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).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stocchi et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: