Singh Alok, Gupta Dhyuti, Dhaneria Suryaprakash, Sheth Pranav G
Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Ann Neurosci. 2021 Jan;28(1-2):65-73. doi: 10.1177/09727531211046362. Epub 2021 Oct 5.
In recent times, the US-FDA approved istradefylline and opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa/carbidopa for managing the "off" episodes in Parkinson's disease.
Current meta-analysis was performed to determine the safety and efficacy of these drugs in the management of "off" episodes and to recognize which among them would provide therapeutic benefits clinically.
A thorough literature search was performed through the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and clinicaltrials.gov for a period from January 2003 to October 2020, with the following keywords: Istradefylline, KW-6002, opicapone, BIA 9-1067, and Parkinson's disease. Those randomized, double-blind placebo/active comparator-controlled trials that analyzed the efficacy and safety of istradefylline and opicapone and that were published in the English language were included. In this analysis, the outcomes focused on the least square mean change in "off" time and Unified Parkinson's Disability Rating Scale (UPDRS) III score from baseline to the end of the study, and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and dyskinesia.
Both drugs have shown significant reduction in "off" time duration (mean difference [MD] = -0.70; 95% CI [-1.11, -0.30]; < 0.001 for istradefylline and MD = -0.85; 95% CI [-1.09, -0.61]; < .001 for opicapone). Istradefylline showed significant improvement in UPDRS III (MD = -1.56; 95% CI [-2.71, -0.40]; < .008), but the same was not observed with opicapone (MD = -0.63; 95% CI [-1.42, -0.15]; < .12). The incidence of TEAEs and dyskinesia reportedly were higher in the intervention group rather than with the placebo, (risk ratio RR =1.11, 95% CI [1.02,1.20] for istradefylline and RR =1.12, 95% CI [1.00,1.25] for opicapone, and for dyskinesia particularly, the incidence was higher with opicapone as compared to istradefylline (RR = 3.47, 95% CI [2.17, 5.57], and RR = 1.77, 95% CI [1.29, 2.44], respectively).
Both drugs were comparable in efficacy; however, istradefylline seemed to be better in reducing the UPDRS III score. Although the incidence of TEAEs and dyskinesia were higher with both the drugs, the incidence of dyskinesia was more in the opicapone group.
近年来,美国食品药品监督管理局(US-FDA)批准了异他司琼和奥匹卡朋作为左旋多巴/卡比多巴的辅助药物,用于治疗帕金森病的“关”期发作。
进行本次荟萃分析,以确定这些药物在治疗“关”期发作时的安全性和有效性,并明确其中哪种药物在临床上能提供治疗益处。
通过Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和clinicaltrials.gov进行全面的文献检索,检索时间为2003年1月至2020年10月,关键词如下:异他司琼、KW-6002、奥匹卡朋、BIA 9-1067和帕金森病。纳入那些分析了异他司琼和奥匹卡朋疗效与安全性且以英文发表的随机、双盲、安慰剂/活性对照试验。在本次分析中,结果聚焦于从基线到研究结束时“关”期时间的最小二乘均值变化以及统一帕金森病残疾评定量表(UPDRS)III评分,还有治疗中出现的不良事件(TEAE)和异动症的发生率。
两种药物均显示“关”期持续时间显著缩短(异他司琼的均值差[MD]= -0.70;95%置信区间[-1.11, -0.30];P<0.001,奥匹卡朋的MD = -0.85;95%置信区间[-1.09, -0.61];P<0.001)。异他司琼使UPDRS III有显著改善(MD = -1.56;95%置信区间[-2.71, -0.40];P<0.008),但奥匹卡朋未观察到同样效果(MD = -0.63;95%置信区间[-1.42, -0.15];P<0.12)。据报道干预组中TEAE和异动症的发生率高于安慰剂组(异他司琼的风险比RR =1.11,95%置信区间[1.02,1.20],奥匹卡朋的RR =1.12,95%置信区间[1.00,1.25],特别是对于异动症,奥匹卡朋组的发生率高于异他司琼组(RR分别为3.47,95%置信区间[2.17, 5.57]和RR = 1.77,95%置信区间[1.29, 2.44])。
两种药物疗效相当;然而,异他司琼在降低UPDRS III评分方面似乎更好。尽管两种药物的TEAE和异动症发生率都较高,但奥匹卡朋组的异动症发生率更高。