Minimal clinically important difference in Parkinson's disease as assessed in pivotal trials of pramipexole extended release.

Background. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is meaningful for patients. Objectives. To calculate the MCID for Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores in early Parkinson's disease (EPD) and for UPDRS scores and "OFF" time in advanced Parkinson's disease (APD). Methods. We analyzed data from two pivotal, double-blind, parallel-group trials of pramipexole ER that included pramipexole immediate release (IR) as an active comparator. We calculated MCID as the mean change in subjects who received active treatment and rated themselves "a little better" on patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) minus the mean change in subjects who received placebo and rated themselves unchanged. Results. MCIDs in EPD (pramipexole ER, pramipexole IR) for UPDRS II were -1.8 and -2.0, for UPDRS III -6.2 and -6.1, and for UPDRS II + III -8.0 and -8.1. MCIDs in APD for UPDRS II were -1.8 and -2.3, for UPDRS III -5.2 and -6.5, and for UPDRS II + III -7.1 and -8.8. MCID for "OFF" time (pramipexole ER, pramipexole IR) was -1.0 and -1.3 hours. Conclusions. A range of MCIDs is emerging in the PD literature that provides the basis for power calculations and interpretation of clinical trials.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of overnight switching from immediate- to once daily extended-release pramipexole in early Parkinson's disease.

The aim of this article is to test the feasibility, in early Parkinson's disease (PD), of an overnight switch from immediate-release (IR) pramipexole to a new once-daily extended-release (ER) formulation. Nonfluctuating patients on pramipexole IR three-times daily, alone or with levodopa, for early PD were randomly switched overnight to double-blind IR three-times daily (N = 52) or ER once-daily (N = 104) at initially unchanged daily dosage. Successful switching (defined as no worsening >15% of baseline UPDRS II+III score and no drug-related adverse event withdrawal) was assessed at 9 weeks, after optional dosage adjustments (primary endpoint), and at 4 weeks, before adjustment. Other secondary endpoints included adjusted mean changes from baseline in UPDRS scores and proportion of responders based on Clinical or Patient Global Impression (CGI/PGI). Absolute difference between percentage of successful switch to ER versus IR was tested for ER noninferiority, defined as a 95% confidence-interval lower bound not exceeding -15%. At 9 weeks, 84.5% of the ER group had been successfully switched, versus 94.2% for IR. Noninferiority was not demonstrated, with a difference of -9.76% (95% CI: [-18.81%, +1.66%]). At 4 weeks, 81.6% of the ER group had been successfully switched, versus 92.3% for IR, a difference of -10.75% (95% CI: [-20.51%, +1.48%]). UPDRS changes and CGI/PGI analyses showed no differences between the groups. Both formulations were safe and well tolerated. Pramipexole ER was not equivalent to IR, but the difference was marginal. The fact that >80% of the patients successfully switched overnight at unchanged dosage shows that this practice was feasible in most patients.

Pramipexole for the treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in patients with Parkinson's disease, but evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants in this population is lacking. Because depression in patients with Parkinson's disease might be related to dopaminergic dysfunction, we aimed to assess the efficacy of the dopamine agonist pramipexole for treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: We did a 12-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled (1:1 ratio) trial of pramipexole (0.125-1.0 mg three times per day) compared with placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease. Patients from 76 centres in 12 European countries and South Africa were included if they were on stable antiparkinsonian therapy without motor fluctuations and had depressive symptoms (15-item geriatric depression scale score > or =5 and unified Parkinson's disease rating scale [UPDRS] part 1 depression item score > or =2). Patients were randomly assigned by centre in blocks of four by use of a randomisation number generating system. Clinical monitors, the principal investigator, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change in Beck depression inventory (BDI) score and all treated patients who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment were included in the primary analysis. We also did a pre-specified path analysis with regression models to assess the relation between BDI and UPDRS part 3 (motor score) changes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297778, and EudraCT, number 2005-003788-22. FINDINGS: Between March, 2006, and February, 2008, we enrolled 323 patients. Of 296 patients randomly assigned to pramipexole or placebo, 287 were included in the primary analysis: 139 in the pramipexole group and 148 in the placebo group. BDI scores decreased by an adjusted mean 5.9 (SE 0.5) points in the pramipexole group and 4.0 (0.5) points in the placebo group (difference 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-3.4; p=0.01, ANCOVA). The UPDRS motor score decreased by an adjusted mean 4.4 (0.6) points in the pramipexole group and 2.2 (0.5) points in the placebo group (difference 2.2, 95% CI 0.7-3.7; p=0.003, ANCOVA). Path analysis showed the direct effect of pramipexole on depressive symptoms accounted for 80% of total treatment effect (p=0.04). Adverse events were reported in 105 of 144 patients in the pramipexole group and 101 of 152 in the placebo group. Adverse events in the pramipexole group were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug. INTERPRETATION: Pramipexole improved depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease, mainly through a direct antidepressant effect. This effect should be considered in the clinical management of patients with Parkinson's disease.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine 60 mg once daily in the treatment of pain in patients with major depressive disorder and at least moderate pain of unknown etiology: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Experience of pain in major depressive disorder (MDD) can complicate diagnosis and impair treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of patients with moderate pain associated with depression. METHOD: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week study, conducted from May 2005 to May 2006, outpatients 18 years of age or older, presenting with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score >or= 20), moderate pain (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] average pain score >or= 3), and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) score >or= 4 were randomly assigned to either placebo (N = 165) or duloxetine 60 mg (N = 162) once daily. Primary outcome was change in item 5 score (average pain in the last 24 hours) of the BPI-SF from baseline. Secondary measures were MADRS total score, other BPI-SF items, CGI-S, CGI-Improvement scale, Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, response and remission rates, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Duloxetine, compared with placebo, significantly reduced pain and improved depression with significant mean changes at endpoint in both BPI-SF average pain scores (-2.57 vs. -1.64, p < .001) and in MADRS total scores (-16.69 vs. -11.31, p < .001). Remission of MDD and response rates in pain and MDD were significantly (p or= 10%) in duloxetine-treated patients were nausea, hyperhidrosis, and dry mouth. CONCLUSION: These results support duloxetine's efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of pain and depression in patients with at least moderate pain associated with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00191919 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).