4.6 Article

Subcutaneous Levodopa Infusion for Parkinson's Disease: 1-Year Data from the Open-Label BeyoND Study

Journal

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
Volume 36, Issue 11, Pages 2687-2692

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.28758

Keywords

infusion; levodopa; ND0612; Parkinson's disease; safety; subcutaneous

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the long-term safety of two dosing regimens of ND0612, showing that continuous subcutaneous infusion of levodopa/carbidopa with ND0612 is generally safe, with infusion site reactions being the main adverse event. 56% of patients completed 12 months of treatment, with a reduced discontinuation rate after protocol revision.
Background Continuous, subcutaneous (SC) levodopa/carbidopa infusion with ND0612 is under development as a treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and motor fluctuations. Objective Evaluate 1-year safety data. Methods BeyoND is an open-label study evaluating the long-term safety of two ND0612 dosing regimens. Results Of the 214 enrolled patients (24-hour SC infusion: n = 90; 16-hour SC infusion: n = 124), 120 (56%) completed 12 months of treatment. Leading causes for study discontinuation were consent withdrawal (19.6%) and adverse events (17.3%). Rates of discontinuation were reduced from 49% to 29% after a protocol revision and retraining. Systemic safety was typical for PD patients treated with levodopa/carbidopa. Most patients experienced infusion site reactions, particularly nodules (30.8%) and hematoma (25.2%), which were judged mostly mild to moderate and led to discontinuation in only 10.3% of the participants. Conclusions Subcutaneous levodopa/carbidopa continuous infusion with ND0612 is generally safe, with typical infusion site reactions for SC delivery as the main adverse event. (c) 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available