ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Effect of subcutaneous foslevodopa/foscarbidopa therapy on non-motor symptoms in advanced PD patients.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-world experience with foslevodopa/foscarbidopa in Germany: therapeutic insights and lessons learned.Neurological research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous foslevodopa/foscarbidopa (LDp/CDp) infusion is approved for treating motor fluctuations and dyskinesias in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (aPD). However, efficacy data on non-motor symptoms (NMS) are limited.
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of LDp/CDp treatment on NMS in patients with aPD.
designRetrospective analysis of efficacy of LDp/CDp on NMS after 3 week therapy in a Parkinson's day-clinic setting and further 6 weeks of outpatient treatment.
methodsTwenty-one patients with aPD were assessed at baseline (T0), after 3 weeks (T1), and after 9 weeks (T2). Assessments included broader NMS according to MDS-UPDRS Part I and NMS questionnaire (NMSQ) and in more detail sleep (PDSS-2) and depression (BDI-2).
resultsMean MDS-UPDRS I total score significantly improved by 27% at T1 and 34% at T2 (3.90 and 4.85 points, respectively), which has to be considered clinically relevant (threshold -2.64 points). Relevant improvement accounted for 62% of patients at T1 and 57% at T2. MDS-UPDRS part IB score also improved significantly at both timepoints by approximately 30%. The greatest benefits were observed in sleep disturbances, pain, and constipation. NMSQ score improved by 21% at T1 and 27% at T2, particularly within the gastrointestinal domain. PDSS-2 score improved by 27% at T1, and Beck Depression Inventory 2 score by 37% at T1; both showed numerical but non-significant trends at T2. Psychotic symptoms occurred as adverse effects in 4 of 21 patients (19%).
conclusionIn this exploratory retrospective cohort, LDp/CDp therapy improved clinically relevant NMS, though confirmation in larger controlled studies is needed.
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.