Charles Explorer logo
🇨🇿

Prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone for treatment of severe pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PANDA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Publikace na Lékařská fakulta v Hradci Králové |
2015

Tento text není v aktuálním jazyce dostupný. Zobrazuje se verze "en".Abstrakt

Pain is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease. We investigated the analgesic efficacy of prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN PR) in patients with Parkinson's disease and chronic, severe pain.

We did this phase 2 study in 47 secondary care centres in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the UK. We enrolled patients with Hoehn and Yahr Stage II-IV Parkinson's disease, at least one type of severe pain, and an average 24-h pain score of at least 6 (assessed on an 11-point rating scale from 0=no pain to 10=pain as bad as you can imagine).

Participants were randomly assigned (1: 1) with a validated automated system (block size four) to either oral OXN PR or placebo for 16 weeks (starting dose oxycodone 5 mg, naloxone 2.5 mg, twice daily). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment.

The primary endpoint was average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2011-002901-31) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01439100).

We enrolled 202 patients; 93 were assigned to OXN PR and 109 to placebo; the full analysis population consisted of 88 patients versus 106 patients. Least squares mean average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population was 5.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.5) in the OXN PR group versus 5.6 (5.1 to 6.0) in the placebo group (difference -0.6, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.0; p=0.058).

Similar proportions of patients in each group had adverse events (60/92 [65%] vs 76/109 [70%]), treatment-related adverse events (52/92 [57%] vs 62/109 [57%]), and serious adverse events (5/92 [5%] vs 7/109 [6%]). Treatment-related nausea was more common in the OXN PR group than in the placebo group (16/92 [17%] vs 10/109 [9%]), as was treatment-related constipation (16/92 [17%] vs 6/109 [6%]).