The most severe parkinsonian patients are most improved with duodenal levodopa infusion

Objectives:To find variables correlated to improvement with intraduodenal levodopa/carbidopa infusion (Duodopa) in order to identify potential candidates for this treatment. Two clinical studies comparing Duodopa with oral treatments in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease have shown significant improvement in percent on-time on a global treatment response scale (TRS) based on hourly and half-hourly clinical ratings and in median UPDRS scores.Methods:Data from study 1 comparing infusion with Sinemet CR (12 patients, Nyholm et al, Clin Neuropharmacol 2003; 26(3): 156-163) and study 2 comparing infusion with individually optimised conventional combination therapies (18 patients, Nyholm et al, Neurology, in press) were used. Measures of severity were defined as total UPDRS score and scores for sections II and III, percent functional on-time and mean squared error of ratings on the TRS and as mean of diary questions about mobility and satisfaction (only study 2). Absolute improvement was defined as difference in severity, and relative improvement was defined as percent absolute improvement/severity on oral treatment. Pearson correlation coefficients between measures of improvement and other variables were calculated.Results:Correlations (r2>0.28, p<0.05) between severity during oral treatment and absolute improvement on infusion were found for: Total UPDRS, UPDRS III and TRS ratings (studies 1 and 2) and for diary question 1 (mobility) and UPDRS II (study 2). Correlation to relative improvement was found for total UPDRS (study 2, r2=0.47). Figure 1 illustrates absolute improvement in total UPDRS vs. total UPDRS during oral treatment (study 2).Conclusion:Correlating different measures of severity and improvement revealed that patients with more severe symptoms were most improved and that the relation between severity and improvement was linear within the studied groups. The result, which was reproducible between two clinical studies, could be useful when deciding candidates for the treatment.

Pedal : identification of models for duodenal administration of levodopa

Backgound and aims: The main purpose of the PEDAL study is to identify and estimate sample individual pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models for duodenal infusion of levodopa/carbidopa (Duodopa®) that can be used for in numero simulation of treatment strategies. Other objectives are to study the absorption of Duodopa® and to form a basis for power calculation for a future larger study. PK/PD based on oral levodopa is problematic because of irregular gastric emptying. Preliminary work with data from [Gundert-Remy U et al. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1983;25:69-72] suggested that levodopa infusion pharmacokinetics can be described by a two-compartment model. Background research led to a hypothesis for an effect model incorporating concentration-unrelated fluctuations, more complex than standard E-max models. Methods: PEDAL involved a few patients already on Duodopa®. A bolus dose (normal morning dose plus 50%) was given after a washout during night. Data collection continued until the clinical effect was back at baseline. The procedure was repeated on two non-consecutive days per patient. The following data were collected in 5 to 15 minutes intervals: i) Accelerometer data. ii) Three e-diary questions about ability to walk, feelings of “off” and “dyskinesia”. iii) Clinical assessment of motor function by a physician. iv) Plasma concentrations of levodopa, carbidopa and the metabolite 3-O-methyldopa. The main effect variable will be the clinical assessment. Results: At date of abstract submission, lab analyses were currently being performed. Modelling results, simulation experiments and conclusions will be presented in our poster.

A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for duodenal levodopa infusion

Objective Levodopa in presence of decarboxylase inhibitors is following two-compartment kinetics and its effect is typically modelled using sigmoid Emax models. Pharmacokinetic modelling of the absorption phase of oral distributions is problematic because of irregular gastric emptying. The purpose of this work was to identify and estimate a population pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic model for duodenal infusion of levodopa/carbidopa (Duodopa®) that can be used for in numero simulation of treatment strategies. Methods The modelling involved pooling data from two studies and fixing some parameters to values found in literature (Chan et al. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2005 Aug;32(3-4):307-31). The first study involved 12 patients on 3 occasions and is described in Nyholm et al. Clinical Neuropharmacology 2003:26:156-63. The second study, PEDAL, involved 3 patients on 2 occasions. A bolus dose (normal morning dose plus 50%) was given after a washout during night. Plasma samples and motor ratings (clinical assessment of motor function from video recordings on a treatment response scale between -3 and 3, where -3 represents severe parkinsonism and 3 represents severe dyskinesia.) were repeatedly collected until the clinical effect was back at baseline. At this point, the usual infusion rate was started and sampling continued for another two hours. Different structural absorption models and effect models were evaluated using the value of the objective function in the NONMEM package. Population mean parameter values, standard error of estimates (SE) and if possible, interindividual/interoccasion variability (IIV/IOV) were estimated. Results Our results indicate that Duodopa absorption can be modelled with an absorption compartment with an added bioavailability fraction and a lag time. The most successful effect model was of sigmoid Emax type with a steep Hill coefficient and an effect compartment delay. Estimated parameter values are presented in the table. Conclusions The absorption and effect models were reasonably successful in fitting observed data and can be used in simulation experiments.

12-month results from a novel test battery used in a duodenal levodopa infusion trial

A novel test battery consisting of self-assessments and motor tests (tapping and spiral drawing) for patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) was developed for a hand computer with touch screen in a telemedicine setting. Tests are performed four times per day in the home environment during weeklong test periods. Results are processed into scores for different dimensions of the symptom state and an ‘overall score’ reflecting the global condition of a patient during a test period. The test battery was validated in a separate study recently submitted to Mov Disord. This test battery is currently being used in an open longitudinal trial (DAPHNE, EudraCT No. 2005- 002654-21) by sixty-five patients with advanced PD at nine clinics around Sweden. On inclusion, the patients were either receiving treatment with duodenal levodopa/carbidopa infusion (Duodopa®) (n=36), or they were candidates for receiving this treatment (n=29). We now present interim results for the first twelve months. Test periods were performed in three-month intervals. During most of the periods, UPDRS ratings were performed in afternoons at the start of the week. In twenty of the patients, scores were available during individually optimized oral polypharamacy, before receiving infusion and at least one test period after having started infusion treatment. Usability and compliance with performing tests, this far are good, both with patients and clinical staff. Correlations between test periods 2 and 3 during infusion treatment (three months apart) are stronger for overall test score than for total UPDRS, indicating good reliability. The correlation between overall test score and UPDRS for all test periods is adequate (r=-0.6). In an exact Wilcoxon signed rank test, where the endpoint is the change from the first to the twelve month test period (n=25), there was no change in test results in any of the test battery dimensions for the patients already receiving infusion when included. However, in the patients entering the study before receiving infusion, there was a significant change (improvement) from the baseline to the twelve month test period in dimensions; ‘off’, ‘dyskinesia’ and ‘satisfied’ and in the ‘overall score’ (n=15). The mean improvement in overall score after infusion was 29% (p=0.015). We conclude that the test battery is able to measure a functional improvement with infusion that is sustained over at least twelve months.

Analysis of response to enteral infusion of levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease

Objective: We present a new evaluation of levodopa plasma concentrations and clinical effects during duodenal infusion of a levodopa/carbidopa gel (Duodopa ) in 12 patients with advanced Parkinson s disease (PD), from a study reported previously (Nyholm et al, Clin Neuropharmacol 2003; 26(3): 156-163). One objective was to investigate in what state of PD we can see the greatest benefits with infusion compared with corresponding oral treatment (Sinemet CR). Another objective was to identify fluctuating response to levodopa and correlate to variables related to disease progression. Methods: We have computed mean absolute error (MAE) and mean squared error (MSE) for the clinical rating from -3 (severe parkinsonism) to +3 (severe dyskinesia) as measures of the clinical state over the treatment periods of the study. Standard deviation (SD) of the rating was used as a measure of response fluctuations. Linear regression and visual inspection of graphs were used to estimate relationships between these measures and variables related to disease progression such as years on levodopa (YLD) or unified PD rating scale part II (UPDRS II).Results: We found that MAE for infusion had a strong linear correlation to YLD (r2=0.80) while the corresponding relation for oral treatment looked more sigmoid, particularly for the more advanced patients (YLD>18).