4.7 Article

Advanced Parkinson disease treated with rotigotine transdermal system - PREFER Study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 68, 期 16, 页码 1262-1267

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000259516.61938.bb

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In patients experiencing motor fluctuations, a major treatment challenge is the reduction of off time, particularly upon awakening. Rotigotine (Neupro) is a novel dopaminergic agonist with 24-hour transdermal delivery. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled trial (PREFER Study) was performed to assess efficacy and safety with two targeted transdermal doses of rotigotine in subjects with advanced Parkinson disease with >= 2.5 hours of daily off time. Subjects were randomized to receive placebo patches (n = 120) or rotigotine up to either 8 mg/24 hours (n = 120) or 12 mg/24 hours (n = 111). The primary efficacy measures compared changes from baseline to the end of week 24 in the number of daily hours off and responder rates for subjects achieving >= 30% reduction in off time. Results: Compared to placebo, there were significant decreases in mean off time of 1.8 hours/day for the rotigotine 8 mg/24 hours group and 1.2 hours/day for the 12 mg/24 hours group. For rotigotine 8 and 12 mg/24 hours groups, >= 30% responder rates were 56.6% and 55.1% compared to the 34.5% placebo response. On time without dyskinesia after awakening was more than doubled in both rotigotine treatment groups vs placebo. Drug-related adverse effects included typical dopaminergic side effects, which were generally mild/moderate in intensity. Patch application site reactions including erythema and pruritus were mild to moderate and transient in the majority of instances. Conclusions: Transdermal rotigotine significantly improved off time in subjects with Parkinson disease not optimally controlled with levodopa and was safe and well tolerated, with typical dopaminergic side effects and occasional application site reactions.

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

4.7
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