Apomorphine titration with and without anti-emetic pretreatment in patients with Parkinson’s disease experiencing OFF episodes: A modified Delphi panel

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Stuart H. Isaacson , Richard Dewey , Robert A. Hauser , Daniel Kremens , Rajeev Kumar , Mark Lew , William Ondo , Fernando Pagan , Kelly E. Lyons , Rajesh Pahwa
{"title":"Apomorphine titration with and without anti-emetic pretreatment in patients with Parkinson’s disease experiencing OFF episodes: A modified Delphi panel","authors":"Stuart H. Isaacson ,&nbsp;Richard Dewey ,&nbsp;Robert A. Hauser ,&nbsp;Daniel Kremens ,&nbsp;Rajeev Kumar ,&nbsp;Mark Lew ,&nbsp;William Ondo ,&nbsp;Fernando Pagan ,&nbsp;Kelly E. Lyons ,&nbsp;Rajesh Pahwa","doi":"10.1016/j.prdoa.2024.100264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>In the United States (US), prophylactic treatment with the antiemetic trimethobenzamide has been used before initiating apomorphine therapy. However, US trimethobenzamide stores have been depleted, leaving uncertainty regarding whether antiemetic pretreatment is needed.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This modified Delphi panel aimed to inform circumstances when apomorphine is initiated without antiemetic pretreatment. During Round 1, a panel of 9 US movement disorder specialists rated the appropriateness of prescribing apomorphine therapy with and without antiemetic pretreatment across 192 patient scenarios and were able to review their scores in relation to other scores. During the Round 2, consensus was defined for each scenario as either strong (&gt;75 % agreement) or moderate (66 % agreement).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was strong consensus on 118 of 192 scenario’s (97 as appropriate and 21 as inappropriate), moderate consensus on 29 scenarios, some agreement on 32 scenarios, and lack of agreement on 13 scenarios. In the absence of an antiemetic, there was strong consensus that titration schedules should be flexible and based on dose response. However, the group only reached moderate consensus on the speed of titration, highlighting the need for more systematic information on this area. In the presence of an antiemetic, panelists considered usual initial dosing and flexible titration to be appropriate in most scenarios except for when the patient is already experiencing dopaminergic adverse events.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Experts generally reached consensus that apomorphine can usually be prescribed without antiemetic pretreatment. Recommendations described here reflect the areas of greatest agreement among a panel of experts based on current available evidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33691,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590112524000355/pdfft?md5=6ba220423b62c813059f60b2494d160c&pid=1-s2.0-S2590112524000355-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590112524000355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

In the United States (US), prophylactic treatment with the antiemetic trimethobenzamide has been used before initiating apomorphine therapy. However, US trimethobenzamide stores have been depleted, leaving uncertainty regarding whether antiemetic pretreatment is needed.

Methods

This modified Delphi panel aimed to inform circumstances when apomorphine is initiated without antiemetic pretreatment. During Round 1, a panel of 9 US movement disorder specialists rated the appropriateness of prescribing apomorphine therapy with and without antiemetic pretreatment across 192 patient scenarios and were able to review their scores in relation to other scores. During the Round 2, consensus was defined for each scenario as either strong (>75 % agreement) or moderate (66 % agreement).

Results

There was strong consensus on 118 of 192 scenario’s (97 as appropriate and 21 as inappropriate), moderate consensus on 29 scenarios, some agreement on 32 scenarios, and lack of agreement on 13 scenarios. In the absence of an antiemetic, there was strong consensus that titration schedules should be flexible and based on dose response. However, the group only reached moderate consensus on the speed of titration, highlighting the need for more systematic information on this area. In the presence of an antiemetic, panelists considered usual initial dosing and flexible titration to be appropriate in most scenarios except for when the patient is already experiencing dopaminergic adverse events.

Conclusions

Experts generally reached consensus that apomorphine can usually be prescribed without antiemetic pretreatment. Recommendations described here reflect the areas of greatest agreement among a panel of experts based on current available evidence.

阿朴吗啡滴定治疗帕金森病患者的 "关断 "发作,有无止吐预处理?改良德尔菲小组
导言在美国,在开始阿扑吗啡治疗前一直使用止吐药曲美苄胺进行预防性治疗。然而,美国的曲美苄胺库存已经耗尽,因此在是否需要止吐预处理的问题上存在不确定性。方法本改良德尔菲小组旨在告知在何种情况下可以在不进行止吐预处理的情况下使用阿朴吗啡。在第一轮讨论中,由 9 位美国运动障碍专家组成的小组对 192 种患者情况下使用阿扑吗啡治疗和不使用止吐药预处理的适当性进行了评分,并将他们的评分与其他评分进行对比。结果在 192 个方案中,有 118 个方案达成了高度共识(97 个方案认为合适,21 个方案认为不合适),29 个方案达成了中度共识,32 个方案达成了部分共识,13 个方案未达成共识。在没有止吐药的情况下,专家组达成了强烈共识,即滴定时间应具有灵活性,并以剂量反应为基础。然而,专家组仅就滴注速度达成了中等程度的共识,这凸显了在这一领域需要更多系统性信息的必要性。在存在止吐药的情况下,专家组成员认为,除了患者已经出现多巴胺能不良反应的情况外,在大多数情况下,一般的初始剂量和灵活的滴定都是合适的。本文所述的建议反映了专家小组在现有证据基础上达成最大共识的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Parkinsonism  Related Disorders
Clinical Parkinsonism Related Disorders Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
98 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信