Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term, real-life effects on non-motor symptoms (NMS) of opicapone compared to entacapone in levodopa-treated people with Parkinson's disease (PwP).MethodsA retrospective data analysis, with pre- and post-opicapone initiation data of 17 PwP with motor fluctuations compared to a comparable group of 18 PwP introduced on entacapone. The primary outcome was changes in the NMS Scale (NMSS) total score after 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included changes in the NMSS domains, and Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS) total and item scores after the same time span.ResultsGroups were comparable for baseline demographics and Parkinson's-related features (p ≥ 0.314) as well as duration of follow-up (1.33 ± 0.66 years for PwP on opicapone and 1.23 ± 0.49 years for those on entacapone; p = 0.858). PwP who were introduced on opicapone showed no changes in NMSS and PDSS total scores after 1 year (p = 0.605 and p = 0.507, respectively), whereas PwP who were introduced on entacapone showed significant worsening of NMSS and PDSS total scores at follow-up (p = 0.005 and p = 0.001, respectively). In neither group changes in individual NMSS domains from baseline to follow-up were observed (p ≥ 0.288 for entacapone and p ≥ 0.816 for opicapone, respectively). In PwP on entacapone significant worsening was seen in the distressing dreams, hallucinations, and limb numbness items of the PDSS (p ≤ 0.05).ConclusionsIntroduction of opicapone in real-life PwP with motor fluctuations seems to stabilise NMS burden and aspects of sleep dysfunction, in contrast to entacapone where there was a worsening of NMS burden and PDSS scores over 1 year follow-up.
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.