Impact of preventive pill-based treatment on migraine days: A secondary outcome study of the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial and a comparison of self-report to nosology-derived assessments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine group differences in self-reported migraine days among youth who completed the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial prior to its closure and explore the relationship between self-reported and "nosology-derived" (i.e., International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition [ICHD-3]) migraine days. BACKGROUND: The CHAMP trial compared amitriptyline and topiramate to placebo for migraine prevention in youth and proposed to analyze change in migraine days as a secondary outcome. There is considerable variability in the field regarding what constitutes a "migraine day," how this is determined and reported in trials, and how consistent these measures are with diagnostic nosology. METHODS: CHAMP trial completers (N = 175) were randomized to receive amitriptyline (n = 77), topiramate (n = 63), or placebo (n = 35). Participants maintained daily headache diaries where they reported each day with headache and if they considered that headache to be a migraine. For each headache day, participants completed a symptom record and reported about symptoms such as pain location(s) and presence of nausea/vomiting or photophobia and phonophobia. We examined group differences in self-reported migraine days at trial completion (summed from trial weeks 20-24) compared to baseline. We also used an algorithm to determine whether participants' symptom reports met ICHD-3 criteria for migraine without aura, and examined the association between self-reported and "nosology-derived" migraine days. RESULTS: Results showed no significant differences between groups in self-reported migraine days over the course of the trial. Self-reported and "nosology-derived" migraine days during the baseline and treatment phases were strongly associated (r's = 0.73 and 0.83, respectively; p's < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Regardless of treatment, CHAMP trial completers showed clinically important reductions in self-reported migraine days over the course of the trial (about 3.8 days less). The strong association between self-reported and "nosology-derived" migraine days suggests youth with migraine can recognize a day with migraine and reliably report their headache features and symptoms. Greater rigor and transparency in the calculation and reporting of migraine days in trials is needed.

Trajectory of treatment response in the child and adolescent migraine prevention (CHAMP) study: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Identify preventive medication treatment response trajectories among youth participating in the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention study. METHODS: Data were evaluated from 328 youth (ages 8-17). Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention study participants completed headache diaries during a 28-day baseline period and a 168-day active treatment period during which youth took amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo. Daily headache occurrence trajectories were established across baseline and active treatment periods using longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling. We tested potential treatment group differences. We also compared final models to trajectory findings from a clinical trial of cognitive behavioral therapy plus amitriptyline for youth with chronic migraine to test for reproducibility. RESULTS: Daily headache occurrence showed stability across baseline. Active treatment models revealed decreases in headache frequency that were most notable early in the trial period. Baseline and active treatment models did not differ by treatment group and replicated trajectory cognitive behavioral therapy plus amitriptyline trial findings. CONCLUSIONS: Replicating headache frequency trajectories across clinical trials provides strong evidence that youth can improve quickly. Given no effect for medication, we need to better understand what drives this clinically meaningful improvement. Results also suggest an expected trajectory of treatment response for use in designing and determining endpoints for future clinical trials.Trial Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01581281.

Multimodal Assessment of Medication Adherence Among Youth With Migraine: An Ancillary Study of the CHAMP Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Examine preventive medication adherence among youth with migraine. METHODS: Adherence (self-report, pill count, and blood serum drug levels) was assessed as an ancillary study that utilized data from 328 CHAMP Study participants (ages 8-17). CHAMP was a multisite trial of preventive medications. Participants completed a prospective headache diary during a six-month active treatment period during which youth took amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo pill twice daily. Self-reported medication adherence was collected via daily diary. At monthly study visits, pill count measures were captured. At trial month 3 (trial midpoint) and 6 (end of active trial), blood serum drug levels were obtained. Self-report and pill count adherence percentages were calculated for the active trial period, at each monthly study visit, and in the days prior to participants' mid-trial blood draw. Percentages of nonzero drug levels were calculated to assess blood serum drug level data. Adherence measures were compared and assessed in context of several sociodemographic factors. Multiple regression analyses investigated medication adherence as a predictor of headache outcomes. RESULTS: Self-report and pill count adherence rates were high (over 90%) and sustained over the course of the trial period. Serum drug level adherence rates were somewhat lower and decreased significantly (from 84% to 76%) across the trial period [t (198) = 3.23, p = .001]. Adherence measures did not predict headache days at trial end; trial midpoint serum drug levels predicted headache-related disability. CONCLUSIONS: Youth with migraine can demonstrate and sustain relatively high levels of medication adherence over the course of a clinical trial.

Phase 2 Trial of Ibudilast in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatments for progressive multiple sclerosis. Ibudilast inhibits several cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, and toll-like receptor 4 and can cross the blood-brain barrier, with potential salutary effects in progressive multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We enrolled patients with primary or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in a phase 2 randomized trial of oral ibudilast (≤100 mg daily) or placebo for 96 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of brain atrophy, as measured by the brain parenchymal fraction (brain size relative to the volume of the outer surface contour of the brain). Major secondary end points included the change in the pyramidal tracts on diffusion tensor imaging, the magnetization transfer ratio in normal-appearing brain tissue, the thickness of the retinal nerve-fiber layer, and cortical atrophy, all measures of tissue damage in multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Of 255 patients who underwent randomization, 129 were assigned to ibudilast and 126 to placebo. A total of 53% of the patients in the ibudilast group and 52% of those in the placebo group had primary progressive disease; the others had secondary progressive disease. The rate of change in the brain parenchymal fraction was -0.0010 per year with ibudilast and -0.0019 per year with placebo (difference, 0.0009; 95% confidence interval, 0.00004 to 0.0017; P=0.04), which represents approximately 2.5 ml less brain-tissue loss with ibudilast over a period of 96 weeks. Adverse events with ibudilast included gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 trial involving patients with progressive multiple sclerosis, ibudilast was associated with slower progression of brain atrophy than placebo but was associated with higher rates of gastrointestinal side effects, headache, and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; NN102/SPRINT-MS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01982942 .).

Optical coherence tomography outcomes from SPRINT-MS, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of ibudilast in progressive multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The SPRINT-MS trial demonstrated benefit of ibudilast on brain atrophy over 96 weeks in progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed in all trial participants. OBJECTIVE: Report the OCT results of the SPRINT-MS trial. METHODS: OCT was obtained at baseline and every 6 months using spectral domain OCT and analyzed by an OCT reading center. Change in each OCT outcome measure by treatment group was estimated using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Change in pRNFL thickness was +0.0424 uM/year (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.3091 to 0.3939) for ibudilast versus -0.2630 uM (95% CI: -0.5973 to 0.0714) for placebo (n = 244, p = 0.22). Macular volume change was -0.00503 mm3/year (-0.02693 to 0.01688) with ibudilast versus -0.03659 mm3/year (-0.05824 to -0.01494) for placebo in the Spectralis cohort (n = 61, p = 0.044). For the Cirrus cohort, macular volume change was -0.00040 mm3/year (-0.02167, 0.020866) with ibudilast compared to -0.02083 mm3/year (-0.04134 to -0.00033) for placebo (n = 183, p = 0.1734). Ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness change, available from Cirrus, was -0.4893 uM/year (-0.9132, -0.0654) with ibudilast versus -0.9587 uM/year (-1.3677, -0.5498) with placebo (n = 183, p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Retinal thinning in MS may be attenuated by ibudilast. Sample size estimates suggest OCT can be a viable outcome measure in progressive MS trials if a therapy has a large treatment effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NN102/SPRINT-MS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01982942.

Trial of Amitriptyline, Topiramate, and Placebo for Pediatric Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Which medication, if any, to use to prevent the headache of pediatric migraine has not been established. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of amitriptyline (1 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), topiramate (2 mg per kilogram per day), and placebo in children and adolescents 8 to 17 years of age with migraine. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive one of the medications or placebo. The primary outcome was a relative reduction of 50% or more in the number of headache days in the comparison of the 28-day baseline period with the last 28 days of a 24-week trial. Secondary outcomes were headache-related disability, headache days, number of trial completers, and serious adverse events that emerged during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 361 patients underwent randomization, and 328 were included in the primary efficacy analysis (132 in the amitriptyline group, 130 in the topiramate group, and 66 in the placebo group). The trial was concluded early for futility after a planned interim analysis. There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome, which occurred in 52% of the patients in the amitriptyline group, 55% of those in the topiramate group, and 61% of those in the placebo group (amitriptyline vs. placebo, P=0.26; topiramate vs. placebo, P=0.48; amitriptyline vs. topiramate, P=0.49). There were also no significant between-group differences in headache-related disability, headache days, or the percentage of patients who completed the 24-week treatment period. Patients who received amitriptyline or topiramate had higher rates of several adverse events than those receiving placebo, including fatigue (30% vs. 14%) and dry mouth (25% vs. 12%) in the amitriptyline group and paresthesia (31% vs. 8%) and weight loss (8% vs. 0%) in the topiramate group. Three patients in the amitriptyline group had serious adverse events of altered mood, and one patient in the topiramate group had a suicide attempt. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in reduction in headache frequency or headache-related disability in childhood and adolescent migraine with amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo over a period of 24 weeks. The active drugs were associated with higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; CHAMP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01581281 ).

The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) Study: A Report on Baseline Characteristics of Participants.

OBJECTIVE: To describe baseline headache characteristics of children and adolescents participating in a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, comparative effectiveness study of amitriptyline, topiramate, and placebo for the prevention of migraine (CHAMP Study). METHODS: Children and adolescents (age 8-17 years old, inclusive) diagnosed with migraine with or without aura, having headaches at least four times per month were enrolled from 2012 through 2014. The trial involved a baseline period (minimum of 28 days) during which prospective diaries were completed and demographics and headache features obtained. RESULTS: A total of 488 children and adolescents (mean age 14.0 ± 2.4 years) agreed to participate in the trial, with 361 randomized and 127 not randomized. Randomized subjects had a 5.5 ± 3.1 year history of headaches, with 15.1 ± 7.1 headache days per month (based upon retrospective report at screening visit). Prospective diaries reported 11.5 ± 6.1 headache days per 28 day baseline. Across this 28 day period, reported headache days per week were stable (about 3 headache days per week). Recording of individual headache features by diary (n = 4136 headache days) showed characteristics consistent with migraine (mean duration 10.5 ± 8.1 hours, mean severity 6.0 ± 2.1, 60% throbbing, 55% with activity worsening headaches, 55% with photophobia, and 47% with phonophobia). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline data from the CHAMP Study suggested that the randomized sample was representative of the real world population of children and adolescents that present for treatment of migraine. Headaches in children and adolescents recorded during a 28 day prospective baseline period in this multi-site comparative effectiveness study did not change over the course of the baseline period, even though a clear diagnosis, recommendation for effective acute treatment, and standardized education about healthy habits occurred prior to the diary collection period.

Safety and Efficacy of Topiramate in Individuals With Cryptogenic Sensory Peripheral Neuropathy With Metabolic Syndrome: The TopCSPN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cryptogenic sensory peripheral neuropathy (CSPN) is highly prevalent and often disabling due to neuropathic pain. Metabolic syndrome and its components increase neuropathy risk. Diet and exercise have shown promise but are limited by poor adherence. Objective: To determine whether topiramate can slow decline in intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) and/or neuropathy-specific quality of life measured using the Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (NQOL-DN) scale. Design, Setting, and Participants: Topiramate as a Disease-Modifying Therapy for CSPN (TopCSPN) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted between February 2018 and October 2021. TopCSPN was performed at 20 sites in the National Institutes of Health-funded Network for Excellence in Neurosciences Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT). Individuals with CSPN and metabolic syndrome aged 18 to 80 years were screened and randomly assigned by body mass index (<30 vs ≥30), which is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Patients were excluded if they had poorly controlled diabetes, prior topiramate treatment, recurrent nephrolithiasis, type 1 diabetes, use of insulin within 3 months before screening, history of foot ulceration, planned bariatric surgery, history of alcohol or drug overuse in the 2 years before screening, family history of a hereditary neuropathy, or an alternative neuropathy cause. Interventions: Participants received topiramate or matched placebo titrated to a maximum-tolerated dose of 100 mg per day. Main Outcomes and Measures: IENFD and NQOL-DN score were co-primary outcome measures. A positive study was defined as efficacy in both or efficacy in one and noninferiority in the other. Results: A total of 211 individuals were screened, and 132 were randomly assigned to treatment groups: 66 in the topiramate group and 66 in the placebo group. Age and sex were similar between groups (topiramate: mean [SD] age, 61 (10) years; 38 male [58%]; placebo: mean [SD] age, 62 (11) years; 44 male [67%]). The difference in change in IENFD and NQOL-DN score was noninferior but not superior in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (IENFD, 0.21 fibers/mm per year; 95% CI, -0.43 to ∞ fibers/mm per year and NQOL-DN score, -1.52 points per year; 95% CI, -∞ to 1.19 points per year). A per-protocol analysis excluding noncompliant participants based on serum topiramate levels and those with major protocol deviations demonstrated superiority in NQOL-DN score (-3.69 points per year; 95% CI, -∞ to -0.73 points per year). Patients treated with topiramate had a mean (SD) annual change in IENFD of 0.56 fibers/mm per year relative to placebo (95% CI, -0.21 to ∞ fibers/mm per year). Although IENFD was stable in the topiramate group compared with a decline consistent with expected natural history, this difference did not demonstrate superiority. Conclusion and Relevance: Topiramate did not slow IENFD decline or affect NQOL-DN score in the primary ITT analysis. Some participants were intolerant of topiramate. NQOL-DN score was superior among those compliant based on serum levels and without major protocol deviations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02878798.

Effects of AFQ056 on language learning in fragile X syndrome.

BACKGROUNDFXLEARN, the first-ever large multisite trial of effects of disease-targeted pharmacotherapy on learning, was designed to explore a paradigm for measuring effects of mechanism-targeted treatment in fragile X syndrome (FXS). In FXLEARN, the effects of metabotropic glutamate receptor type 5 (mGluR5) negative allosteric modulator (NAM) AFQ056 on language learning were evaluated in 3- to 6-year-old children with FXS, expected to have more learning plasticity than adults, for whom prior trials of mGluR5 NAMs have failed.METHODSAfter a 4-month single-blind placebo lead-in, participants were randomized 1:1 to AFQ056 or placebo, with 2 months of dose optimization to the maximum tolerated dose, then 6 months of treatment during which a language-learning intervention was implemented for both groups. The primary outcome was a centrally scored videotaped communication measure, the Weighted Communication Scale (WCS). Secondary outcomes were objective performance-based and parent-reported cognitive and language measures.RESULTSFXLEARN enrolled 110 participants, randomized 99, and had 91 who completed the placebo-controlled period. Although both groups made language progress and there were no safety issues, the change in WCS score during the placebo-controlled period was not significantly different between the AFQ056 and placebo-treated groups, nor were there any significant between-group differences in change in any secondary measures.CONCLUSIONDespite the large body of evidence supporting use of mGluR5 NAMs in animal models of FXS, this study suggests that this mechanism of action does not translate into benefit for the human FXS population and that better strategies are needed to determine which mechanisms will translate from preclinical models to humans in genetic neurodevelopmental disorders.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClincalTrials.gov NCT02920892.FUNDING SOURCESNeuroNEXT network NIH grants U01NS096767, U24NS107200, U24NS107209, U01NS077323, U24NS107183, U24NS107168, U24NS107128, U24NS107199, U24NS107198, U24NS107166, U10NS077368, U01NS077366, U24NS107205, U01NS077179, and U01NS077352; NIH grant P50HD103526; and Novartis IIT grant AFQ056X2201T for provision of AFQ056.

Response to ibudilast treatment according to progressive multiple sclerosis disease phenotype.

OBJECTIVE: Determine whether a treatment effect of ibudilast on brain atrophy rate differs between participants with primary (PPMS) and secondary (SPMS) progressive multiple sclerosis. BACKGROUND: Progressive forms of MS are both associated with continuous disability progression. Whether PPMS and SPMS differ in treatment response remains unknown. DESIGN/METHODS: SPRINT-MS was a randomized, placebo-controlled 96-week phase 2 trial in both PPMS (n = 134) and SPMS (n = 121) patients. The effect of PPMS and SPMS phenotype on the rate of change of brain atrophy measured by brain parenchymal fraction (BPF) was examined by fitting a three-way interaction linear-mixed model. Adjustment for differences in baseline demographics, disease measures, and brain size was explored. RESULTS: Analysis showed that there was a three-way interaction between the time, treatment effect, and disease phenotype (P < 0.06). After further inspection, the overall treatment effect was primarily driven by patients with PPMS (P < 0.01), and not by patients with SPMS (P = 0.97). This difference may have been due to faster brain atrophy progression seen in the PPMS placebo group compared to SPMS placebo (P < 0.02). Although backward selection (P < 0.05) retained age, T2 lesion volume, RNFL, and longitudinal diffusivity as significant baseline covariates in the linear-mixed model, the adjusted overall treatment effect was still driven by PPMS (P < 0.01). INTERPRETATION: The previously reported overall treatment effect of ibudilast on worsening of brain atrophy in progressive MS appears to be driven by patients with PPMS that may be, in part, because of the faster atrophy progression rates seen in the placebo-treated group.

Effects of Ibudilast on MRI Measures in the Phase 2 SPRINT-MS Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ibudilast has an effect on brain volume and new lesions in progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded study evaluated ibudilast at a dose of up to 100 mg over 96 weeks in primary and secondary progressive MS. In this secondary analysis of a previously reported trial, secondary and tertiary endpoints included gray matter atrophy, new or enlarging T2 lesions as measured every 24 weeks, and new T1 hypointensities at 96 weeks. Whole brain atrophy measured by structural image evaluation, using normalization, of atrophy (SIENA) was a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of 129 participants were assigned to ibudilast and 126 to placebo. New or enlarging T2 lesions were observed in 37.2% on ibudilast and 29.0% on placebo (p = 0.82). New T1 hypointense lesions at 96 weeks were observed in 33.3% on ibudilast and 23.5% on placebo (p = 0.11). Gray matter atrophy was reduced by 35% for those on ibudilast vs placebo (p = 0.038). Progression of whole brain atrophy by SIENA was slowed by 20% in the ibudilast group compared with placebo (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Ibudilast treatment was associated with a reduction in gray matter atrophy. Ibudilast treatment was not associated with a reduction in new or enlarging T2 lesions or new T1 lesions. An effect on brain volume contributes to prior data that ibudilast appears to affect markers associated with neurodegenerative processes, but not inflammatory processes. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for people with MS, ibudilast does not significantly reduce new or enlarging T2 lesions or new T1 lesions.

Prevalence of Headache Days and Disability 3 Years After Participation in the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention Medication Trial.

Importance: Migraine is a common neurological disease that often begins in childhood and continues into adulthood; approximately 6 million children and adolescents in the United States cope with migraine, and many frequently experience significant disability and multiple headache days per week. Although pharmacological preventive treatments have been shown to offer some benefit to youth with migraine, additional research is needed to understand whether and how these benefits are sustained. Objective: To survey clinical status of youth with migraine who participated in the 24-week Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial over a 3-year follow-up period. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used internet-based surveys collected from youth ages 8 to 17 years at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after completion of the CHAMP trial, which randomized participants to amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo. At the end of the trial, the study drug was stopped, and participants received clinical care of their choice thereafter. The CHAMP trial was conducted between May 2012 and November 2015, and survey follow-up was conducted June 2013 to June 2018. Participants in this survey study were representative of those randomized in the trial. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to April 2021. Exposures: Survey completion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Headache days, disability (assessed using the Pediatric Migraine Disability Scale [PedMIDAS]), and self-report of ongoing use of prescription preventive medication. Results: A total of 205 youth (mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.3] years; 139 [68%] girls; mean [SD] history of migraine, 5.7 [3.1] years) participated in the survey. Retention of participants was 189 participants (92%) at month 6, 182 participants (88%) at month 12, 163 participants (80%) at month 18, 165 participants (80%) at month 24, and 155 participants (76%) at month 36. Over the course of the 3-year follow-up, participants consistently maintained meaningful reductions in headache days (mean [SD] headache days per 28 days: CHAMP baseline, 11.1 [6.0] days; CHAMP completion, 5.0 [5.7] days; 3-year follow-up, 6.1 [6.1] days) and disability (mean [SD] score: CHAMP baseline, 40.9 [26.4]; CHAMP completion, 17.9 [22.1]; 3-year follow-up, 12.3 [20.0]). At 3 years after completion of the CHAMP trial, headache days were approximately 1.5 per week (changed from about 3 per week at trial baseline) and disability had improved from the moderate range to the low mild range on the PedMIDAS. Longitudinal analyses showed that amitriptyline and topiramate did not explain intercept random effects for either mean rate of headache days per week (amitriptyline: estimate [SE], 0.07 [0.05]; P = .16; topiramate: estimate [SE], 0.04 [0.05]; P = .50) or headache disability PedMIDAS total score (amitriptyline: estimate [SE], 0.25 [0.38]; P = .52; topiramate: estimate [SE], -0.09 [0.39]; P = .82) changes over time. Of 153 participants who reported on prescription drug use at 3 years, only 1 participant (1%) reported using prevention medication, and most participants reported no medication use at most time points. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that children and adolescents with longer than 5 years history of migraine who participated in the CHAMP trial may sustain positive clinical outcomes over time, even after discontinuing preventive pill-based treatment. This survey study could inform use and discontinuation timing of pharmacological preventive therapies for migraine in youth ages 8 to 17 years. Research is needed to examine mechanisms of treatment improvement and maintenance for preventive therapies, as well as placebo, in the pediatric population.

Efficacy of Nilotinib in Patients With Moderately Advanced Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is a critical need for careful and independent validation of reported symptomatic efficacy and dopaminergic biomarker changes induced by nilotinib in Parkinson disease (PD). Objectives: To assess safety and tolerability of nilotinib in participants with moderately advanced PD. Secondary and exploratory objectives were to assess its affect on PD disability, pharmacokinetics, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) penetration, and biomarkers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a 6-month, multicenter, randomized parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Recruitment was from November 20, 2017, to December 28, 2018, and follow-up ended on September 9, 2019. The study was conducted at 25 US sites. The study approached 173 patients, of whom 48 declined, 125 were screened, and 76 who received a stable regimen of PD medications were enrolled (39% screen failure). Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, 150-mg nilotinib, or 300-mg nilotinib once daily orally for 6 months, followed by 2-month off-drug evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. The tolerability end point was defined as the ability to complete the study while receiving the assigned dose. An active arm was considered tolerable if the percentage of participants meeting the tolerability end point for that group was not significantly lower than the percentage observed in the placebo group. Secondary outcomes included change in PD disability (Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS], Part II OFF/ON). Exploratory outcomes included serum and CSF pharmacokinetic profile, and CSF dopaminergic biomarkers. Results: At baseline, mean (SD) participants' age was 64.6 (7.5) years, 52 were male (68%), mean (SD) disease duration was 9.9 years (4.7), MDS-UPDRS Part 1-3 OFF score was 66.4 (19.3), ON score was 48.4 (16.2), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 27.1 (2.2). The number of participants who completed the study receiving the assigned dose were 21 (84%), 19 (76%), and 20 (77%) in the placebo, 150-mg, and 300-mg arms, respectively. Both active doses had acceptable safety profile. The most common reasons for drug suspension were asymptomatic, dose-dependent elevations of amylase, and/or lipase. Nilotinib, 150 mg and 300 mg, exhibited worse MDS-UPDRS-3 ON scores compared with placebo, achieving significance for nilotinib, 300 mg, at month 1 (P < .01). There was no difference in the change of MDS-UPDRS-3 OFF from baseline to 6 months between groups (P = .17). Cerebrospinal fluid/serum ratio of nilotinib concentration was 0.2% to 0.3%. There was no evidence of treatment-related alteration of dopamine metabolites in the CSF. Conclusions and Relevance: While we demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of nilotinib in our cohort, the low CSF exposure and lack of biomarkers effect combined with the efficacy data trending in the negative direction indicate that nilotinib should not be further tested in PD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03205488.