Abstract
Background Current pharmacotherapy has limited efficacy and/or intolerable side effects in late-stage Parkinson’s disease (LsPD) patients whose daily life depends primarily on caregivers and palliative care. Clinical metrics inadequately gauge efficacy in LsPD patients.
Objective Explore if a D1/5 dopamine agonist will have efficacy in LsPD that will be detected most sensitively by caregivers in a phase I study.
Methods A double-blind controlled phase Ia/b study compared the D1/5 agonist PF-06412562 to levodopa/carbidopa in six LsPD patients. Throughout the study, caregivers were with the patients. Assessments included standard quantitative scales of motor function (MDS-UPDRS-III), alertness (Glasgow Coma and Stanford Sleepiness Scales), and cognition (Severe Impairment and Frontal Assessment Batteries) at baseline (Day 1) and thrice daily during drug testing (Days 2 and 3). Clinicians and caregivers completed clinical impression of change questionnaires, and caregivers participated in a qualitative exit interview. Blinded triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data was used to integrate findings.
Results Neither traditional scales, nor clinician impression of change, detected consistent differences between treatments in the five participants who completed the study. Conversely, the overall caregiver data strongly favored PF-06412562 over levodopa in four of five patients. The most meaningful improvements converged on motor, alertness, and engagement.
Conclusion D1/5 agonists may offer potential benefit for LsPD patients. Caregiver perspectives with mixed method analyses may overcome limitations in standard rater/clinician-based evaluations. Further studies are warranted and need to integrate caregiver input as an essential component of outcome evaluations.
Trial Registration#ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03665454
Competing Interest Statement
This study was funded in part, and drug supplied, by Pfizer, Inc. The study also was supported by the Penn State College of Medicine Translational Brain Research Center. All analyses, interpretations, and conclusions are those of the authors and not the research sponsors. Drs. Huang (PI) and Mailman declared a potential conflict of interest (COI) due to existing patents related due to the discovery or use of D1 agonists, although this technology is not in, or has planned, commercial development. Drs. Huang and Mailman have had past travel expenses paid by Cerevel Therapeutics, but have no consulting relationship and received no research funds from Cerevel. Drs. Huang and Mailman did not participate in consenting subjects, were not involved with the Data Safety Board (DSB, composed of three investigators and three clinicians), and did not participate in data analysis until the data were locked. Dr. Huang worked closely with Drs. De Jesus (a movement disorder specialist) and Van Scoy (a pulmonary and critical care physician) to provide the best care for participants throughout the study. Drs. Huang or De Jesus provided blinded ratings for the clinician global impression of change based on their clinical availability.
Clinical Trial
NCT03665454
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a grant from Pfizer Central Research who also supplied test drug and placebo. This work also was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Parkinson’s Disease Biomarker Program (NS060722, NS082151 to XH), and the Penn State National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Health, through the grant UL1 TR002014. The study also was supported by the Penn State College of Medicine Translational Brain Research Center. The authors also thank the Quantitative Mixed Methods Center of the Penn State College of Medicine for their assistance with the mixed methods analysis. All analyses, interpretations, and conclusions are those of the authors and not the research sponsors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and approved by the Penn State Health Institutional Review Board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
De-identified data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author (XH). The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. All requests must be in writing and will be evaluated in a timely manner by the TBRC executive team.