Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39466665›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of neurology2025

Effectiveness and safety of levodopa-entacapone-carbidopa infusion in Parkinson disease: A real-world data study.

Diego Santos-García, Lydia López-Manzanares, Inés Muro, Pablo Lorenzo-Barreto, Elena Casas Peña, Rocío García-Ramos, Tamara Fernández Valle, Carlos Morata-Martínez, Raquel Baviera-Muñoz, Irene Martínez-Torres and 22 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Comparative pharmacovigilance of Levodopa and Pramipexole: a disproportionality analysis of the FAERS database.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors.

Diego Santos-GarcíaDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Universitario de A Coruña, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3126-5111
Lydia López-ManzanaresHospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
Inés MuroHospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5052-0026
Pablo Lorenzo-BarretoHospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9970-2373
Elena Casas PeñaHospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
Rocío García-RamosHospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Tamara Fernández ValleHospital de Cruces, Bilbao, Spain.
Carlos Morata-MartínezHospital Universitario la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Raquel Baviera-MuñozHospital Universitario la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Irene Martínez-TorresHospital Universitario la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
María Álvarez-SaucoHospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Ethiopia.
Déborah Alonso-ModinoHospital Universitario de la Candelaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.
Inés LegardaHospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
María Fuensanta Valero-GarcíaHospital Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
José Andrés Suárez-MuñozHospital Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Juan Carlos Martínez-CastrilloHospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7744-6850
Ana Belén PeronaComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6804-331X
Jose María SalomHospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Esther CuboHospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0018-1182
Caridad Valero-MerinoHospital Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia, Spain.
Nuria López-ArizteguiHospital Universitario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain.
Pilar Sánchez AlonsoHospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Sabela Novo PonteHospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Elisa Gamo GonzálezHospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Raquel Martín GarcíaHospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Raúl EspinosaHospital Universitario de Jerez, Cádiz, Spain.
Mar CarmonaHospital Universitario de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3765-1005
Cici Esmerali FelizHospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Pedro García RuízHospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6194-672X
Teresa Muñoz RuízHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Malaga, Spain.
Beatriz Fernández RodríguezHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Malaga, Spain.
Marina MataHospital Infanta Sofía, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeLevodopa-entacapone-carbidopa intestinal gel (LECIG) infusion is a recently developed device-aided therapy for advanced Parkinson disease (PD) patients. The aim of this study was to report real-world evidence about the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of LECIG in PD patients.

methodsA multicenter observational retrospective study of the first patients who initiated LECIG in Spain was performed. All neurologists with an experience of at least two patients treated until 30 March 2024 were invited to participate. Data about effectiveness and safety from the medical records (V0, pre-LECIG; V1, initiation of LECIG; V2, post-LECIG follow-up) with a total of 246 variables were collected.

resultsSeventy-three PD patients (61.6% males, 70.1 ± 9.1 years old) from 21 Spanish centers with a mean disease duration of 14.4 ± 6.3 years (range = 5-31) were included. Twenty-six patients (35.6%) were switched directly from levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel. The mean exposure to LECIG was 177.3 ± 110.5 days (range = 7-476). The mean daily OFF time decreased from 5.2 ± 3 (pre-LECIG) to 1.9 ± 1.8 (post-LECIG; n = 66, p < 0.0001). Global improvement was observed in >85% of the patients. No significant change was detected in the levodopa equivalent daily dose from V0 to V2. Only 7% received 24-h infusion, and 24.7% required more than one cartridge per day at V2. Thirty-four patients (46.6%) had at least one adverse event related to LECIG and/or the device system. Five patients (6.8%) discontinued LECIG.

conclusionsLECIG was safe and effective in advanced PD patients.

Indexed as

Antiparkinson AgentsCarbidopaCatecholsDrug CombinationsLevodopaParkinson DiseaseAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGelsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNitrilesRetrospective StudiesSpainAntiparkinson AgentsCarbidopacarbidopa, levodopa drug combinationCatecholsDrug CombinationsentacaponeGelsLevodopaNitrileseffectivenessinfusionlevodopa–entacapone–carbidopaParkinson diseasesafety

Identifiers

PMID39466665
PMCPMC11625960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.