilly, and Janssen. PAL reports advisory roles for Abide, Acorda Therapeutics, Adamas, Amneal, Aptinyx, Biogen, Britannia, Bukwang Pharma, Cavion, Cerevel, Denali, F Hoffmann–La Roche, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kyowa Kirin Hakko, Neurocrine, Mitsubishi NeuroDerm, Sage, Supernus, and US WorldMeds; and research grant support from the Michael J Fox Foundation, NeuroDerm, Parkinson Study Group, Pharma Two B, Hoffmann–La Roche, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, and US WorldMeds. CWO reports equity interest in Clintrex and expert witness testimony in the Paraquat litigation. WP has received lecture fees and honoraria for consultancy in relation to clinical drug development programs from AbbVie, AC Immune, Alterity, BIAL, Boehringer, Britannia, Lilly, Eisai, Lundbeck, Roche, Takeda, Britannia, Eisai, Roche, Stada, and Zambon; grant support from the Michael J Fox Foundation and the EU FP7 & Horizon 2020 programs; and safety monitoring board membership for UCB. WP also reports leadership roles in the Movement Disorder Society, Austrian Society of Neurology, and Austrian Parkinson's disease Society. HS reports consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk, Blue Rock Therapeutics, and Neurocrine; clinical trial support from Insightec, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Prevail Therapeutics, Blue Rock Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Biogen, Genentech–Roche, Bukwang, and the National Institutes of Health. OR has participated in advisory boards or provided consultancy for AbbVie, Adamas, Acorda, Addex, AlzProtect, ApoPharma, AstraZeneca, Axovant, Bial, Biogen, Britannia, Buckwang, CereSpir, Clevexel, Denali, INC Research, IPMDS, Lundbeck, Lupin, Merck, MundiPharma, NeurATRIS, NeuroDerm, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Osmotica, Parexel, Pfizer, Prexton Therapeutics, Quintiles, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Theranexus, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Vectura, Watermark Research, XenoPort, XO, and Zambon; and has received grants from Agence Nationale de la Recherche, CHU de Toulouse, France-Parkinson, INSERM-DHOS Recherche Clinique Translationnelle, the Michael J Fox Foundation, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, European Commission (FP7 and H2020), and Cure Parkinson's., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite optimum medical management, many patients with Parkinson's disease are incapacitated by gait disorders including freezing of gait. We aimed to assess whether methylphenidate--through its combined action on dopamine and noradrenaline reuptake--would improve gait disorders and freezing of gate in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease without dementia who also received subthalamic nucleus stimulation., Methods: This multicentre, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial was done in 13 movement disorders departments in France between October, 2009, and December, 2011. Eligible patients were younger than 80 years and had Parkinson's disease, severe gait disorders, and freezing of gate despite optimised treatment of motor fluctuations with dopaminergic drugs and subthalamic stimulation. We randomly assigned patients (1:1 with a computer random-number generator in blocks of four) to receive methylphenidate (1 mg/kg per day) or placebo capsules for 90 days. Patients, their carers, study staff, investigators, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. To control for confounding effects of levodopa we assessed patients under standardised conditions with an acute levodopa challenge. Our primary outcome was a change in the number of steps during the stand-walk-sit (SWS) test without levodopa. We compared the respective mean numbers of steps at day 90 in the methylphenidate and placebo groups in a covariance analysis and adjusted for baseline differences. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00914095., Findings: We screened 81 patients and randomly assigned 35 to receive methylphenidate and 34 to receive placebo. 33 patients in the methylphenidate group and 32 patients in the placebo group completed the study. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in the patients who completed the study. Compared with patients in the placebo group (median 33 steps [IQR 26-45]), the patients in the methylphenidate group made fewer steps at 90 days (31 [26-42], F((1, 62))=6·1, p=0·017, adjusted size effect 0·61). Adverse events were analysed in all randomly assigned patients. There were significantly more adverse events in the methylphenidate group compared with placebo. Patients on methylphenidate had a significant increase in heart rate (mean 3·6 [SD 7·2] beats per min) and decrease in weight (mean 2·2 [SD 1·8] kg) compared with the placebo group., Interpretation: Methylphenidate improved gait hypokinesia and freezing in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease receiving subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Methylphenidate represents a therapeutic option in the treatment of gait disorders at the advanced stage of Parkinson's disease. The long term risk-benefit balance should be further studied., Funding: French Ministry of Health and Novartis Pharma., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)