Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine in advanced Parkinson's disease patients treated with deep brain stimulation

Invasive therapies for Parkinson's disease: an adapted excerpt from the guidelines of the German Society of Neurology

BACKGROUND

Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by hypokinetic motor symptoms, tremor, and various non-motor symptoms with frequent fluctuations of symptoms in advanced disease stages. Invasive therapies, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), ablative therapies, and continuous subcutaneous or intrajejunal delivery of dopaminergic drugs via pump therapies are available for the management of this complex motor symptomatology and may also impact non-motor symptoms. The recent update of the clinical guideline on PD by the German Neurological Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie e.V.; DGN) offers clear guidance on the indications and applications of these treatment options.

METHODS

The guideline committee formulated diagnostic questions for invasive therapies and structured them according to the PICOS framework (Population-Intervention-Comparisons-Outcome-Studies). A systematic literature review was conducted. Questions were addressed using the findings from the literature review and consented by the guideline committee.

RESULTS

Specific recommendations are given regarding (i) the optimal timing for starting invasive therapies, (ii) the application of DBS, (iii) the use of pump therapies in advanced PD, (iv) the indications for ablative procedures, and (iv) selecting the most appropriate therapy according to individual patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

This review is an adapted excerpt of the chapters on the use of invasive therapies in PD of the novel German guideline on PD. Clear recommendations on the use of treatment options for advanced PD are provided.

Advanced therapies in Parkinson's disease: an individualized approach to their indication

Device aided therapies (DAT) comprising the intrajejunal administration of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) and levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone intestinal gel (LECIG), the continuous subcutaneous application of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa or apomorphine infusion (CSAI) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are used to treat Parkinson's disease with insufficient symptom alleviation under intensified pharmacotherapy. These DAT significantly differ in their efficacy profiles, indication, invasiveness, contraindications, and potential side effects. Usually, the evaluation of all these procedures is conducted simultaneously at the same point in time. However, as disease progression and symptom burden is extremely heterogeneous, clinical experience shows that patients reach the individual milestones for a certain therapy at different points in their disease course. Therefore, advocating for an individualized therapy evaluation for each DAT, requiring an ongoing evaluation. This necessitates that, during each consultation, the current symptomatology should be analyzed, and the potential suitability for a DAT be assessed. This work represents a critical interdisciplinary appraisal of these therapies in terms of their individual profiles and compares these DAT regarding contraindications, periprocedural considerations as well as their efficacy regarding motor- and non-motor deficits, supporting a personalized approach.

Nationwide Retrospective Analysis of Combinations of Advanced Therapies in Patients With Parkinson Disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Advanced therapies (ATs; deep brain stimulation [DBS] or pump therapies: continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion [CSAI], levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel [LCIG]) are used in later stages of Parkinson disease (PD). However, decreasing efficacy over time and/or side effects may require an AT change or combination in individual patients. Current knowledge about changing or combining ATs is limited to mostly retrospective and small-scale studies. The nationwide case collection Combinations of Advanced Therapies in PD assessed simultaneous or sequential AT combinations in Germany since 2005 to analyze their clinical outcome, their side effects, and the reasons for AT modifications.

METHODS

Data were acquired retrospectively by modular questionnaires in 22 PD centers throughout Germany based on clinical records and comprised general information about the centers/patients, clinical (Mini-Mental Status Test/Montréal Cognitive Assessment, Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS], side effects, reasons for AT modification), and therapeutical (ATs with specifications, oral medication) data. Data assessment started with initiation of the second AT.

RESULTS

A total of 148 AT modifications in 116 patients were associated with significantly improved objective (median decrease of MDS-UPDRS Part III 4.0 points [p < 0.001], of MDS-UPDRS Part IV 6.0 points [p < 0.001], of MDS-UPDRS Part IV-off-time item 1.0 points [p < 0.001]) and subjective clinical outcome and decreasing side effect rates. Main reasons for an AT modification were insufficient symptom control and side effects of the previous therapy. Subgroup analyses suggest addition of DBS in AT patients with leading dyskinesia, addition of LCIG for leading other cardinal motor symptoms, and addition of LCIG or CSAI for dominant off-time. The most long-lasting therapy-until requiring a modification-was DBS.

DISCUSSION

Changing or combining ATs may be beneficial when 1 AT is insufficient in efficacy or side effects. The outcome of an AT combination is comparable with the clinical benefit by introducing the first AT. The added AT should be chosen dependent on dominant clinical symptoms and adverse effects. Furthermore, prospective trials are needed to confirm the results of this exploratory case collection.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class IV evidence that, in patients with PD, changing or combining ATs is associated with an improvement in the MDS-UPDRS or subjective symptom reporting.

Access to device-aided therapies in advanced Parkinson's disease: navigating clinician biases, patient preference, and prognostic uncertainty

Device-aided therapies (DAT), which include deep brain stimulation and pump-based continuous dopaminergic stimulation with either levodopa or apomorphine, are among the major advances in the clinical management of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although DAT are being increasingly offered earlier in the disease course, their classical indication remains advanced PD. Theoretically, every patient should be offered transition to DAT when faced with refractory motor and nonmotor fluctuations and functional decline. Worldwide clinical reality is far from these ideal, and, therefore, question the "real-world" equal opportunity of access to DAT for PD patients with advanced PD-even within a single health care system. Differences in access to care, referral pattern (timing and frequency), as well as physician biases (unconscious/implicit or conscious/explicit bias), and patients' preferences or health-seeking behaviour are to be considered. Compared to DBS, little information is available concerning infusion therapies, as well as neurologists' and patients' attitudes towards them. This viewpoint aims to be thought-provoking and to assist clinicians in moving through the process of DAT selection, by including in their decision algorithm their own biases, patient perspective, ethical concerns as well as the current unknowns surrounding PD prognosis and DAT-related long-term side effects for a given patient.

Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion Delivery of Apomorphine in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review

Background

Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAI) is one of the advanced therapies for Parkinson's disease (PD).

Methods

A systematic review of all published articles in English on CSAI for PD till January 30, 2022 was conducted.

Results

A total of 82 articles met the search criteria. Publications included retrospective or prospective open-label observational studies, with a limited number of randomized control trials (RCT). Publications were highly heterogeneous and focused on different aspects of CSAI and included clinical audits, effects on cognition/behavior, axial symptoms, nocturnal issues, adverse events/reasons for discontinuation and comparison with other continuous dopaminergic therapies. CSAI was used in patients who presented severe motor fluctuations not resolved by oral therapy, poor candidates for deep brain stimulation (DBS) due to cognitive/behavioral issues or in those with DBS weaning effect. Recent studies have also shown that CSAI was useful for nocturnal usage in advanced PD, in addition to daytime utilization. Adverse effects were common and include skin lesions, sedation and nausea. Pump management difficulties and patient decisions were common reasons for therapy dropout, predominantly during the initial stages of the CSAI.

Conclusion

There is consistent agreement on the benefits of CSAI in reducing OFF periods and improving ON periods without troublesome dyskinesia and specific motor and non-motor symptoms. Although there is a paucity of RCTs, current data from almost 30 years of use suggests CSAI to be beneficial in advanced cases of PD.

Why do 'OFF' periods still occur during continuous drug delivery in Parkinson's disease?

Continuous drug delivery (CDD) is used in moderately advanced and late-stage Parkinson’s disease (PD) to control motor and non-motor fluctuations (‘OFF’ periods). Transdermal rotigotine is indicated for early fluctuations, while subcutaneous apomorphine infusion and levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel are utilised in advanced PD. All three strategies are considered examples of continuous dopaminergic stimulation achieved through CDD. A central premise of the CDD is to achieve stable control of the parkinsonian motor and non-motor states and avoid emergence of ‘OFF’ periods. However, data suggest that despite their efficacy in reducing the number and duration of ‘OFF’ periods, these strategies still do not prevent ‘OFF’ periods in the middle to late stages of PD, thus contradicting the widely held concepts of continuous drug delivery and continuous dopaminergic stimulation. Why these emergent ‘OFF’ periods still occur is unknown. In this review, we analyse the potential reasons for their persistence. The contribution of drug- and device-related involvement, and the problems related to site-specific drug delivery are analysed. We propose that changes in dopaminergic and non-dopaminergic mechanisms in the basal ganglia might render these persistent ‘OFF’ periods unresponsive to dopaminergic therapy delivered via CDD.

Parkinson's Disease Symptoms Associated with Developing On-State Axial Symptoms Early after Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation

Background: The relationship between axial symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and subthalamic deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) is still unclear. Purpose: We searched for particular clinical characteristics before STN-DBS linked to on-state axial problems after surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed baseline motor, emotional and cognitive features from PD patients with early axial symptoms (within 4 years after STN-DBS) and late axial symptoms (after 4 years). We also considered a group of PD patients without axial symptoms for at least 4 years after surgery. Results: At baseline, early-axial PD patients (n = 28) had a higher on-state Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale III (15.0 ± 5.6 to 11.6 ± 6.2, p = 0.020), higher axial score (2.4 ± 1.8 to 0.7 ± 1.0, p < 0.001) and worse dopaminergic response (0.62 ± 0.12 to 0.70 ± 0.11, p = 0.005), than non-axial PD patients (n = 51). Early-axial PD patients had short-term recall impairment, not seen in non-axial PD (36.3 ± 7.6 to 40.3 ± 9.3, p = 0.041). These variables were similar between late-axial PD (n = 18) and non-axial PD, but late-axial PD showed worse frontal dysfunction. Conclusions: PD patients with early axial symptoms after DBS may have a significantly worse presurgical motor phenotype, poorer dopaminergic response and memory impairment. This may correspond to a more severe form of PD.

Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion in the early phase of advanced Parkinson's disease: A prospective study of 22 patients

•

A prospective analysis of APO treatment of 22 PD patients in the initial stages of advanced PD.

•

Motor and non-motor symptoms, cognitive function and quality of life were assessed over 6 months.

•

APO resulted in significant improvements in motor function, but dyskinesia did not worsen.

•

Overall non-motor symptom burden was reduced, and sleep/fatigue and mood improved with APO.

•

APO also improved apathy, quality of life scores and executive functioning (attention, planning)

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients usually start treatment with apomorphine infusion (APO) in later stages of advanced PD (aPD). This timing limits the evaluation of its motor efficacy and other potential clinical benefits throughout the full course of aPD.

Methods

We prospectively analyzed the effect of APO on motor and non-motor symptoms, cognitive function and quality of life (QoL) in 22 PD patients with early stage aPD, defined as: age < 71 years and diagnosis of aPD for < 3 years.

Results

At baseline, mean (±SD) age and disease duration were 59.4 ± 6.1 and 8.7 ± 3.5 years, respectively. After 6 months of APO treatment, daily off-time decreased from 4.98 ± 2.37 to 1.48 ± 1.47 h (p ≤ 0.001) and UPDRS IV scores from 7.00 ± 2.58 to 5.32 ± 2.48 (p = 0.018). Dyskinesia did not worsen with APO despite an overall increase in levodopa equivalent daily dose. Mean NMSS scores improved with APO, from 52.50 ± 27.24 to 38.68 ± 27.17 (p = 0.002), with particular improvements in apathy and sleep quality. Mean PDQ-39 score was reduced with APO from 31.96 ± 11.93 to 19.27 ± 11.86 (p ≤ 0.001). Overall, cognition did not change after APO, while slight improvements were observed in executive functioning (attention and planning). All but one patient eventually underwent subthalamic deep brain stimulation.

Conclusion

In patients with early stage initial aPD, s substantial benefit of APO was observed on motor symptoms, driven by a 70% reduction in off-time versus baseline, superior to that observed in previous prospective studies. APO also improved frontal dysfunction in PD patients.

Continuous Subcutaneous Apomorphine Infusion before Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation: A Prospective, Comparative Study in 20 Patients

Background

Studies comparing the clinical efficacy of apomorphine infusion (APO) with subsequent subthalamic deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) in advanced Parkinson's disease (aPD) are currently lacking. Retrospective data have shown that patients treated with APO are usually older, have a more prolonged disease, and a more severe phenotype.

Objective

To compare the benefit of APO with that of STN-DBS on motor, non-motor, cognitive, and quality of life in the same patient when given sequentially.

Methods

We prospectively analyzed 20 aPD patients over 3 different treatment phases: baseline (optimized medical treatment), during APO treatment, and during subsequent STN-DBS treatment. The APO and STN-DBS phases were stable for 6 months, and evaluation of the different treatments was separated by 6 months.

Results

Compared to baseline, APO, and STN-DBS reduced mean daily off time by 70.5% and 89.3% (P = 0.012), respectively, and scores for Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) IV by 27.5% and 80.5% (P ≤ 0.001), Non-motor symptoms scale (NMSS) by 24.6% and 49.3% (P ≤ 0.001), Montgomery Asberg depression scale (MADRS) by 7.4% and 39.0% (P = 0.27), Starkstein apathy scale (SAS) by 51.1% and 39.9% (P = 0.734), Parkinson's disease sleep scale 2 (PDSS-2) by 25.7% and 56.7% (P ≤ 0.001), and Parkinson's disease questionnaire 39 item (PDQ-39) by 39.6% and 64.9% (P ≤ 0.001). Global cognition did not change with either therapy, but phonetic fluency worsened after STN-DBS compared to APO (P = 0.022).

Conclusions

Both APO and STN-DBS improved motor and non-motor symptoms and quality of life compared to optimized medical treatment in aPD. Overall, STN-DBS was the most effective treatment, but APO showed a pronounced benefit on motor symptoms. Effective treatment for aPD should not be delayed, even when waiting for surgery.

Continuous Subcutaneous Apomorphine Infusion in Advanced Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review

Parkinson's disease (PD), a neurodegenerative disorder, is caused due to the loss of dopaminergic neurons in substantia nigra pars compacta, and it mainly affects the motor function of the diseased individual. The most effective treatment for PD to date is levodopa, the precursor molecule for dopamine which ultimately helps overcome the loss of dopamine in the brain. However, long-term levodopa therapy significantly impairs patients' quality of life by causing various disabling motor and non-motor complications. We conducted this study intending to review the available literature that has compared the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAI) with other available treatment options like deep brain stimulation, intestinal levodopa gel, and oral dopaminergic agents. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases using the appropriate search strategy. The studies which compared the safety and efficacy of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion to other available treatment options in advanced Parkinson's disease were included in our study. The bias assessment of the studies was done using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials, Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized interventional studies, and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools (JBI) for cohort studies. We included eight articles in our systematic review including a randomized controlled trial. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias. We found that in patients with advanced Parkinson's, CSAI demonstrated definite improvement in off-time duration. CSAI has also been shown to improve various non-motor functions, including neuropsychiatric problems in these patients. CSAI has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. However, the decision-making is multifactorial. Hence, further studies are required that directly compare the available treatment options with one another and study their overall effects on patients' quality of life.

Personalised Advanced Therapies in Parkinson's Disease: The Role of Non-Motor Symptoms Profile

Device-aided therapies, including levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel infusion, apomorphine subcutaneous infusion, and deep brain stimulation, are available in many countries for the management of the advanced stage of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Currently, selection of device-aided therapies is mainly focused on patients’ motor profile while non-motor symptoms play a role limited to being regarded as possible exclusion criteria in the decision-making process for the delivery and sustenance of a successful treatment. Differential beneficial effects on specific non-motor symptoms of the currently available device-aided therapies for PD are emerging and these could hold relevant clinical implications. In this viewpoint, we suggest that specific non-motor symptoms could be used as an additional anchor to motor symptoms and not merely as exclusion criteria to deliver bespoke and patient-specific personalised therapy for advanced PD.

Combining Device-Aided Therapies in Parkinson's Disease: A Case Series and a Literature Review

Background

Deep brain stimulation (DBS), levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) and subcutaneous apomorphine infusion are device-aided therapies (DATs) for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). We present a case series from the Cretan PD Registry who required 2 DATs for optimal management along with a systematic review of similar studies.

Cases

From 2009 to 2020, we retrospectively studied all PD patients who were simultaneously treated with 2 DATs. Six patients on DBS required an infusion treatment for persisting or re-emergent fluctuations because of disease progression. Two patients on LCIG infusion received DBS as a levodopa-sparing strategy because of drug-induced complications. Fluctuations and quality of life improved in all patients.

Literature review

We identified 4 case series, 1 prospective and 1 retrospective study that included a total of 50 DBS-treated patients who required an infusion therapy. Improvement in motor outcomes, assessed in different ways, was a constant finding.

Conclusions

Selected PD patients on 1 DAT may experience additional benefit from a second DAT, for several reasons along the course of their disease. Although infusion therapies optimize dopaminergic drug delivery in fluctuating DBS-treated patients, DBS added on LCIG treatment has an additive symptomatic effect that allows levodopa dose reduction in patients with drug-induced side effects.

An update on the use of non-ergot dopamine agonists for the treatment of Parkinson's disease

INTRODUCTION

Long-term treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) with levodopa is hampered by motor complications related to the inability of residual nigrostriatal neurons to convert levodopa to dopamine (DA) and use it appropriately. This generated a tendency to postpone levodopa, favoring the initial use of DA agonists, which directly stimulate striatal dopaminergic receptors. Use of DA agonists, however, is associated with multiple side effects and their efficacy is limited by suboptimal bioavailability.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviewed the latest preclinical and clinical findings on the efficacy and adverse effects of non-ergot DA agonists, discussing the present and future of this class of compounds in PD therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

The latest findings confirm the effectiveness of DA agonists as initial treatment or adjunctive therapy to levodopa in advanced PD, but a more conservative approach to their use is emerging, due to the complexity and repercussions of their side effects. As various factors may increase the individual risk to side effects, assessing such risk and calibrating the use of DA agonists accordingly may become extremely important in the clinical management of PD, as well as the availability of new DA agonists with better profiles of safety and efficacy.

The Choice Between Advanced Therapies for Parkinson's Disease Patients: Why, What, and When?

When oral dopaminergic medication falls short in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, patients are left with motor response fluctuations and dyskinesias that may have a large impact on functioning in daily life. They may benefit from one of the currently available advanced treatments, namely deep brain stimulation, continuous levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel, and continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion. The indication, choice between the separate advanced treatments and the timing can be challenging and will be discussed against the background of the progressive nature of the disease, the heterogeneity of disease manifestation and variable patient characteristics.

Apomorphine for Parkinson's Disease: Efficacy and Safety of Current and New Formulations

Satisfactory management of Parkinson's disease is a challenge that requires a tailored approach for each individual. In the advanced phase of the disease, patients may experience motor complications despite optimized pharmacological therapy. Apomorphine, a short-acting D1- and D2-like receptor agonist, is the only drug proven to have an efficacy equal to that of levodopa, albeit with a shorter time to onset and effect duration. Clinical trials have shown that intermittent apomorphine injections provide rapid and effective relief from unpredictable "off" periods. Continuous apomorphine infusion reduced around 50% of the daily "off" time in several studies. Dopaminergic side effects such as nausea, somnolence and hypotonia, as well as administration site reactions, are often mild or treatable, but somnolence and skin reactions in particular can sometimes be reasons for premature discontinuation. We provide an overview of the pharmacological mechanism of action of the drug in light of its effects on Parkinson's disease symptoms. We then summarize the evidence regarding the efficacy and tolerability of apomorphine, both in its established formulations (subcutaneous intermittent injection and continuous infusion) and in the new preparations currently under investigation.