Search

In Australia 1% of individuals aged over 50 years have Parkinson disease ( PD). Guidance for commencing device-assisted therapies ( DAT) for PD in Australia was developed based on a review of European recommendations and their relevance to the local clinical setting. An online survey and teleconference discussions were held by a group of eight local movement disorder experts to develop consensus. Referral to a movement disorder specialist and consideration of DAT is appropriate when motor fluctuations cause disability or reduced quality of life, response to treatment is inconsistent or motor fluctuations and dyskinesias require frequent treatment adjustment without apparent benefit and levodopa is required four or more times daily. Three types of DAT are available in Australia for patients with PD: continuous subcutaneous apomorphine; continuous levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel infusion; and deep brain stimulation. All improve consistency of motor response. The most important aspects when considering which DAT to use are the preferences of the patient and their carers, patient comorbidities, age, cognitive function and neuropsychiatric status. Patients and their families need to be provided with treatment options that are suitable to them, with adequate explanations regarding the recommendations and comparison of potential device-related complications. DAT are best managed, where possible, in a specialist centre with experience in all three types of therapy. Proactive and early management of symptoms during disease progression is essential to maintain optimally motor responses and quality of life in patients with PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with Parkinson disease ( PD) commonly experience motor fluctuations and dyskinesias in response to oral dopaminergic medications. Affected patients may benefit from device-assisted therapy, such as medication infusion or deep brain stimulation surgery. This is the first Australian study of the long-term adherence to apomorphine infusion ( AI) in patients with PD. Aims To assess the adherence to AI in patients with PD in a single centre over a 10-year period and to find the reasons for discontinuation in patients who discontinued AI. Methods This is an observational study of patients with PD treated with AI between 2004 and 2014. Outcome measures included changes in motor function and quality of life following AI, change in dose of other dopaminergic medications following AI, duration of infusion, adverse effects, reasons for cessation of AI and subsequent treatment after cessation. Results Mean duration of AI was 21.65 months. No patient achieved apomorphine monotherapy, and the mean reduction in the levodopa-equivalent dose of other dopaminergic medications after AI was 22.7%. The benefit of AI on motor function and quality of life was rated as 'much improved' or 'better' in 83% of patients. The most common reasons for discontinuation of AI were adverse effects and inadequate motor benefit. Most patients who discontinued AI were subsequently treated with another device-assisted therapy. Conclusion AI is an effective therapy for severe motor response complications in PD, especially in the short and medium term. However, many patients cannot be maintained on AI in the longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Levodopa is the most effective symptomatic therapy for Parkinson's disease, but patients with advanced Parkinson's disease develop motor fluctuations with chronic oral levodopa therapy. Foslevodopa-foscarbidopa is a soluble formulation of levodopa and carbidopa prodrugs that is delivered as a 24-h/day continuous subcutaneous infusion, and we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of this formulation in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease.Methods: A 12-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study was done at 65 academic and community study centres in the USA and Australia. Patients with levodopa-responsive advanced Parkinson's disease inadequately controlled on current therapy, including at least 2·5 h of average daily off time, were randomly assigned (1:1) to continuous subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa-foscarbidopa plus oral placebo or to oral immediate-release levodopa-carbidopa plus continuous subcutaneous infusion of placebo solution. Randomisation was stratified by site by means of a permutated-block schedule with a block size of two. The participants, treating investigators, study site personnel, and sponsor were masked to treatment group allocation. The primary and first key secondary endpoint in the hierarchical testing strategy were change from baseline to week 12 in on time without troublesome dyskinesia and off time, respectively; both endpoints were evaluated by an intention-to-treat analysis applying a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. The study is completed and is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04380142.Findings: Between Oct 19, 2020, and Sept 29, 2021, of 270 participants screened and 174 enrolled, 141 were randomly assigned and received continuous subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa-foscarbidopa plus oral placebo capsules (n=74) or oral encapsulated immediate-release levodopa-carbidopa plus continuous subcutaneous infusion of placebo solution (n=67). Compared with levodopa-carbidopa, foslevodopa-foscarbidopa showed a significantly greater increase in on time without troublesome dyskinesia (model-based mean [SE] 2·72 [0·52] vs 0·97 [0·50] h; difference 1·75 h, 95% CI 0·46 to 3·05; p=0·0083) and a significantly greater reduction in off time (-2·75 [0·50] vs -0·96 [0·49] h; difference -1·79 h, -3·03 to -0·54; p=0·0054). Hierarchical testing ended after the first secondary endpoint. Adverse events were reported in 63 (85%) of 74 patients in the foslevodopa-foscarbidopa group versus 42 (63%) of 67 in the levodopa-carbidopa group, and incidences of serious adverse events were similar between the groups (six [8%] of 74 vs four [6%] of 67, respectively). The most frequent adverse events in the foslevodopa-foscarbidopa group were infusion site adverse events (erythema 20 [27%]), pain 19 [26%]), cellulitis (14 [19%]), and oedema (nine [12%]), most of which were non-serious and mild-moderate in severity. The only system organ class that had more than one serious adverse event in the foslevodopa-foscarbidopa group was infections and infestations (catheter site cellulitis [one [1%]] and infusion site cellulitis [one [1%]). Adverse events led to premature discontinuation of study drug in 16 (22%) of 74 participants in the foslevodopa-foscarbidopa group versus one (1%) of 67 participants in the oral levodopa-carbidopa group.Interpretation: Foslevodopa-foscarbidopa improved motor fluctuations, with benefits in both on time without troublesome dyskinesia and off time. Foslevodopa-foscarbidopa has a favourable benefit-risk profile and represents a potential non-surgical alternative for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease.Funding: AbbVie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a neurodegenerative disorder for which there are currently no disease-modifying therapies. The neuropathology of PSP is associated with the accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau in the brain. We have previously shown that protein phosphatase 2 activity in the brain is upregulated by sodium selenate, which enhances dephosphorylation. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium selenate as a disease-modifying therapy for PSP., Methods and Analysis: This will be a multi-site, phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sodium selenate. 70 patients will be recruited at six Australian academic hospitals and research institutes. Following the confirmation of eligibility at screening, participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive 52 weeks of active treatment (sodium selenate; 15 mg three times a day) or matching placebo. Regular safety and efficacy visits will be completed throughout the study period. The primary study outcome is change in an MRI volume composite (frontal lobe+midbrain-3rd ventricle) over the treatment period. Analysis will be with a general linear model (GLM) with the MRI composite at 52 weeks as the dependent variable, treatment group as an independent variable and baseline MRI composite as a covariate. Secondary outcomes are change in PSP rating scale, clinical global impression of change (clinician) and change in midbrain mean diffusivity. These outcomes will also be analysed with a GLM as above, with the corresponding baseline measure entered as a covariate. Secondary safety and tolerability outcomes are frequency of serious adverse events, frequency of down-titration occurrences and frequency of study discontinuation. Additional, as yet unplanned, exploratory outcomes will include analyses of other imaging, cognitive and biospecimen measures., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (594/20). Each participant or their legally authorised representative and their study partner will provide written informed consent at trial commencement. The results of the study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620001254987)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors report a grant from the NHMRC to support this study. The authors report the following disclosures outside of this study: LV reports personal fees from Biogen Australia, and research funding from Biogen, Eisai and LMI. AHE reports honoraria for presentations from Merck, Allergan, Ipsen, Teva, UCB, Abbott, AbbVie, STADA, participation in scientific advisory board meetings with Allergan, AbbVie, Ipsen and STADA and shares in GKC and CSL. DD reports consultancy fees from Biogen, Novartis. KLB, CMalpas, CMarotta, IHH, SK, JF, MC, SJGL, ST, JDOS, TK, LC, ML, CMH and DV report no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To identify and quantify current deficiencies in primary and secondary stroke prevention, as well as potential gains from optimal employment of thrombolysis., Design, Participants and Setting: Observational study of 259 consecutive patients admitted to a tertiary hospital stroke unit from 24 January 2006 to 10 January 2007, with retrospective assessment of prestroke risk factors and therapies to determine stroke preventability, based on relative risk reductions from published meta-analyses of preventive therapies., Main Outcome Measures: Numbers of strokes preventable by optimal risk factor modification and numbers of strokes with preventable disability through optimal thrombolysis; characteristics of patients with preventable strokes; contributions of each risk factor to stroke preventability., Results: 183 patients had a disabling or fatal stroke; 135 patients had at least one suboptimally managed risk factor. On the basis of prespecified stroke preventability weightings, 70 strokes were preventable. The younger the patient, the more likely that the stroke was potentially preventable (relative risk [RR] for age < 60: > or = 80 years, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.96-4.92). Smoking, inadequate control of hypertension and suboptimal anticoagulation accounted for nearly 90% of preventable strokes. Patients with target systolic blood pressures of 130 mmHg or lower were more likely to have inadequately controlled hypertension (RR, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.58-7.05). By comparison, disability could have been prevented in four strokes through optimal thrombolysis., Conclusions: A significant proportion of stroke remains preventable, especially in younger patients, by optimal modification of risk factors, particularly smoking, blood pressure and anticoagulation. Only a small proportion of patients will benefit from best-practice thrombolysis.