4.6 Article

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Delayed Start Study to Assess Rasagiline as a Disease Modifying Therapy in Parkinson's Disease (The ADAGIO Study): Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 23, 期 15, 页码 2194-2201

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.22218

关键词

Parkinson's disease; delayed start design; rasagiline; neuroprotection; disease modification

资金

  1. TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries (Israel)
  2. Teva Neuroscience Inc. (USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A neuroprotective therapy is the single most important unmet medical need in Parkinson's disease. Several promising agents in the laboratory have been tested in the clinic, but none has been established in clinical trials to have a disease modifying effect despite positive results because of potential confounding symptomatic or pharmacologic effects. The delayed start design was developed to try to avoid a symptomatic confound when testing a putative neuroprotective therapy. In this study design, patients are randomly assigned to study drug or placebo in the first phase of the study, and both groups receive the active drug in the second phase. If benefits seen at the end of phase I persist through the end of phase 11, they cannot be readily explained by a symptomatic effect (as patients in both groups are receiving the same medication) and benefits in the early start group must relate to the early initiation of the treatment. Although the precise mechanism responsible for such art effect can be debated, positive results in a delayed start study indicate that patients who receive early treatment have a better outcome than those where the treatment is delayed. We are Using the delayed start design to assess the potential disease modifying effects of rasagiline in a prospective double blind controlled trial (the ADAGIO study). We here describe the rationale for the study and baseline characteristics of the 1,176 patients who have been enrolled into the trial. (C) 2008 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