Dataset Information

Dose Optimization of Apomorphine Sublingual Film for OFF Episodes in Parkinson's Disease: Is the Prophylactic Use of an Antiemetic Necessary?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nausea is common upon initiating dopamine agonists in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD); however, pretreatment with an antiemetic is recommended only when initiating apomorphine formulations.

Objective

Evaluate the need for prophylactic antiemetic use during dose optimization of apomorphine sublingual film (SL-APO).

Methods

A post hoc analysis of a Phase III study evaluated nausea and vomiting treatment-emergent adverse events in patients with PD who underwent SL-APO dose optimization (10-35 mg; 5-mg increments) to achieve a tolerable FULL ON. Frequencies of nausea and vomiting were described for patients who did versus did not use an antiemetic during dose optimization and by patient subgroups based on extrinsic and intrinsic factors.

Results

Overall, 43.7% (196/449) of patients did not use an antiemetic during dose optimization; most of these patients (86.2% [169/196]) achieved an effective and tolerable SL-APO dose. In patients who did not use an antiemetic, nausea (12.2% [24/196]) and vomiting (0.5% [1/196]) were uncommon. An antiemetic was used in 56.3% (253/449) of patients, with 17.0% (43/253) and 2.4% (6/253) experiencing nausea and vomiting, respectively. All events of nausea (14.9% [67/449]) and vomiting (1.6% [7/449]) were of mild-to-moderate severity except for 1 event each. Irrespective of antiemetic use, among patients without baseline dopamine agonist use, nausea and vomiting rates were 25.2% (40/159) and 3.8% (6/159); in those already using dopamine agonists, rates were 9.3% (27/290) and 0.3% (1/290).

Conclusion

Prophylactic treatment with an antiemetic is not necessary for most patients who initiate SL-APO for the treatment of OFF episodes in PD.

SUBMITTER: Hauser RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10200146 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dose Optimization of Apomorphine Sublingual Film for OFF Episodes in Parkinson's Disease: Is the Prophylactic Use of an Antiemetic Necessary?

Hauser Robert A RA Ondo William G WG Zhang Yi Y Bowling Alyssa A Navia Bradford B Pappert Eric E Isaacson Stuart H SH

Journal of Parkinson's disease 20230101 3

<h4>Background</h4>Nausea is common upon initiating dopamine agonists in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD); however, pretreatment with an antiemetic is recommended only when initiating apomorphine formulations.<h4>Objective</h4>Evaluate the need for prophylactic antiemetic use during dose optimization of apomorphine sublingual film (SL-APO).<h4>Methods</h4>A post hoc analysis of a Phase III study evaluated nausea and vomiting treatment-emergent adverse events in patients with PD who underwe ...[more]

PMID: 36970914

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundApomorphine 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.ObjectiveTo compare SL-APO with SC-APO for treatment of OFF episodes in PD.MethodsAn 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.ResultsPropensity 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.ConclusionsWe 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.ResultsNo 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.ConclusionsPatients reported overall preference for and greater satisfaction with SL-APO over SC-APO.

Project description:Background: "On-demand" treatments approved in the United States (US) for "OFF" episodes in Parkinson's disease (PD) include apomorphine hydrochloride injection (SC-APO), apomorphine sublingual film (APL), and levodopa inhalation powder (CVT-301). APL received US approval in 2020, and its cost-effectiveness has not been compared with SC-APO and CVT-301. Objective: To develop a cost-effectiveness analysis model comparing APL versus SC-APO and CVT-301 for treatment of patients with PD experiencing "OFF" episodes from a US payer perspective. Methods: The model estimated total costs and effectiveness for each comparator arm, informed from the treatments' pivotal studies or literature, over a 10-year horizon. Total and incremental patient costs (in 2020 US dollars), total time spent without "OFF" episode symptoms, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained were summarized and compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for APL versus SC-APO and CVT-301 were estimated and expressed as incremental patient costs per patient QALY gained and incremental cost per "OFF" hour avoided. Scenario analyses varying inputs and including caregiver costs were also conducted. Results: In the base case, APL had the lowest total "on-demand" treatment costs ($42,095) compared with SC-APO ($276,320; difference: -$234,225) and CVT-301 ($69,577; difference: -$27,482) over the 10-year horizon. APL was also associated with the highest utility, with incremental QALYs of 0.019 versus SC-APO and 0.235 versus CVT-301. APL was dominant over CVT-301 in terms of incremental cost per "OFF" hour, and dominant over both CVT-301 and SC-APO in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained. In all scenario analyses, APL was dominant against both SC-APO and CVT-301, confirming the robustness of the base-case results. Discussion: APL was dominant compared with both comparator arms, being less costly and more effective on average than SC-APO and CVT-301 in terms of QALYs. For SC-APO, cost-effectiveness of APL was driven by lower "on-demand" treatment costs and adverse event-related disutilities. For CVT-301, cost-effectiveness of APL was driven by lower "on-demand" treatment costs and substantially higher efficacy. Conclusions: From a US payer perspective, APL represents a cost-effective option compared with SC-APO and CVT-301 for treatment of "OFF" episodes in patients with PD.

Project description:Apomorphine is an on-demand treatment of "OFF" episodes in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). A joint parent-metabolite population pharmacokinetic (PK) model characterized apomorphine and apomorphine-sulfate following administration of apomorphine sublingual film (APL) and two formulations of subcutaneous apomorphine. Overall, 2485 samples from 87 healthy subjects and 71 patients with PD and "OFF" episodes were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Apomorphine PK was adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order transit absorption via both routes of administration and first-order metabolism to apomorphine-sulfate with one-compartment disposition and first-order elimination. Bioavailability of apomorphine sublingual film was ~ 18% relative to subcutaneous apomorphine. Among covariates tested, only body weight had a large effect on apomorphine exposure (maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve [AUC0-∞ ]), with greater weight resulting in lower exposure. Model-predicted apomorphine exposure was similar between apomorphine sublingual film 30 mg and subcutaneous apomorphine 5 mg (median AUC0-24 , 66.7 ng•h/mL, geometric mean ratio of 0.99; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.03) and was comparable between apomorphine sublingual film 35 mg and subcutaneous apomorphine 6 mg (median AUC0-24 , 75.4 and 80.0 ng•h/mL, respectively; geometric mean ratio of 0.94; 90% CI, 0.90-0.97) administered every 2 h for a maximum of 5 doses per day. In a typical patient with PD, predicted apomorphine exposure increased with increasing doses of apomorphine sublingual film; however, the increase was less than dose proportional. Similar apomorphine exposure was predicted in patients with mild renal impairment versus normal renal function. PK properties of apomorphine sublingual film support its administration for a wide range of patients with PD and "OFF" episodes, regardless of demographic and clinical characteristics.

Dataset Information

Dose Optimization of Apomorphine Sublingual Film for OFF Episodes in Parkinson's Disease: Is the Prophylactic Use of an Antiemetic Necessary?

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Dose Optimization of Apomorphine Sublingual Film for OFF Episodes in Parkinson's Disease: Is the Prophylactic Use of an Antiemetic Necessary?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets