SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Predictors of Response for "Off" Time Improvement With Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel Treatment: An Analysis of the GLORIA Registry.

Front Neurol · 2020-06-19

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00419PMID: 32636792

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Background: Levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) is a long-term therapy for motor fluctuations in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). The aim of this analysis was to identify the baseline characteristics that predict "Off" time reduction in advanced PD patients treated with LCIG under routine clinical care in the GLORIA registry. Methods: Patients were followed under routine care for 24 months (M) with delivery of LCIG via percutaneous gastrojejunostomy. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression were performed to identify baseline characteristics that predict "Off" time reduction. Results: Compared to baseline, 86% (n/N = 131/152; mean ± SD baseline "Off" time: 3.4 ± 2.2 h) of M24 completers had ≥ 1 h reduction in "Off" time and 64% (n/N = 97/152; mean ± SD baseline "Off" time: 7.6 ± 2.9 h) had ≥ 3 h "Off" time reduction at M24. Most baseline characteristics were similar across responder subgroups; however, patients with ≥ 3 h "Off" time improvement had more "Off" time and less time with dyskinesia at baseline compared to patients with P Conclusions: LCIG treatment led to clinically meaningful improvements in "Off" time in 86% of advanced PD patients and those with greater "Off" time are likely to experience the largest absolute reduction in hours "Off."

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.