Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
The double-blind part of the COMFORT-PD (COMt-inhibitor Findings from Opicapone Repeated Treatment for Parkinson's Disease) study in Japanese levodopa-treated patients with Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations found that both opicapone 25 and 50 mg were significantly more effective than placebo. This 52-week open-label extension study evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of opicapone 50 mg tablets in patients who completed the double-blind part of the COMFORT-PD study. Safety was monitored via adverse events, laboratory testing, and physical, cardiovascular and neurological examinations. Efficacy was primarily assessed by change in OFF-time. Secondary efficacy measures included: ON-time, percentage of OFF/ON-time responders, other outcomes from the double-blind part. 391/437 patients were transferred to the open-label extension period and included in the safety analysis set (full analysis set, n = 387; open-label completers, n = 316). Adverse events were frequently reported (n = 338, 86.4%), but < 50% were considered drug-related (39.9%) and few were considered serious (2.6%) or led to discontinuation (2.8%). Decreased OFF-time was consistently observed over the open-label period regardless of initial randomization. Change [LSM (SE)] in OFF-time from the open-label baseline to the last visit showed a persistent effect in patients initially randomized to opicapone 25 mg [- 0.37 (0.20) h, P = 0.0689] and opicapone 50 mg [- 0.07 (0.21) h, P = 0.6913] whereas opicapone 50 mg led to a statistically significant reduction in the previous placebo group [- 1.26 (0.19) h, P < 0.05]. Once-daily opicapone 50 mg was generally well tolerated and consistently reduced OFF-time over 52 weeks in Japanese levodopa-treated patients with motor fluctuations.Trial registration JapicCTI-153112; date of registration: December 25, 2015.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.