MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Open-label titration of apomorphine sublingual film in patients with Parkinson's disease and “OFF” episodes

2020· article· en· W3081868686 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Hui, Susan H. Fox, William Neeson, Parul Bhargava, Eric J. Pappert, David Blum, Bradford Navia

Bibliographic record

VenueParkinsonism & Related Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersSunovion
KeywordsApomorphineParkinson's diseaseMedicineDiseasePsychologyInternal medicineDopamineDopaminergic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of apomorphine sublingual film (APL-130277; APL) for the on-demand treatment of "OFF" episodes associated with Parkinson's disease (PD) was demonstrated in a double-blind trial. Herein we describe the ability of patients to receive effective and tolerable APL dose titration during the open-label titration phase. METHODS: Adult patients with levodopa-responsive PD and "OFF" episodes were enrolled. In practically defined "OFF," patients were observed for a FULL "ON" after their usual morning carbidopa/levodopa (CD/LD) dose and then after titration with APL following each increasing dose (10-35 mg). Antiemetic medication was administered for 3 days before initiation of titration and was continued throughout titration. Motor responses were evaluated predose and postdose using Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III score. Safety outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 141 patients who enrolled in the study and received APL during open-label titration, 109 (77.3%) achieved a FULL "ON" (66.1% at 10-20 mg) and 10 did not. Patients who successfully completed APL dose titration tended to be younger, had a longer mean time since PD diagnosis, and had lower levodopa requirements than those who discontinued during titration for any reason. Change in MDS-UPDRS Part III scores from predose to 30 min postdose after titration with the effective dose of APL (n = 109) was similar across all dose groups. In a post hoc analysis, the magnitude of motor response with APL was ~2-fold higher than with CD/LD 15 min postdose, and the observed peak response occurred earlier with APL than with the trend seen for CD/LD (45 vs 90 min, respectively). Overall, the most common (≥10%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during APL dose titration were nausea (20.6%), yawning (12.1%), dizziness (11.3%), and somnolence (11.3%). Twelve patients discontinued due to TEAEs during APL dose titration, most commonly (≥2%) because of dizziness (2.8%), nausea (2.1%), and somnolence (2.1%). CONCLUSION: Among eligible patients with PD and "OFF" episodes who had their APL dose successfully titrated to an effective and tolerable level, most were able to do so within the first 3 titrated doses but some required further dose escalations. The use of APL can provide benefit for the treatment of "OFF" episodes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParkinsonism & Related DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207