Apomorphine Sublingual Film Compared with Subcutaneous Apomorphine for OFF Episodes in Parkinson's Disease: An Open-Label, Randomized, Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND

Apomorphine sublingual film (SL-APO) and subcutaneous apomorphine (SC-APO) have been used for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson's disease (PD). No study has prospectively compared efficacy and safety of these formulations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare SL-APO with SC-APO for treatment of OFF episodes in PD.

METHODS

An open-label, randomized, crossover study assessed SL-APO versus SC-APO in patients with PD and OFF episodes (N = 113). Doses were optimized in randomly assigned order. SL-APO dose initiation (10 mg) occurred in clinic; further dose optimization (15-30 mg; 5-mg increments) occurred primarily at home. SC-APO dosing (2-6 mg; 1-mg increments) occurred entirely in clinic. After a 3-7-day washout, patients were randomized 1 : 1 to 4 weeks of treatment with their optimized dose of SL-APO or SC-APO, followed by washout and 4 weeks of crossover treatment.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching applied on 159 patients (STN-DBS n = 75, MED n = 84) resulted in 40 patients in each treatment group. At 36-month follow-up, STN-DBS led to significantly better PDSS and PDQ-8 change scores, which were significantly correlated. We observed no significant effects for HADS and no significant correlations between change scores in PDSS, HADS, and LEDD.

CONCLUSIONS

We report Class IIb evidence of beneficial effects of STN-DBS on quality of sleep at 36-month follow-up, which were associated with QoL improvement independent of depression and dopaminergic medication. Our study highlights the importance of sleep for assessments of DBS outcomes.

RESULTS

No difference was observed between SL-APO and SC-APO for change from predose to 90 minutes postdose in Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III score at week 4 (primary endpoint), assessed by a blinded rater (-13.6 vs. -13.8, respectively; p = NS). Overall, 72.2% of patients preferred SL-APO compared with SC-APO/no preference (p = 0.0002) per the Treatment Preference Questionnaire (secondary endpoint). Patients reported greater satisfaction with SL-APO compared with SC-APO, per mean scores of convenience (73.7 vs. 53.5) and global satisfaction (63.9 vs. 57.6) on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (other endpoint). The safety profiles of both treatments were generally comparable and were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reported overall preference for and greater satisfaction with SL-APO over SC-APO.