SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Randomized Thorough QT Study of Apomorphine Sublingual Film in Patients With Parkinson's Disease.

Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev · 2022-07-28

DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.1147PMID: 35899977

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

A randomized thorough QT study was conducted to assess the effects of apomorphine sublingual film (SL-APO) on corrected QT interval (QTc) and other cardiac conduction parameters in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and "OFF" episodes. Patients were titrated to an SL-APO dose that resulted in FULL "ON," followed by up to two additional doses (maximum 60 mg), then randomized at the highest tolerated dose to a treatment sequence of SL-APO, placebo, and moxifloxacin (400 mg, positive control) in a three-way crossover design. Changes from baseline in time-matched, placebo-adjusted Fridericia-corrected QTc interval (ΔΔQTcF) and Bazett-corrected QTc interval (ΔΔQTcB) were analyzed from postdose electrocardiograms. Forty patients were randomized and received single doses of study treatments. Upper limits of 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for ΔΔQTcF of SL-APO were below the 10-millisecond regulatory threshold at all prespecified timepoints, demonstrating no clinically significant effect on QTcF. Lower limits of 90% CIs for ΔΔQTcF of moxifloxacin exceeded the 5-millisecond regulatory threshold at all timepoints up to 3 hours, confirming assay sensitivity. SL-APO had no clinically meaningful effects on QTcB, PR/QRS intervals, heart rate, or electrocardiogram-derived morphology (EudraCT identifier: 2016-001762-29; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03187301).

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.