Long-term safety and efficacy of open-label nabilone on sleep and pain in Parkinson´s Disease

Résumé fourni par la source

The synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol-analog nabilone improved non-motor symptoms (NMS) in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized withdrawal trial with enriched enrollment (NMS-Nab-study). This was a single-center open-label extension study to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of nabilone for NMS in PD. To be eligible for this study, patients had to be treatment responders during the previous NMS-Nab-trial and complete its double-blind phase without experiencing a drug-related serious/severe/moderate adverse event (AE). Patients were re-introduced to nabilone during an up-titration phase until their overall NMS burden improved. Nabilone was continued for six months with clinic visits every 3 months. Evaluation of AEs was based on self-report and clinical assessment. Twenty-two patients participated in the NMS-Nab2-study (age-median 68.33 y, 52% females, disease duration-median 7.42 y). Nabilone was well tolerated with concentration difficulties as the most common treatment-related AE (possibly/not related n = 1 each). One in two drop-outs discontinued because of an AE for which a prohibited concomitant medication needed to be introduced (night-time sleep problems). Efficacy evaluation showed a significant and lasting improvement in NMS burden according to the CGI-I (79% at V3). Nabilone improved overall sleep (NMSS Domain-2: -8.26 points; 95%CI -13.82 to -2.71; p = 0.004; ES = -0.72), night-time sleep problems (MDS-UPDRS-1.7: -1.42 points; 95 CI -2.16 to -0.68; p = 0.002; ES = -0.92), and overall pain (KPPS Total Score: -8.00 points; 95%CI -15.05 to -0.95; p = 0.046; ES -0.55 and MDS-UPDRS-1.9: -0.74 points; 95%CI -1.21 to -0.26; p = 0.008; ES = -0.74). This study demonstrates continuous long-term safety and efficacy in PD patients responding early to nabilone without intolerable side effects.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.