Observational studyMovement disorders clinical practice2026
Continuous Subcutaneous Versus Intestinal Levodopa Infusion for Parkinson's Disease: A Real-World, Monocentric, Observational Study and Critical Review.
Observational study in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Continuous infusion therapy after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: indications, outcomes, and patient selection.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events Associated With Foslevodopa/Foscarbidopa Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Study.European journal of neurology · 2026Observational
- Sex Differences in the Treatment of People with Parkinson's Disease with a Device-Aided Therapy: A Prospective Real-World Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous foslevodopa-foscarbidopa (SCFF) is a novel, non-surgical dopaminergic infusion therapy for better controlling motor fluctuations in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). However, there are scarce real-world data on efficacy, adverse events and comparisons with other infusion strategies.
objectivesHere, we aimed to provide real-world, observational data on treatment of advanced PD with SCFF infusion and compare and review its performance versus intestinal dopaminergic treatment strategies.
methodsWe retrospectively collected monocentric data from patients with advanced PD treated with either SCFF (n = 58) or levodopa-carbidopa(-entacapone) intestinal gel (n = 70). We extracted efficacy and adverse events in a real-world setting and systematically reviewed the available literature for comparison.
resultsOne-third of patients on SCFF withdrew from treatment within 4 weeks. Though generally deemed effective by both clinician and patient, there was a significant mismatch amid clinician (89%) and patient (74%) as per global clinical impression. Correspondingly, patients commonly withdrew due to preference rather than adverse events. Similar results were found for intestinal gel treated patients (89% vs. 70%). Comparison with intestinal levodopa & literature revealed that dose adjustments and adverse events in pump-based therapies for PD are overall common, yet not systematically managed.
conclusionConclusively, our data suggest real-world efficacy for SCFF in controlling motor fluctuations. However, there are significant dropout rates, side effects and patient-clinician disagreement in global efficacy estimation. Comparison with intestinal infusion and literature revealed that pump-based therapies lack structured management. We recommend the establishment of systematic guidelines for pump-based therapies in advanced PD and provide a first troubleshooting algorithm for treating clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.