A 4-Year Randomized Controlled Trial The Parkinson Study Group* Background: The best way to initiate dopaminergic therapy for early Parkinson disease remains unclear. Objective: To compare initial treatment with pramipexole vs levodopa in early Parkinson disease, followed by levodopa supplementation, with respect to the development of dopaminergic motor complications, other adverse events, and functional and quality-of-life outcomes. Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Academic movement disorders clinics at 22 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients: Patients with early Parkinson disease (N=301) who required dopaminergic therapy to treat emerging disability, enrolled between October 1996 and August 1997 and observed until August 2001. Intervention: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 0.5 mg of pramipexole 3 times per day with levodopa placebo (n = 151) or 25/100 mg of carbidopa/ levodopa 3 times per day with pramipexole placebo (n=150). Dosage was escalated during the first 10 weeks for patients with ongoing disability. Thereafter, investigators were permitted to add open-label levodopa or other antiparkinsonian medications to treat ongoing or emerging disability. Main Outcome Measures: Time to the first occurrence of dopaminergic complications: wearing off, dyskinesias, on-off fluctuations, and freezing; changes in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and quality-oflife scales; and adverse events. Results: Initial pramipexole treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of developing dyskinesias (24.5% vs 54%; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.56; PϽ.001) and wearing off (47% vs 62.7%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.63; P=.02). Initial levodopa treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of freezing (25.3% vs 37.1%; hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.11-2.59; P =.01). By 48 months, the occurrence of disabling dyskinesias was uncommon and did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. The mean improvement in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score from baseline to 48 months was greater in the levodopa group than in the pramipexole group (2 ± 15.4 points vs-3.2 ± 17.3 points, P = .003). Somnolence (36% vs 21%, P = .005) and edema (42% vs 15%, PϽ.001) were more common in pramipexole-treated subjects than in levodopa-treated subjects. Mean changes in quality-of-life scores did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Initial treatment with pramipexole resulted in lower incidences of dyskinesias and wearing off compared with initial treatment with levodopa. Initial treatment with levodopa resulted in lower incidences of freezing, somnolence, and edema and provided for better symptomatic control, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, compared with initial treatment with pramipexole. Both options resulted in similar quality of life. Levodopa and pramipexole both appear to be reasonable options as initial dopaminergic therapy for Parkinson disease, but...

No abstract

ObjectiveTo describe the rationale for a novel study design and baseline characteristics of a disease‐modifying trial of isradipine 10 mg daily in early Parkinson disease (PD).Methods STEADY‐PDIII is a 36‐month, Phase 3, parallel group, placebo‐controlled study of the efficacy of isradipine 10 mg daily in 336 participants with early PD as measured by the change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part I‐III score in the practically defined ON state. Secondary outcome measures include clinically meaningful measures of disability progression in early PD: (1) Time to initiation and utilization of dopaminergic therapy; (2) Time to onset of motor complications; (3) Change in nonmotor disability. Exploratory measures include global measures of functional disability, quality of life, change in the ambulatory capacity, cognitive function, and pharmacokinetic analysis. Rationale for the current design and alternative design approaches are discussed.ResultsThe entire cohort of 336 participants was enrolled at 55 Parkinson Study Group sites in North America. The percentage of male participants were 68.5% with a mean age of 61.9 years (sd 9.0), mean Hoehn and Yahr stage of 1.7 (sd 0.5), mean UPDRS total of 23.1 (sd 8.6), and MoCA of 28.1 (sd 1.4).Interpretation STEADY‐PD III has a novel and innovative design allowing for the determination of longer duration benefits on clinically relevant outcomes in a relatively small cohort on top of the benefit derived from symptomatic therapy. Baseline characteristics are similar to those in previously enrolled de novo PD trials. This study represents a unique opportunity to evaluate the potential impact of a novel therapy to slow progression of PD disability and provide clinically meaningful benefits.

Remacemide is a safe and tolerable adjunct to dopaminergic therapy for patients with PD and motor fluctuations. Although this study had limited power to detect therapeutic effects, the observed improvement is consistent with studies of non-human primates with 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine-induced parkinsonian signs and symptoms. Additional studies are warranted to confirm these results over an extended period of observation, and to explore the potential neuroprotective effects of remacemide in slowing the progression of PD.

Background and ObjectivesRepresentation of persons from marginalized racial and ethnic groups in Parkinson disease (PD) trials has been low, limiting the generalizability of therapeutic options for individuals with PD. Two large phase 3 randomized clinical trials sponsored by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3, screened participants from overlapping Parkinson Study Group clinical sites under similar eligibility criteria but differed in participation by underrepresented minorities. The goal of this research is to compare recruitment strategies of PD participants belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic groups.MethodsA total of 998 participants with identified race and ethnicity consented to STEADY-PD III and SURE-PD3 from 86 clinical sites. Demographics, clinical trial characteristics, and recruitment strategies were compared. NINDS imposed a minority recruitment mandate on STEADY-PD III but not SURE-PD3.ResultsTen percent of participants who consented to STEADY-PD III self-identified as belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic groups compared to 6.5% in SURE-PD3 (difference = 3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%–7.5%,pvalue = 0.034). This difference persisted after screening (10.1% of patients in STEADY-PD III vs 5.4% in SURE-PD 3, difference = 4.7%, 95% CI 0.6%–8.8%,pvalue = 0.038).DiscussionAlthough both trials targeted similar participants, STEADY-PD III was able to consent and recruit a higher percentage of patients from racial and ethnic marginalized groups. Possible reasons include differential incentives for achieving minority recruitment goals.Trial Registration InformationThis study used data from The Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Assessment of Isradipine for Parkinson Disease (STEADY-PD III;NCT02168842) and the Study of Urate Elevation in Parkinson’s Disease (SURE-PD3;NCT02642393).