CNS Drugs

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 443–454 | Cite as

ND0701, A Novel Formulation of Apomorphine for Subcutaneous Infusion, in Comparison to a Commercial Apomorphine Formulation: 28-Day Pharmacokinetic Study in Minipigs and a Phase I Study in Healthy Volunteers to Assess the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Relative Bioavailability

  • Yuval Ramot
  • Abraham Nyska
  • Liat Adar
  • Cecile Durlach
  • Danny Fishelovitch
  • Giuseppe Sacco
  • Rosa Anna Manno
  • Sheila Oren
  • Itay Perlstein
  • Oron Yacobi-Zeevi
Original Research Article



Subcutaneous apomorphine is used for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD); however, infusion site reactions are a common adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment discontinuation. Apomorphine formulations that are more tolerable and convenient for use are needed.


Our aim was to compare the toxicity and bioavailability of ND0701, a new concentrated formulation of apomorphine free base, with one of the commercially available apomorphine HCl formulations (APO-go®, Britannia Pharmaceuticals Ltd).


(1) Preclinical study: 16 minipigs were randomly assigned to placebo, APO-go®, and ND0701 groups, and treated for 28 days. Pharmacokinetic, clinical, and pathological assessments were performed. (2) Phase I study: 18 healthy volunteers participated in an open-label, two-sequence, randomized, three single-dose, partial crossover study to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of ND0701 with APO-go® (1%).


(1) Preclinical study: No systemic toxicity was observed in apomorphine-treated minipigs, but local skin reactions were observed at the infusion sites. These effects were less frequent and less severe and recovery was more rapid for ND0701 compared with APO-go®. (2) Phase I study: Both formulations were safe and well tolerated under the conditions of the study and no severe or serious treatment-emergent AEs were reported. Infusion site nodules were reported more frequently, with higher severity, and recovered slower at APO-go®-treated sites compared with ND0701-treated sites. Bioavailability of apomorphine was comparable between the two formulations.


Based on these pilot studies, ND0701 appears to be superior to APO-go® in terms of tolerability and safety, while maintaining comparable bioavailability with APO-go®, and shows promise as a future treatment for PD.



We thank our colleagues at NeuroDerm Ltd. for fruitful discussions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


Both studies were funded by NeuroDerm Ltd.

Conflict of interest

Abraham Nyska and Itay Perlstein served as consultants to NeuroDerm Ltd; Liat Adar, Sheila Oren, Cecile Durlach and Oron Yacoby Zeevi are employees of NeuroDerm Ltd; and Yuval Ramot has received an honorarium from NeuroDerm Ltd. Danny Fishelovitch, Giuseppe Sacco, and Rosanna Manno have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

Preclinical study: All procedures in this study were conducted in compliance with the Guide for Good Laboratory Practice, Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and with the requirements of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The study was approved by the RTC Animal Welfare Committee. Phase 1 clinical study: The study was approved by the appropriate Ethics Committee and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Informed consent

All subjects included in the study have given written informed consent to participate in the study.

Supplementary material

40263_2018_512_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (189 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 188 kb)


  1. 1.
    Pringsheim T, Jette N, Frolkis A, Steeves TD. The prevalence of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord. 2014;29(13):1583–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    LeWitt PA. Levodopa therapy for Parkinson’s disease: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Mov Disord. 2015;30(1):64–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borkar N, Andersson DR, Yang M, Mullertz A, Holm R, Mu H. Efficacy of oral lipid-based formulations of apomorphine and its diester in a Parkinson’s disease rat model. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;69(9):1110–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Trenkwalder C, Chaudhuri KR, Garcia Ruiz PJ, LeWitt P, Katzenschlager R, Sixel-Doring F, et al. Expert Consensus Group report on the use of apomorphine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: clinical practice recommendations. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2015;21(9):1023–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia Ruiz PJ, Sesar Ignacio A, Ares Pensado B, Castro Garcia A, Alonso Frech F, Alvarez Lopez M, et al. Efficacy of long-term continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion in advanced Parkinson’s disease with motor fluctuations: a multicenter study. Mov Disord. 2008;23(8):1130–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ray Chaudhuri K, Qamar MA, Rajah T, Loehrer P, Sauerbier A, Odin P, et al. Non-oral dopaminergic therapies for Parkinson’s disease: current treatments and the future. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2016;2:16023.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Todorova A, Ray Chaudhuri K. Subcutaneous apomorphine and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2013;19(12):1073–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhidayasiri R, Garcia Ruiz PJ, Henriksen T. Practical management of adverse events related to apomorphine therapy. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S42–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henriksen T. Clinical insights into use of apomorphine in Parkinson’s disease: tools for clinicians. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2014;4(3):271–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jenner P, Katzenschlager R. Apomorphine: pharmacological properties and clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manson AJ, Turner K, Lees AJ. Apomorphine monotherapy in the treatment of refractory motor complications of Parkinson’s disease: long-term follow-up study of 64 patients. Mov Disord. 2002;17(6):1235–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Acland KM, Churchyard A, Fletcher CL, Turner K, Lees A, Dowd PM. Panniculitis in association with apomorphine infusion. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138(3):480–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Titova N, Chaudhuri KR. Apomorphine therapy in Parkinson’s and future directions. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S56–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shaltiel-Karyo R, Tsarfati Y, Rubinski A, Zawoznik E, Weinstock I, Nemas M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a noninvasive method for longitudinal monitoring of infusion site reactions following administration of a novel apomorphine formulation. Toxicol Pathol. 2017;45(4):472–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shackelford C, Long G, Wolf J, Okerberg C, Herbert R. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of nonneoplastic lesions in toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2002;30(1):93–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Draize J, Woodard H, Calvery H. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1944;82:377–90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ENV/JM/MONO(2001)6. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. p. 25–30.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OECD. Harmonised system for the classification of chemicals which cause skin irritation/corrosion. In: Harmonised Integrated Classification System for Human Health and Environmental Hazards of Chemical Substances and Mixtures. Chapter 2.2. OECD; 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gold R, Rieckmann P, Chang P, Abdalla J. The long-term safety and tolerability of high-dose interferon beta-1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: 4-year data from the PRISMS study. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12(8):649–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haibel H, Rudwaleit M, Listing J, Sieper J. Open label trial of anakinra in active ankylosing spondylitis over 24 weeks. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(2):296–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramot Y, Nyska A, Maronpot RR, Shaltiel-Karyo R, Tsarfati Y, Manno RA, et al. Ninety-day local tolerability and toxicity study of ND0612, a novel formulation of levodopa/carbidopa, administered by subcutaneous continuous infusion in minipigs. Toxicol Pathol. 2017;45(6):764–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramot Y, Rosenstock M, Klinger E, Bursztyn D, Nyska A, Shinar DM. Comparative long-term preclinical safety evaluation of two glatiramoid compounds (glatiramer Acetate, Copaxone(R), and TV-5010, protiramer) in rats and monkeys. Toxicol Pathol. 2012;40(1):40–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Varkony H, Weinstein V, Klinger E, Sterling J, Cooperman H, Komlosh T, et al. The glatiramoid class of immunomodulator drugs. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(4):657–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Willy JA, Schulte NE, Kreklau EL, Walgren JL, Renninger ML, Baker TK. In vitro L6 irritation assay predicts clinical injection site reactions for small molecules. Toxicol Sci. 2016;151(2):302–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Engelhardt JA. Predictivity of animal studies for human injection site reactions with parenteral drug products. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2008;60(4–5):323–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuval Ramot
    • 1
  • Abraham Nyska
    • 2
  • Liat Adar
    • 3
  • Cecile Durlach
    • 3
  • Danny Fishelovitch
    • 3
  • Giuseppe Sacco
    • 4
  • Rosa Anna Manno
    • 4
  • Sheila Oren
    • 3
  • Itay Perlstein
    • 5
  • Oron Yacobi-Zeevi
    • 3
  1. 1.Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Tel Aviv UniversityTimratIsrael
  3. 3.NeuroDerm Ltd.RehovotIsrael
  4. 4.Research Toxicology CentrePomeziaItaly
  5. 5.Magic Wand Research, LLCPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations