SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Levodopa Equivalent Dose of Safinamide: A Multicenter, Longitudinal, Case-Control Study.

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2023-02-15

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13681PMID: 37070060

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

BackgroundEffects of dopaminergic medications used to treat Parkinson's disease (PD) may be compared with each other by using conversion factors, calculated as Levodopa equivalent dose (LED). However, current LED proposals on MAO-B inhibitors (iMAO-B) safinamide and rasagiline are still based on empirical approaches.ObjectivesTo estimate LED of safinamide 50 and 100 mg.MethodsIn this multicenter, longitudinal, case-control study, we retrospectively reviewed clinical charts of 500 consecutive PD patients with motor complications and treated with (i) safinamide 100 mg (N = 130), safinamide 50 mg (N = 144), or rasagiline 1 mg (N = 97) for 9 ± 3 months and a control group of patients never treated with any iMAO-B (N = 129).ResultsMajor baseline features (age, sex, disease duration and stage, severity of motor signs and motor complications) were similar among the groups. Patients on rasagiline had lower UPDRS-II scores and Levodopa dose than control subjects. After a mean follow-up of 8.8-to-10.1 months, patients on Safinamide 50 mg and 100 mg had lower UPDRS-III and OFF-related UPDRS-IV scores than control subjects, who in turn had larger increase in total LED than the three iMAO-B groups. After adjusting for age, disease duration, duration of follow-up, baseline values and taking change in UPDRS-III scores into account (sensitivity analysis), safinamide 100 mg corresponded to 125 mg LED, whereas safinamide 50 mg and rasagiline 1 mg equally corresponded to 100 mg LED.ConclusionsWe used a rigorous approach to calculate LED of safinamide 50 and 100 mg. Large prospective pragmatic trials are needed to replicate our findings.

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.