SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone 200/50/200 mg (Stalevo 200) in the treatment of Parkinson's disease: a case series.

Cases J · 2009-07-30

DOI: 10.4076/1757-1626-2-7134PMID: 19829918

Open accessJournal Article; Case Reports; case-reportOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Levodopa continues to be the most efficacious and widely used treatment for Parkinson's disease. Levodopa dosing is understood to be critical for the optimal control of symptoms, and increasing the levodopa dose is a common method to treat advancing disease. Escalating levodopa dosages coupled with disease progression is associated with increasing likelihood of developing levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Moreover, frequent and complicated dosing schemes, combined with limited dose availability, leads to increasing pill burden and its associated impairment of patient adherence issues. Levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone has been shown to improve the pharmacokinetic profile of levodopa and provide superior symptomatic control compared with conventional levodopa/dopa decarboxylase inhibitor therapy. We report four case histories describing clinical experience of using levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone 200/50/200 mg, one of the latest doses of this formulation, in a range of patients with Parkinson's disease. These cases illustrate that levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone 200/50/200 mg provides improvements in symptomatic control and convenience, and that switching to this dose was not associated with safety concerns.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.