Trial reportAdvances in therapy2026
Foslevodopa/Foscarbidopa Subcutaneous Infusion Safety and Efficacy in Patients with and Without Prior Deep Brain Stimulation.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03781167 (A 52-Week, Open-label, Single-arm Study to Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of 24-hour Daily Exposure of Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion of ABBV-951 in Subjects With Parkinson's Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
A 52-Week, Open-label, Single-arm Study to Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of 24-hour Daily Exposure of Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion of ABBV-951 in Subjects With Parkinson's Disease
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous infusion therapy after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: indications, outcomes, and patient selection.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Global research synergy: Advancing fundamental Parkinson's research through international collaboration.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- Continuous subcutaneous foslevodopa/foscarbidopa in advanced Parkinson's disease: A clinical workflow from 50 consecutive patients at a single U.S. center.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs Parkinson's disease (PD) advances, limitations of oral medication include pill burden, increasing "Off" time, and "On" time with bothersome dyskinesia. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) can improve motor complications, but disease progression may warrant further intervention later. An approved nonsurgical option, continuous subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa (LDp/CDp), has been shown to improve motor fluctuations, though the impact of prior DBS on its efficacy and safety is unknown.
methodsPost hoc analysis of a 52-week open-label phase 3 trial (NCT03781167) evaluated baseline characteristics, safety, and efficacy in patients treated with LDp/CDp with or without prior DBS. Fisher's exact test, t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and analysis of covariance were performed.
resultsTwenty-four (9.8%) of 244 patients received prior DBS. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, although prior patients treated with DBS had significantly more time since diagnosis and more "speech" and "gait" impairment (Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS] Parts II/III single items). Both groups showed significant within-group improvements in "Off" time and "On" time without dyskinesia, and the between-group difference for these improvements was not significant, indicating LDp/CDp had efficacy regardless of DBS exposure. The no DBS group had significant improvement in sleep and quality of life, while the prior DBS group had nonsignificant trends in the same direction. The no DBS group had significant improvement in MDS-UPDRS Part II score but worsening in Part III score, as expected with advancing disease; change from baseline in the prior DBS group was not significant. The safety data were similar in both groups, with the only significant difference being a higher percentage of prior patients treated with DBS experiencing severe treatment-emergent adverse events than no DBS (45.8% vs 23.6%).
conclusionWhile limited by small prior DBS patient numbers, this post hoc study suggests generally similar overall baseline, safety, and efficacy profiles in LDp/CDp-treated prior DBS and no DBS.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03781167.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.