4.6 Article

Zonisamide Improves Wearing- Off in Parkinson's Disease: A Randomized, Double- Blind Study

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1343-1350

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.26286

关键词

levodopa; Parkinson's disease; randomized controlled trial; zonisamide; wearing-off

资金

  1. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previously, we reported 50 mg/ d zonisamide improved wearing- off without increasing dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson's disease ( PD). Methods: To determine the efficacy of zonisamide for treatment of off time in PD patients, we conducted a multicenter, randomized, double- blind, parallel- group, placebo- controlled study in Japan. Patients with PD and wearing- off received placebo for 4 weeks and then were treated for 12 weeks with zonisamide 25 or 50 mg/ d or placebo, in addition to their previous therapy. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in daily off time as determined by patients' diaries at the final assessment. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in the total scores of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Parts I, II, III, and IV, the dyskinesia duration, and PDQ- 39 score. Results: Of 422 patients enrolled, 389 ( 131 for placebo, 130 for zonisamide 25 mg, and 128 for zonisamide 50 mg) were randomized, and 354 ( 120, 119, and 115, respectively) completed the study. The off time significantly reduced by 0.71960.179 h for zonisamide, 50 mg compared with placebo ( 0.01160.173 h, P50.005). Although the incidence of somnolence was higher for zonisamide ( 3.1% for zonisamide 25 mg, 6.3% for zonisamide 50 mg) than for placebo ( 2.3%), the incidences of the other adverse events, including dyskinesia or hallucination, for both zonisamide treatments were comparable to those for placebo. Conclusion: The study provides evidence that confirms the efficacy of zonisamide 50 mg/ d for reduction in off time in PD patients with wearing- off phenomena. (C) 2015 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据