Study design
The study protocol was conducted at the Sleep Disorders Center and Movement Disorders Center -University of Cagliari, Italy.
This is a single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover pilot study.
Treatments were identified by a number related to each random sequence. Patients, investigators, and other study members were unaware of a patient’s treatment assignment.
Safety assessments conducted throughout the study period included reports of any adverse events experienced by patients or reported by parents, together with vital signs recorded by the physician.
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Local Ethics Committee (PG-2016–17,064). A written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The present study was then registered in the Eudra CT database (for details of study design, see supplementary materials).
Participants
A total of 36 patients with PD were consecutively recruited and screened for eligibility by movement disorders specialists from the Sleep Disorders Center and Movement Disorders Center-University of Cagliari, Italy. The inclusion criteria included the presence of idiopathic PD according to the UK Brain Bank Parkinson’s Disease criteria [16] and RBD diagnosis according to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders third edition [2]. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria comprised the presence of vascular parkinsonism; brain tumor; drug-induced parkinsonism; other well-known or suspected causes of parkinsonism (e.g., metabolic) or any suggestive features of a diagnosis of atypical parkinsonism; severe dementia as defined by a MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) [17] score ≤ 18; severe speech problems and poor general health; concomitant neurologic and/or psychiatric diseases; depressed patients receiving SSRIs or SNRIs; participation in other drug studies within 30 days prior to baseline; any unstable or clinically significant condition, in the investigator’s opinion, that would impair the participants’ ability to comply with a long-term study follow-up; shift workers, who cannot ensure traditional nighttime sleep habits.
Demographic data, disease characteristics and current medication, the presence of comorbidities, and past medical history were collected during a face-to-face interview by a neurologist specialized in movement disorders, at screening and baseline evaluation. Treatment with drugs known to potentially affect RSWA, namely SSRI, SNRI, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, melatonin, and beta-blockers, was assessed. The levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) was calculated for each patient [18].
For the efficacy assessment on the overall functional status, the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS, parts I, II, III, IV) scores were obtained at baseline, and at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 (T-end) [19]. The UPDRS part III (motor examination) was assessed 1–2 h after the patient took a scheduled dose of levodopa.
Polysomnographic analysis
At the screening assessment, all participants underwent one full-night v-PSG in the sleep laboratory, in order to diagnose RBD. Moreover, all participants underwent a home-PSG at the end of part I (week 4) and another at the end of part II (week 12), in order to assess the efficacy of 5-HTP on RBD. In order to achieve better patient compliance and adherence to the study, we decided to perform ambulatory PSG rather than v-PSG, at week 4 and week 12. Indeed, the ambulatory PSG represents a comfortable alternative to sleep laboratory investigations.
PSG recordings, both v-PSG and home-PSG, were performed with digital polysomnography according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recommendations [20] and with the same montage (for details of video-polysomnography, see supplementary materials).
RBD clinical status assessment
All patients underwent a sleep-focused interview including RBD duration, presence of bed partner, current self-reported frequency of RBD episodes, and the clinical global impression (CGI) as a measure of RBD severity (for details of RBD clinical status assessment, see supplementary materials).
Outcome measures
The primary efficacy outcomes were (1) the effect of 5-HTP on the percentage of RSWA compared to placebo; (2) the comparison of 5-HTP to placebo in change from baseline to weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 in RBD clinical status, namely in self-reported frequency of RBD episodes and CGI.
The secondary efficacy outcomes were (1) the effect of 5-HTP on TST, SE, WASO, arousal index, and percentage of time in each sleep stage (N1, N2, N3, REM) compared to placebo and (2) the effect of 5-HTP on UPDRS scores.
Statistical analysis
All subjects who completed the protocol were included in the analyses.
Given that this is a pilot study, there are no data available on 5-HTP efficacy in treating RBD in PD that allow precise sample size’s power calculations. However, based on prior studies using similar protocols [21], it is expected that a number of 18 patients, considering a ≈ 20% drop-out, with a minimum of 15 patients completing the study, would be sufficient to detect a treatment effect (paired t-test, α = 0.05, 1-β = 0.8, effect size = 0.8; G-Power 3.1).
Statistical analyses were all carried out with PRISM, GraphPad 6 Software (San Diego, USA) with the significance level set at p < 0.05 (for details of statistical analysis, see supplementary materials).