Randomized trial of preladenant, given as monotherapy, in patients with early Parkinson disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adenosine 2a receptor antagonist preladenant as a nondopaminergic drug for the treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) when given as monotherapy. METHODS: This was a randomized, 26-week, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, double-blind trial conducted in adults diagnosed with PD for <5 years who were not yet receiving l-dopa or dopamine agonists. Patients with a Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part 3 (motor function) score ≥10 and Hoehn & Yahr score ≤3 were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to preladenant 2, 5, or 10 mg twice daily, rasagiline 1 mg (active-control) once daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline at week 26 in the sum of UPDRS parts 2 (activities of daily living) and 3 scores (UPDRS2+3). RESULTS: The number of patients treated was 1,007. Neither preladenant nor rasagiline was superior to placebo after 26 weeks. The differences vs placebo (95% confidence interval) in UPDRS2+3 scores (with a negative difference indicating improvement vs placebo) were preladenant 2 mg = 2.60 (0.86, 4.30), preladenant 5 mg = 1.30 (-0.41, 2.94), preladenant 10 mg = 0.40 (-1.29, 2.11), and rasagiline 1 mg = 0.30 (-1.35, 2.03). Post hoc analyses did not identify a single causal factor that could explain the finding of a failed trial. Preladenant was generally well-tolerated with few patients discontinuing due to adverse events (preladenant 7%, rasagiline 3%, placebo 4%). CONCLUSIONS: No evidence supporting the efficacy of preladenant as monotherapy was observed in this phase 3 trial. The lack of efficacy of the active control rasagiline makes it difficult to interpret the results. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01155479. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with early PD, preladenant is not effective as monotherapy at the doses studied (2, 5, 10 mg).

Preladenant as an Adjunctive Therapy With Levodopa in Parkinson Disease: Two Randomized Clinical Trials and Lessons Learned.

IMPORTANCE: Preladenant is an adenosine 2A receptor antagonist that reduced "off" time in a placebo-controlled phase 2b trial in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). We sought to confirm its efficacy in phase 3 trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preladenant as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with PD and motor fluctuations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two 12-week, phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials performed from July 15, 2010, to April 16, 2013. The setting included neurology clinics, clinical research centers, and hospitals in the Americas, the European Union, Eastern Europe, India, and South Africa. Participants included patients with moderate to severe PD taking levodopa who were experiencing motor fluctuations. INTERVENTIONS: In trial 1, a total of 778 eligible patients were randomized to the addition of preladenant (2 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg twice daily), placebo, or rasagiline mesylate (1 mg/d) in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio. In trial 2, a total of 476 eligible patients were randomized to the addition of preladenant (2 mg or 5 mg twice daily) or placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was change in off time from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: In trial 1, neither preladenant nor rasagiline was superior to placebo in reducing off time from baseline to week 12. The differences vs placebo were -0.10 hour (95% CI, -0.69 to 0.46 hour) for preladenant 2 mg twice daily, -0.20 hour (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.41 hour) for preladenant 5 mg twice daily, -0.00 hour (95% CI, -0.62 to 0.53 hour) for preladenant 10 mg twice daily, and -0.30 hour (95% CI, -0.90 to 0.26 hour) for rasagiline mesylate 1 mg/d. In trial 2, preladenant was not superior to placebo in reducing off time from baseline to week 12. The differences vs placebo were -0.20 hour (95% CI, -0.72 to 0.35 hour) for preladenant 2 mg twice daily and -0.30 hour (95% CI, -0.86 to 0.21 hour) for preladenant 5 mg twice daily. Preladenant was well tolerated, with the most common adverse event that showed an increase over placebo in both trials being constipation (6%-8% for preladenant vs 1%-3% for placebo). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In these phase 3 trials, preladenant did not significantly reduce off time compared with placebo. That the active control rasagiline also failed to demonstrate a significant reduction in off time suggests that issues of study design or conduct may have affected these trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01155466 and NCT01227265.

Long-term (48-week) safety of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with simvastatin compared to simvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministration therapy compared to simvastatin monotherapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After completing a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial, 10-armed study comparing ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg; or placebo, 768 patients entered a 48-week extension, with randomized, blinded, reassignment of the simvastatin 10 mg, ezetimibe, and placebo groups to one of the ezetimibe/simvastatin groups. Patients previously receiving ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapy, or simvastatin 20, 40, and 80 mg monotherapy continued the same therapies in this 7-arm extension study. During the extension study, investigators assessed adverse events (AEs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Ezetimibe/simvastatin (n = 539) and simvastatin monotherapy (n = 229) groups generally had a similar incidence of all clinical AEs (73 vs. 69%), treatment-related AEs (14 vs. 11%), clinical serious AEs (SAE) (5.2 vs. 2.6%), treatment-related SAEs (0.2 vs. 0%), discontinuations due to all clinical AEs (4.5 vs. 2.6%) and discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (2.8 vs. 2.2%), respectively. The incidence of total laboratory-related AEs for the ezetimibe/simvastatin and simvastatin monotherapy groups was also similar (12.2 vs. 11.9%), as was treatment-related laboratory AEs (6.2 vs. 5.3%), laboratory SAEs (0 vs. 0%), treatment-related laboratory SAEs (0 vs. 0%), discontinuations due to laboratory AEs (3.0 vs. 0.9%) and discontinuations due to treatment-related laboratory AEs (3.0 vs. 0.4%), respectively. There were no cases of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, or serious hepatotoxicity observed in any group during this extension study. CONCLUSIONS: During this 48-week extension study, the coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin was generally as well tolerated as simvastatin monotherapy. The direct application of study observations to clinical practice is limited by patient selection criteria and dosage regime, which randomly applied relatively high doses rather than titration which often occurs in clinical practice.

Effects of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin on C-reactive protein in a large cohort of hypercholesterolemic patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effect of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin on high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in a large subject cohort (N=1089). METHODS: Data were combined from two nearly identical prospective trials. After dietary stabilization, washout period, and placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =3.75-6.50 mmol/l and triglycerides (TG) < or =4.0 mmol/l were randomized to one of the following daily treatments for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin monotherapy (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); ezetimibe 10mg plus simvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); or placebo. The primary analysis was the percent change in hs-CRP for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy cohorts. RESULTS: Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin more than doubled the hs-CRP reduction compared to simvastatin monotherapy (-33.3% versus -14.3%, p<0.01). At each individual simvastatin dose level, coadministration therapy exerted significant further incremental hs-CRP reductions compared to simvastatin monotherapy. Similar hs-CRP reductions with coadministered ezetimibe and simvastatin were observed in the major subgroups examined (coronary heart disease, gender, age, baseline LDL-C, and body mass index). CONCLUSION: In this large subject cohort, ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin significantly reduced hs-CRP, suggesting a possible additional anti-inflammatory/anti-atherosclerotic action of combination therapy compared to simvastatin monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of 10 mg of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin with the safety and efficacy of simvastatin monotherapy for patients with hypercholesterolemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial study enrolled 887 patients with hypercholesterolemia (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], 145-250 mg/dL; triglycerides, < or = 350 mg/dL). Patients were randomized to 1 of 10 treatments--placebo, ezetimibe at 10 mg/d, simvastatin at 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d, or simvastatin at 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d plus ezetimibe at 10 mg/d for 12 weeks. The study began March 13, 2001, and ended January 8, 2002. The primary efficacy end point was the mean percent change in LDL-C levels from baseline to study end point (last available postbaseline LDL-C measurement) for the pooled ezetimibe/simvastatin group vs the pooled simvastatin monotherapy group. RESULTS: Coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin was significantly (P<.001) more effective than simvastatin alone in reducing LDL-C levels for the pooled ezetimibe/simvastatin vs pooled simvastatin analysis and at each specific dose comparison. The decrease in LDL-C levels with coadministration of ezetimibe and the lowest dose of simvastatin, 10 mg, was similar to the decrease with the maximum dose of simvastatin, 80 mg. A significantly (P<.001) greater proportion of patients in the ezetimibe/simvastatin group achieved target LDL-C levels compared with those in the monotherapy group. Treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin also led to greater reductions in total cholesterol, triglyceride, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels compared with simvastatin alone; both treatments increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels similarly. The safety and tolerability profiles for the ezetimibe/simvastatin and monotherapy groups were similar. CONCLUSION: Through dual inhibition of cholesterol absorption and synthesis, coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin offers a highly efficacious and well-tolerated lipid-lowering strategy for treating patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.