SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Safety of opicapone in the elderly and very elderly population: an analysis of reported events in a global safety database.

Clin Park Relat Disord · 2026-09-09

DOI: 10.1016/j.prdoa.2026.100500PMID: 42787622

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

IntroductionOlder people with Parkinson's disease (PD) are under-represented in clinical trials despite increasing disease burden and complexity. Although opicapone is approved as an adjunct to levodopa, data in elderly populations are limited. This study assessed its real-world safety in the elderly using post-marketing pharmacovigilance data.MethodsThis retrospective analysis used the global opicapone safety database (data-lock: 31 Jan 2026). Valid case safety reports with opicapone as the suspected product were included and classified as elderly (≥65-84 years) or very elderly (≥85 years). Adverse events were analyzed descriptively by system organ class, preferred term, and seriousness. Non-standard use and treatment actions were also assessed.ResultsAmong 2914 analyzed cases (2558 elderly; 356 very elderly), 7195 adverse events were reported. Most reported events were non-serious (81.4% of events in elderly cases; 73.5% in very elderly cases). Dyskinesia was the most frequently reported event in both groups (7.1%-7.7% of events), followed by hallucination and visual hallucination (all ConclusionReported adverse event patterns were generally consistent with the established safety profile of opicapone across both age groups. No unexpected reporting patterns were observed; however, findings should be interpreted within the limitations of spontaneous pharmacovigilance data.

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.