Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundImpulse control disorders (ICDs) are frequently encountered in Parkinson's disease (PD).ObjectivesWe aimed to assess whether clonidine, an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, would improve ICDs.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre trial in five movement disorder departments. Patients with PD and ICDs (n = 41) were enrolled in an 8-week, randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study of clonidine (75 μg twice a day). Randomisation and allocation to the trial group were carried out by a central computer system. The primary outcome was the change at 8 weeks in symptom severity using the Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease-Rating Scale (QUIP-RS) score. A reduction of the most elevated subscore of the QUIP-RS of more than 3 points without any increase in the other QUIP-RS dimension defined success.ResultsBetween 15 May 2019 and 10 September 2021, 19 patients in the clonidine group and 20 patients in the placebo group were enrolled. The proportion difference of success in reducing QUIP-RS at 8 weeks, was 7% (one-sided upper 90% CI 27%) with 42.1% of success in the clonidine group and 35.0% in the placebo group. Compared to patients in the placebo group, patients in the clonidine group experienced a greater reduction in the total QUIP-RS score at 8 weeks (11.0 points vs. 3.6).DiscussionClonidine was well tolerated but our study was not enough powerful to demonstrate significant superiority compared to placebo in reducing ICDs despite a greater reduction of total QUIP score at 8 weeks. A phase 3 study should be conducted.Trial registrationThe study was registered (NCT03552068) on clinicaltrials.gov on June 11, 2018.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.