Caffeine for treatment of Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Epidemiologic studies consistently link caffeine, a nonselective adenosine antagonist, to lower risk of Parkinson disease (PD). However, the symptomatic effects of caffeine in PD have not been adequately evaluated.Methods
We conducted a 6-week randomized controlled trial of caffeine in PD to assess effects upon daytime somnolence, motor severity, and other nonmotor features. Patients with PD with daytime somnolence (Epworth >10) were given caffeine 100 mg twice daily ×3 weeks, then 200 mg twice daily ×3 weeks, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. Secondary outcomes included motor severity, sleep markers, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. Effects of caffeine were analyzed with Bayesian hierarchical models, adjusting for study site, baseline scores, age, and sex.Results
Of 61 patients, 31 were randomized to placebo and 30 to caffeine. On the primary intention-to-treat analysis, caffeine resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (-1.71 points; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.57, 0.13). However, somnolence improved on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (+0.64; 0.16, 1.13, intention-to-treat), with significant reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score on per-protocol analysis (-1.97; -3.87, -0.05). Caffeine reduced the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score (-4.69 points; -7.7, -1.6) and the objective motor component (-3.15 points; -5.50, -0.83). Other than modest improvement in global health measures, there were no changes in quality of life, depression, or sleep quality. Adverse events were comparable in caffeine and placebo groups.Conclusions
Caffeine provided only equivocal borderline improvement in excessive somnolence in PD, but improved objective motor measures. These potential motor benefits suggest that a larger long-term trial of caffeine is warranted.Classification of evidence
This study provides Class I evidence that caffeine, up to 200 mg BID for 6 weeks, had no significant benefit on excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with PD.
SUBMITTER: Postuma RB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3414662 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess effects of caffeine on Parkinson disease (PD).MethodsIn this multicenter parallel-group controlled trial, patients with PD with 1-8 years disease duration, Hoehn & Yahr stages I-III, on stable symptomatic therapy were randomized to caffeine 200 mg BID vs matching placebo capsules for 6-18 months. The primary research question was whether objective motor scores would differ at 6 months (Movement Disorder Society-sponsored Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS]-III, Class I evidence). Secondary outcomes included safety and tolerability, motor symptoms (MDS-UPDRS-II), motor fluctuations, sleep, nonmotor symptoms (MDS-UPDRS-I), cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life.ResultsSixty patients received caffeine and 61 placebo. Caffeine was well-tolerated with similar prevalence of side effects as placebo. There was no improvement in motor parkinsonism (the primary outcome) with caffeine treatment compared to placebo (difference between groups -0.48 [95% confidence interval -3.21 to 2.25] points on MDS-UPDRS-III). Similarly, on secondary outcomes, there was no change in motor signs or motor symptoms (MDS-UPDRS-II) at any time point, and no difference on quality of life. There was a slight improvement in somnolence over the first 6 months, which attenuated over time. There was a slight increase in dyskinesia with caffeine (MDS-UPDRS-4.1+4.2 = 0.25 points higher), and caffeine was associated with worse cognitive testing scores (average Montreal Cognitive Assessment = 0.66 [0.01, 1.32] worse than placebo).ConclusionCaffeine did not provide clinically important improvement of motor manifestations of PD (Class I evidence). Epidemiologic links between caffeine and lower PD risk do not appear to be explained by symptomatic effects.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01738178.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that for patients with PD, caffeine does not significantly improve motor manifestations.
| S-EPMC5664303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the present study, we examined the potential symptomatic and/or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections compared to placebo in moderatly affected Parkinson disease patients. We conducted a prospective, randomized double-blind study in 40 Parkinson disease patients at Hoehn & Yahr stages 1.5 to 3 who were either assigned to monthly bee venom injections or equivalent volumes of saline (treatment/placebo group: n = 20/20). The primary objective of this study was to assess a potential symptomatic effect of s.c. bee venom injections (100 μg) compared to placebo 11 months after initiation of therapy on United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III scores in the « off » condition pre-and post-injection at a 60 minute interval. Secondary objectives included the evolution of UPDRS III scores over the study period and [123I]-FP-CIT scans to evaluate disease progression. Finally, safety was assessed by monitoring specific IgE against bee venom and skin tests when necessary. After an 11 month period of monthly administration, bee venom did not significantly decrease UPDRS III scores in the « off » condition. Also, UPDRS III scores over the study course, and nuclear imaging, did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Four patients were excluded during the trial due to positive skin tests but no systemic allergic reaction was recorded. After an initial increase, specific IgE against bee venom decreased in all patients completing the trial. This study did not evidence any clear symptomatic or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections over an 11 month period compared to placebo using a standard bee venom allergy desensitization protocol in Parkinson disease patients. However, bee venom administration appeared safe in non-allergic subjects. Thus, we suggest that higher administration frequency and possibly higher individual doses of bee venom may reveal its potency in treating Parkinson disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01341431.
| S-EPMC4942057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.MethodsIn a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.ResultsA total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsProviding remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02038959.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type.
| S-EPMC5595275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the efficacy of an integrative cognitive training program (REHACOP) to improve cognition, clinical symptoms, and functional disability of patients with Parkinson disease (PD).MethodsForty-two patients diagnosed with PD in Hoehn & Yahr stages 1 to 3 were randomly assigned to either the cognitive training group (REHACOP) or the control group (occupational activities) for 3 months (3 sessions, 60 min/wk). Primary outcomes were change on processing speed, verbal memory, visual memory, executive functioning, and theory of mind. Secondary outcomes included changes on neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, apathy, and functional disability. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02118480).ResultsNo baseline group differences were found. Bootstrapped analysis of variance results showed significant differences in the mean change scores between the REHACOP group and control group in processing speed (0.13 [SE = 0.07] vs -0.15 [SE = 0.09], p = 0.025), visual memory (0.10 [SE = 0.10] vs -0.24 [SE = 0.09], p = 0.011), theory of mind (1.00 [SE = 0.37] vs -0.27 [SE = 0.29], p = 0.013), and functional disability (-5.15 [SE = 1.35] vs 0.53 [SE = 1.49], p = 0.012).ConclusionsPatients with PD receiving cognitive training with REHACOP demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful changes in processing speed, visual memory, theory of mind, and functional disability. Future studies should consider the long-term effect of this type of intervention. These findings support the integration of cognitive training into the standard of care for patients with PD.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with PD, an integrative cognitive training program improves processing speed, visual memory, theory of mind, and functional disability.
| S-EPMC4276404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe burden of neurological disorders is increasing, but access to care is limited. Providing specialty care to patients via telemedicine could help alleviate this growing problem.ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and economic benefits of using web-based videoconferencing (telemedicine) to provide specialty care to patients with Parkinson disease in their homes.DesignA 7-month, 2-center, randomized controlled clinical trial.SettingPatients' homes and outpatient clinics at 2 academic medical centers.ParticipantsTwenty patients with Parkinson disease with Internet access at home.InterventionCare from a specialist delivered remotely at home or in person in the clinic.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome variable was feasibility, as measured by the percentage of telemedicine visits completed as scheduled. Secondary outcome measures included clinical benefit, as measured by the 39-item Parkinson Disease Questionnaire, and economic value, as measured by time and travel.ResultsTwenty participants enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to telemedicine (n = 9) or in-person care (n = 11). Of the 27 scheduled telemedicine visits, 25 (93%) were completed, and of the 33 scheduled in-person visits, 30 (91%) were completed (P = .99). In this small study, the change in quality of life did not differ for those randomly assigned to telemedicine compared with those randomly assigned to in-person care (4.0-point improvement vs 6.4-point improvement; P = .61). Compared with in-person visits, each telemedicine visit saved participants, on average, 100 miles of travel and 3 hours of time.Conclusion and relevanceUsing web-based videoconferencing to provide specialty care at home is feasible, provides value to patients, and may offer similar clinical benefit to that of in-person care. Larger studies are needed to determine whether the clinical benefits are indeed comparable to those of in-person care and whether the results observed are generalizable.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01476306.
| S-EPMC3791511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether falls can be prevented with minimally supervised exercise targeting potentially remediable fall risk factors, i.e., poor balance, reduced leg muscle strength, and freezing of gait, in people with Parkinson disease.MethodsTwo hundred thirty-one people with Parkinson disease were randomized into exercise or usual-care control groups. Exercises were practiced for 40 to 60 minutes, 3 times weekly for 6 months. Primary outcomes were fall rates and proportion of fallers during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes were physical (balance, mobility, freezing of gait, habitual physical activity), psychological (fear of falling, affect), and quality-of-life measures.ResultsThere was no significant difference between groups in the rate of falls (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.17, p = 0.18) or proportion of fallers (p = 0.45). Preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant interaction for disease severity (p < 0.001). In the lower disease severity subgroup, there were fewer falls in the exercise group compared with controls (IRR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.62, p < 0.001), while in the higher disease severity subgroup, there was a trend toward more falls in the exercise group (IRR = 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-3.03, p = 0.13). Postintervention, the exercise group scored significantly (p < 0.05) better than controls on the Short Physical Performance Battery, sit-to-stand, fear of falling, affect, and quality of life, after adjusting for baseline performance.ConclusionsAn exercise program targeting balance, leg strength, and freezing of gait did not reduce falls but improved physical and psychological health. Falls were reduced in people with milder disease but not in those with more severe Parkinson disease.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with Parkinson disease, a minimally supervised exercise program does not reduce fall risk. This study lacked the precision to exclude a moderate reduction or modest increase in fall risk from exercise.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000303347).
| S-EPMC4335992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProspective memory (PM) is essential for productive and independent living and necessary for compliance with prescribed health behaviors. Parkinson disease (PD) can cause PM deficits that are associated with activity limitations and reduced quality of life. Forming implementation intentions (IIs) is an encoding strategy that may improve PM in this population.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of IIs on PM performance in PD.MethodsThis was a laboratory-based randomized controlled trial. Participants with mild to moderate PD without dementia (n = 62) performed a computerized PM test (Virtual Week) under standard instructions. One week later they were randomly allocated to perform it again while using either IIs or a rehearsal (RR) encoding strategy.ResultsPM performance was better with the use of both strategies relative to standard instructions. This effect was larger for tasks with event-based compared with time-based cues. In addition, IIs resulted in a larger effect than RR for the nonrepeated tasks.ConclusionsStrategies that support full encoding of PM cues and actions can improve PM performance among people with PD, particularly for tasks with cues that are readily available in the environment. IIs may be more effective than RR for nonrepeated tasks, but this finding warrants verification. Future work should address transfer of strategy use from the laboratory to everyday life. Targeted strategies to manage PM impairment could improve function and quality of life and significantly affect clinical care for people with PD.
| S-EPMC5393947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) in the treatment of depression in Parkinson disease (PD).MethodsA total of 115 subjects with PD were enrolled at 20 sites. Subjects were randomized to receive an SSRI (paroxetine; n = 42), an SNRI (venlafaxine extended release [XR]; n = 34), or placebo (n = 39). Subjects met DSM-IV criteria for a depressive disorder, or operationally defined subsyndromal depression, and scored >12 on the first 17 items of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Subjects were followed for 12 weeks (6-week dosage adjustment, 6-week maintenance). Maximum daily dosages were 40 mg for paroxetine and 225 mg for venlafaxine XR. The primary outcome measure was change in the HAM-D score from baseline to week 12.ResultsTreatment effects (relative to placebo), expressed as mean 12-week reductions in HAM-D score, were 6.2 points (97.5% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 10.3, p = 0.0007) in the paroxetine group and 4.2 points (97.5% CI 0.1 to 8.4, p = 0.02) in the venlafaxine XR group. No treatment effects were seen on motor function.ConclusionsBoth paroxetine and venlafaxine XR significantly improved depression in subjects with PD. Both medications were generally safe and well tolerated and did not worsen motor function.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that paroxetine and venlafaxine XR are effective in treating depression in patients with PD.
| S-EPMC3324323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPsychosis is a common and debilitating side effect of long-term dopaminergic treatment of Parkinson disease (PD). While clozapine is an effective treatment, the need for blood monitoring has limited its first-line use. ObjectiveSince olanzapine shows similar receptor affinity to clozapine, we hypothesized that it might be an effective alternative to clozapine for treatment of drug-induced psychosis (DIP) in PD, and that lower doses than usual might make it tolerable.MethodsIn 1998-2003 we conducted a four-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, fixed-dose trial of olanzapine (0, 2.5mg, or 5mg) in 23 PD patients with DIP while allowing for clinically realistic dose adjustments of dopaminomimetic mid-study. The primary outcome measures were Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) ratings scored from videotaped interviews after study termination by an observer blinded to dose assignment and to interview timing, and CGI (Clinical Global Impression). The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale (UPDRS) was the primary measure of tolerability.ResultsIntention-to-treat analysis found no significant differences among treatment groups in study completion or serious adverse events. However, a disproportionate number of olanzapine vs. placebo subjects reported mild side effects (p<0.04), many citing motor worsening. Fourteen patients completed the study (seven on placebo, two on 2.5mg olanzapine, five on 5mg olanzapine). In study completers, analysis by repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant difference between olanzapine and placebo groups in BPRS psychosis reduction (p=0.536), parkinsonism (p=0.608), or any other measured parameters (CGI, MMSE, Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression score, PDQ?39, Schwab-England ADL assessment, and sleep scores).ConclusionThis study adds to other evidence that olanzapine is ineffective in treating medication-induced psychosis in Parkinson disease.
| S-EPMC3907164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Assessing the effects of caffeine withdrawal on migraine. Background: The effects of caffeine withdrawal on migraineurs are at large unknown. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover study (NCT03022838), designed to enroll 80 adults with episodic migraine and a daily consumption of 300-800 mg caffeine. Participants substituted their estimated dietary caffeine with either placebo capsules or capsulated caffeine tablets for 5 weeks before switching the comparators for 5 more weeks. Results: The study was terminated due to low recruitment. Ten subjects with a mean age of 46.3 ± 9.9 years, BMI of 24.9 ± 3.7, and a mean blood pressure of 134/83 ± 17/12 mmHg were enrolled. The average consumption of caffeine per day was 539 ± 196.3 mg. The average monthly headache days and migraine attack frequency at baseline was 11.5 ± 4.9 and 5.2 ± 1.2, respectively. At baseline Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was 5.8 ± 2.5 and HIT-6 was 62.8 ± 3.9. There were no differences in these or in parameters from actigraphy during the caffeine period compared with the placebo period. One subject withdrew just after entering the study. In the remaining nine, withdrawal triggered severe migraine attacks in seven, causing one more drop-out, and a typical caffeine withdrawal syndrome in two. Caffeine continuation did not trigger migraines, but one attack occurred in the wake of caffeine reintroduction. Conclusions: The study failed to answer how caffeine withdrawal affects migraineurs over time, but showed that abrupt withdrawal of caffeine is a potent trigger for migraine attacks.
| S-EPMC7512113 | biostudies-literature