Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 21.08.2024 | Original Communication

Opicapone for the treatment of early wearing-off in levodopa-treated Parkinson’s disease: pooled analysis of patient level data from two randomized open-label studies

verfasst von: Joaquim J. Ferreira, Jee-Young Lee, Hyeo-il Ma, Beomseok Jeon, Werner Poewe, Angelo Antonini, Fabrizio Stocchi, Daniela M. Rodrigues, Miguel M. Fonseca, Guillermo Castilla-Fernández, Joerg Holenz, José-Francisco Rocha, Olivier Rascol, on behalf of the ADOPTION study investigators

Erschienen in: Journal of Neurology | Ausgabe 10/2024

Abstract

Background

The wearing-off phenomenon is a key driver of medication change for patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) treated with levodopa. Common first-line options include increasing the levodopa dose or adding a catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor, but there are no trials comparing the efficacy of these approaches. We evaluated the effectiveness of adjunct opicapone versus an additional 100 mg levodopa dose in PD patients with early wearing-off using pooled data from 2 randomized studies.

Methods

The ADOPTION study program included two similarly designed 4-week, open-label studies conducted in South Korea (NCT04821687) and Europe (NCT04990284). Patients with PD, treated with 3–4 daily doses of levodopa therapy and with signs of early wearing-off were randomized (1:1) to adjunct opicapone 50 mg or an additional dose of levodopa 100 mg. Patient-level data from the two studies were pooled.

Results

The adjusted mean [SE] change from baseline to week 4 in absolute OFF time (key endpoint) was − 62.8 min [8.8] in the opicapone group and − 33.8 min [9.0] in the levodopa 100 mg group, the difference significantly favoring opicapone (− 29.0 [− 53.8, − 4.2] min, p = 0.02). Significant differences in the Movement Disorder Society—Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part III subscore (− 4.1 with opicapone vs − 2.5 with levodopa 100 mg), also favored opicapone (− 1.7 [− 3.3, − 0.04], p < 0.05). Dyskinesia was the most frequently reported adverse event (opicapone 7.2% vs. levodopa 100 mg 4.2%).

Conclusions

In these short-term trials, introducing adjunct opicapone was more effective at reducing OFF time than adding another 100 mg levodopa dose in PD patients with early signs of wearing-off.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00415-024-12614-8.

Introduction

In the last decade, there has been a general return to the use of levodopa as initial monotherapy for most patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) [1], but with the aim of keeping the dose as low as possible for as long as possible to avoid the development of levodopa motor complications which are a significant source of disability. Often, one of the first motor complications to emerge are ‘wearing-off’ motor fluctuations reflecting a decrease in the duration of effect of each individual dose of levodopa with increasing disease progression and duration of drug treatment [2]. Wearing-off fluctuations can already emerge within the first few years after levodopa initiation [3], but early wearing-off may go unrecognized at office visits, particularly in patients with a shorter disease duration [4]. Predictors of wearing-off (in addition to duration of treatment and disease severity) include a younger age, weight, and female sex [4, 5], with women showing an 80% increased risk for wearing-off [6].
The development of wearing-off fluctuations is a key driver of medication changes [7]. One of the most common approaches to treating early wearing-off is to alter the levodopa dosing regimen, for example, by shortening interdose intervals and/or adding another dose. However, the introduction of a 4th or 5th levodopa dose poses challenges for adherence [8, 9] and is often only effective for a limited period after which further increases in dosing frequency usually are necessary (in turn increasing the risk of inducing dyskinesias). COMT inhibitors, such as opicapone, are recommended by evidence-based guidelines as effective treatment for patient with motor complications [10]. Such recommendations are based on a wealth of data from clinical trials such as the BIPARK pivotal studies [11, 12]. However, these studies enrolled patients who had well established motor fluctuations (average disease duration of 8 years and time with motor fluctuations of 3 years) and a mean daily OFF time of over 6 h [13] indicative of a population with chronic motor complications. However, post-hoc analyses of the pivotal studies suggested the efficacy of opicapone 50 mg in those patients who had developed motor fluctuations within the prior 2 years (placebo-adjusted reduction of OFF time of  − 68.5 min, p = 0.0003 vs. placebo) [13, 14].
The eArly levoDopa with Opicapone in Parkinson’s paTients wIth motOr fluctuatioNs (ADOPTION) clinical program aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of opicapone 50 mg in PD patients with early wearing-off. To improve study feasibility, the overall Phase 4 program has been designed such that all component studies (at national or regional levels) can be kept relatively small but with the intention of pooling for additional power and to support international generalizability. Thus far, two similarly designed trials have been conducted in Europe and South Korea. The results of the South Korean study have recently been published [15]. Here, we report findings from the pooled analysis of both studies.

Methods

Study conduct

The ADOPTION studies were two randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, prospective, open-label, exploratory, Phase 4 studies conducted from June 2021 to August 2022 in Korea and from November 2021 to April 2023 in Europe (Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK). Both studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; each study protocol was approved by the ethics committee at each site and all patients provided informed consent.

Study population

Full protocol details have been previously described [15]. Briefly, male or female patients aged ≥ 30 years were eligible if they had a diagnosis of PD, a Hoehn and Yahr stage of 1–3 (during ON) and were being treated with 3–4 daily doses of levodopa/dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor therapy (maximum 600 mg) for ≥ 4 weeks prior to study entry. Patients had early signs of wearing-off, defined as having at least 1 h of daily OFF time for at least 4 weeks, but for less than 2 years. Key exclusion criteria included atypical parkinsonism, severe and/or unpredictable OFF periods, or awake daily OFF time of more than 5 h. Previous or planned surgery for deep brain stimulation and treatment with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (except for selegiline ≤ 10 mg/day oral, ≤ 1.25 mg/day buccal absorption formulations, rasagiline ≤ 1 mg/day, and safinamide ≤ 100 mg/day), opicapone, entacapone, tolcapone and anti-emetics with anti-dopaminergic action (except domperidone) were prohibited during the study (withdrawn ≥ 4 weeks before screening).

Study design

Following screening, eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to opicapone 50 mg or levodopa 100 mg for 4 weeks in addition to their current levodopa therapy. Opicapone was administered once daily at bedtime 1 h after levodopa intake, and levodopa 100 mg was either taken as one full additional administration or by increasing one or more doses of the established levodopa regimen without altering dose frequency. During the first 2 weeks of study treatment, the total daily dose of levodopa (excluding the additional 100 mg levodopa dose) or the intake intervals could be adjusted in case of dopaminergic adverse events (AEs). However, daily doses were kept stable for the last 2 weeks of the study.

Study endpoints

The key efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to the end of study treatment in absolute OFF time, as assessed by daily paper patient diaries (mean of the 3 preceding diary days before each visit) [16]. We also assessed the change from baseline to the end of study treatment in the proportion of patients (i.e., responders) achieving (i) ≥ 1 h reduction in absolute OFF time and (ii) ≥ 1 h increase in absolute total ON time. Other diary-based efficacy variables were changes from baseline in the percentage of OFF time, in absolute ON time, in the percentage of ON time, and in ON time with and without dyskinesia. Percentages of OFF and ON time were calculated as the sum in minutes from 30-min periods classified as OFF or ON state divided by the total time awake.
Scale-based efficacy variables were the change from baseline in the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) [17, 18] assessed in the ON state, 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) [19], and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) was calculated for monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors and dopamine agonists using the existing conversion factors [20].
Safety was assessed for the duration of the study and up to 2 weeks after the end of study by evaluating AEs, serious AEs, drug-related AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation.

Statistical analyses

Similarities in the design of the two clinical trials permitted a pooled analysis. This pooled analysis was based on integration of individual participant data. Like the two component studies, this preplanned integrated analysis was designed to be exploratory—without hierarchical hypothesis-testing (due to lack of previous trial data on the expected magnitude of effect for levodopa 100 mg) [15]. Patient-level data were combined and analyzed. ANCOVA models were used to evaluate the applicable endpoints as independent variables, treatment arm as fixed effect and baseline values as covariate. Only patients with available (non-missing) data for a particular variable were included in the calculation of a percentage. A mixed-effect linear model with repeated measures (MMRM) were used to evaluate the applicable endpoints as independent variables, with fixed effect for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, and a covariance for the baseline value (visit and corresponding interaction was not included for secondary efficacy endpoints). Responder rates of change in OFF/ON time were compared between the treatment groups using the Chi-square test.
Population sets were defined as the safety set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug and the full analysis set (FAS), which included all randomly assigned patients who took at least one dose of study drug and had at least one efficacy assessment after baseline. Only patients with available (non-missing) data for a particular variable were included in the calculation of a percentage.

Results

Study population

Of the 244 patients enrolled across both studies, 243 patients were randomized and treated with either opicapone 50 mg (N = 125) or levodopa 100 mg (N = 118). Overall, 225 (92%) patients completed the studies; 18 patients (opicapone n = 10, levodopa n = 8) early discontinued (Fig. e1).
Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the two treatment arms (Table 1) and were consistent with an early fluctuating population. Data for the 2 separate studies are given in Table e1. Overall, the average duration of PD was 5.2 years, and the mean baseline levodopa daily dose was ~ 405 mg/day, distributed mostly over three (80%) daily intakes. Patients had a mean (SD) daily OFF time of 3.4 (1.0) h (~ 22% of their awake time) and most ON time was without dyskinesia (~ 89% of total ON time). Concomitant PD medication was common, with 62% of patients already receiving a dopamine agonist and 54% receiving an MAO-B inhibitor; the mean LEDD being 566 mg/day.
Table 1
Baseline characteristics (randomized set)
 
Opicapone 50 mg
N = 126
Levodopa 100 mg
N = 118
Total
N = 244
Age, year
64.1 (8.3)
64.6 (9.1)
64.3 (8.7)
Male, n (%)
65 (51.6)
63 (52.9)
128 (52.8)
Hoehn and Yahr, stage
2.0 (0.5)
2.1 (0.5)
2.0 (0.5)
PD duration, year
5.1 (3.6)
5.3 (3.6)
5.2 (3.6)
MDS-UPDRS motor score
23.7 (10.8)
24.7 (11.5)
24.2 (11.1)
PDQ-8 summary index
17.4 (13.2)
18.4 (14.6)
17.9 (13.9)
Daily OFF time, h
3.4 (1.0)
3.4 (1.0)
3.4 (1.0)
Total ON time, h
12.8 (1.6)
12.8 (1.6)
12.8 (1.6)
ON time without dyskinesia, h
11.6 (2.6)
11.2 (3.3)
11.4 (3.0)
Levodopa dose at baseline, mg
398.3 (117.4)
412.4 (119.5)
405.2 (118.7)
Patients receiving 3 or 4 levodopa intakes per day, n (%)a
   
   3 intakes
101 (80.2)
93 (78.2)
194 (79.5)
   4 intakes
24 (19.0)
25 (21.0)
49 (20.1)
Concomitant therapy, n (%)a
106 (84.1)
99 (83.9)
205 (84.0)
 Dopamine agonist
77 (61.1)
75 (63.6)
152 (62.3)
    Pramipexole
56 (44.4)
53 (44.9)
109 (44.7)
   Rotigotine
5 (4.0)
5 (4.2)
10 (4.1)
   Ropinirole
22 (17.5)
19 (16.1)
41 (16.8)
 MAO-B inhibitor
67 (53.2)
67 (56.8)
134 (54.9)
   Rasagiline
59 (46.8)
51 (43.2)
110 (45.1)
   Safinamide
7 (5.6)
13 (11.0)
20 (8.2)
   Selegiline
2 (1.6)
3 (2.5)
5 (2.0)
LEDDb, mg
556.8 (166.5)
575.6 (170.7)
565.9 (168.5)
Data are mean (SD) unless otherwise specified
aOne patient took 5 intakes in the opicapone 50 mg group; bcalculated for Levodopa, MAO-Bi and dopamine agonists only
LEDD levodopa equivalent daily dose, MAO-Bi Monoamine oxidase B inhibitor; MDS-UPDRS Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, PD Parkinson’s disease, PDQ Parkinson’s disease questionnaire

Efficacy

Results for the integrated efficacy analysis are summarized in Table 2. For the key efficacy endpoint, the adjusted (least squares [LS]) mean (SE) change from baseline to end of study treatment in absolute OFF time was − 62.8 min [8.8] in the opicapone 50 mg and − 33.8 min [9.0] in the levodopa 100 mg group, resulting in a significant difference of − 29.0 [− 53.8, − 4.2] min favoring opicapone 50 mg (p = 0.022) (Fig. 1). Results were similar in males and females (Table e2). The percentage of OFF time reduction was also significantly higher with opicapone vs levodopa (p = 0.03), and the proportion of patients with a reduction in OFF time of at least 1 h was numerically higher in the opicapone 50 mg group than in the levodopa 100 mg group (56.7% vs. 45.6%, respectively).
Table 2
Change from baseline to week 4 in outcome measures (full analysis set)
 
Opicapone 50 mg
N = 122
Levodopa 100 mg N = 118
OFF time (min)
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
 − 62.8 (8.8)
 − 33.8 (9.0)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 29.0 (− 53.8, − 4.2)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.0222
Percent OFF time (%)
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
 − 6.5 (0.9)
 − 3.7 (0.9)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 2.8 (− 5.4, − 0.3)
  p-value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.0309
OFF-time responder rate (reduction of ≥ 1 h); n/N (%)
69/122 (56.7%)
54/116 (45.6%)
Total ON time (min)
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
64.2 (10.3)
43.8 (10.6)
LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
20.4 (− 8.8, 49.6)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.1693
ON time without dyskinesia (min)
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
54.9 (12.1)
59.3 (12.4)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 4.4 (− 38.5, 29.7)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.8008
ON time with troublesome dyskinesia (min)
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
 − 3.0 (6.2)
 − 2.1 (6.4)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 0.9 (− 18.3, 16.6)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.9231
Asleep (min)
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
0.9 (6.2)
 − 10.1 (6.4)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
10.9 (− 6.6, 28.4)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.2217
MDS-UPDRS scores
  
 Part III
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
 − 4.1 (0.6)
 − 2.5 (0.6)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 1.7 (− 3.3, − 0.04)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.0445
 Part IV
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
 − 1.1 (0.2)
 − 0.8 (0.2)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 0.3 (− 0.7, 0.1)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.1734
PDQ-8 summary index
  
  LS mean (SE) change from baseline
 − 2.7 (1.0)
 − 1.9 (1.0)
  LS mean difference versus levodopa 100 mg (95% CI)
 − 0.9 (− 3.6, 1.9)
  p value for opicapone 50 mg versus levodopa 100 mg
0.5447
 Improvement on CGI-Ia, n/N (%)
96/114 (84.2%)
84/116 (72.4%)
 Improvement on PGI-Ia, n/N (%)
90/113 (79.7%)
80/116 (69.0%)
 Mean (SD) LEDD at end of study
744.4b (218.5)
664.9 (181.7)
Significant p values are in bold. aincludes any improvement (minimal, much, and very much); bapplying 0.5 conversion factor for opicapone (same as tolcapone). Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CGI-I, Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement; LS, least square; LEDD, levodopa equivalent daily dose; MDS-UPDRS, Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; PDQ, Parkinson’s disease questionnaire; SD, standard deviation; PGI-I, Patient’s Global Impression of Improvement; SE, standard error
Findings from the other diary-reported efficacy endpoints showed non-significant trends in line with the reduction in OFF time. Treatment with opicapone 50 mg resulted in a correspondingly greater increase than treatment with levodopa 100 mg in total ON time (64.2 min vs. 43.8 min; p = 0.17); most of which was without any dyskinesia. Adjusted mean ON time with troublesome dyskinesia remained unchanged with no difference between groups (–3.0 min with opicapone vs − 2.1 min with levodopa 100 mg; p = 0.9231).
A higher proportion of patients in the opicapone 50 mg group than those in the levodopa 100 mg group showed improvements (minimally, much, or very much) from baseline to end of study treatment as assessed by CGI-I and PGI-I (Fig. 2). Overall, both groups showed improvements from baseline to end of study in MDS-UPDRS and PDQ-8 scores. The change from baseline to end of study treatment in MDS-UPDRS III (motor) scores (during ON) was significantly greater for the opicapone 50 mg group than the levodopa 100 mg group (− 4.1 vs − 2.5, respectively; p = 0.04). While levodopa dose adjustments were minimal during the study, the mean LEDD was higher for the opicapone 50 mg group than for the levodopa 100 mg group (Table 2).

Safety

Overall, 38% of patients reported at least one AE during treatment with opicapone compared with 25% in the levodopa 100 mg group (Table 3). Dyskinesia was the most frequently reported AE possibly related to the study drug, with the highest incidence observed in the opicapone 50 mg group (9 cases, 7%). The incidence of serious AEs was low (< 3%) and similar between the treatment groups; only one case was judged to be related to the study drug and no deaths occurred during the study.
Table 3
Summary of safety (safety analysis set)
 
Opicapone 50 mg
N = 125
Levodopa 100 mg
N = 118
Any AE, n (%) *
47 (37.6)
29 (24.6)
   Dyskinesia
9 (7.2)
5 (4.2)
   Dizziness
8 (6.4)
3 (2.5)
   Nausea
3 (2.4)
4 (3.4)
   Insomnia
4 (3.2)
   Constipation
4 (3.2)
2 (1.7)
Severity, n (%)
  
   Mild
42 (33.6)
24 (20.3)
   Moderate
9 (7.2)
6 (5.1)
   Severe
1 (0.8)
1 (0.8)
Serious AEs, n (%)
3 (2.4)
2 (1.7)
   Spinal compression fracture
2 (1.6)
   Subdural hematoma
1 (0.8)
   Upper limb fracture
1 (0.8)
   Retinal detachment
1 (0.8)
AEs leading to discontinuation, n (%)
4 (3.2)
2 (1.7)
   Vertigo
1 (0.8)
   Somnolence
1 (0.8)
   Tremor
1 (0.8)
   Spinal compression fracture
1 (0.8)
   Upper limb fracture
1 (0.8)
   Dizziness
1 (0.8)
   Insomnia
1 (0.8)
   Rash
1 (0.8)
Any drug-related AE, n (%)a
32 (25.6)
NAb
   Dyskinesia
6 (4.8)
   Dizziness
5 (4.0)
   Constipation
4 (3.2)
   Insomnia
4 (3.2)
   Headache
3 (2.4)
   Nausea
3 (2.4)
   Somnolence
2 (1.6)
 Serious drug-related AE, n (%)
1 (0.8)
   Subdural hematoma
1 (0.8)
n represents number of patients
a ≥ 3% of patients; brelationship was only considered for the opicapone group
AE adverse event
The percentage of patients who discontinued due to AEs was low (< 5%). There was no common AE leading to discontinuation; all six patients who discontinued due to AEs reported different reasons (Table 3).

Discussion

Results of this preplanned pooled analysis of two randomized 4-week studies demonstrate that the introduction of adjunct opicapone 50 mg was significantly more efficacious in reducing OFF time compared with adding another levodopa dose of 100 mg in patients with early wearing-off fluctuations. Treatment with opicapone 50 mg was generally safe and well tolerated.
The ADOPTION clinical program was designed to address the common practical question of which strategies should be used to treat early wearing-off symptoms. In this analysis, the mean treatment difference in OFF time between the introduction of adjunct opicapone and the addition of an extra 100 mg/day of levodopa was 29 min. While this is below the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1 h previously reported for OFF time versus placebo [21], it is pertinent that the difference is versus an active intervention (an additional 100 mg of levodopa) and not placebo. Since all patients were already receiving levodopa therapy—and the comparator treatment was an additional levodopa dose—we did not expect any between group differences in motor symptom severity. However, in line with recent data showing that opicapone provides additional symptomatic efficacy in levodopa-treated patients [22], MDS-UPDRS III scores (during ON) showed significantly greater improvements with the introduction of opicapone 50 mg versus the addition of levodopa 100 mg. One of the key findings in the pivotal studies was the maintenance of levodopa dose over an extended period of time (in contrast to the frequent changes often required when trying levodopa modification strategies). Unfortunately, this study was too short to examine this important aspect of therapy, which could also impact the development of dyskinesia.
This pooled analysis was preplanned to reduce recruitment time pressures for each single study, although recruitment was easier in South Korea than Europe (where it was harder to find eligible patients not already on opicapone). When analyzed separately, only the South Korean study showed a significant difference favoring opicapone [15], while OFF time reductions were similar for both treatment arms in the European study (Table e2). However, the European study was smaller and included a subset of ‘outlier’ patients who, in post hoc analyses, showed signs of atypical disease progression. Other potential reasons for the difference between the two studies could include novelty bias (opicapone had only been launched 6 months earlier in South Korea), and in how the additional levodopa doses were given (the method of administering the additional 100 mg levodopa was not specified in the protocol). For example, in the South Korean study, > 90% of patients came into the study on 3 daily intakes of levodopa, and the additional 100 mg was often distributed across those three intakes and not as a 4th full intake. By contrast, about half of the patients in the European study were on 4 daily levodopa doses, and the additional 100 mg of levodopa was frequently added as a full 4th or 5th intake (i.e., shortening of the interdose interval). The relative efficacy of increasing levodopa dose frequency (fractionation) vs increasing individual doses has not been well studied.
Opicapone was safe and well tolerated, and most AEs, in both groups, were as expected for a dopaminergic replacement therapy. Consistent with the higher LEDD in the opicapone group, the incidence of treatment-emergent dyskinesia reported as an AE was slightly higher in the opicapone than the levodopa 100 mg group; however, this was mainly reported as mild. On the other hand, patients showed an increase in ON time without any dyskinesia. Recent pharmacokinetic data suggest that this may be because opicapone acts to improve the levodopa AUC without significant impact the levodopa Cmax [23].
Strengths of the ADOPTION clinical program lie in the similar designs of the study which enabled patient level integration of data. Similar studies in other countries are currently under consideration and could be added to the dataset. Although open-label, the program was designed to include two randomized studies that evaluated the introduction of adjunct opicapone against one of the most commonly used and potent strategies—namely levodopa dose increase. The study also specifically recruited patients who were earlier in their disease course than the pivotal studies (patients in the BIPARK studies had more advanced PD as evidence by a longer disease duration of ~ 8 years; baseline daily OFF time of ~ 6 h; and a daily levodopa dose of ~ 700 mg/day); as such, the results of the current study should not be compared to the pivotal studies. Limitations of the program lie in its open-label design, variability in the ways that the additional 100 mg levodopa was given (the manner was not prespecified nor recorded, although the European preference for giving the 100 mg levodopa as a 4th or 5th intake vs the South Korean preference for remaining at 3 intakes is evidenced by diary data) and short study duration. Further prospective studies powered to evaluate direct comparisons between opicapone and different levodopa regimens are warranted. Previous post hoc analyses of the pivotal studies have suggested added benefit of opicapone as a first-line adjunctive therapy to levodopa [14]. While patient numbers were too low in the present analysis, it would also be of interest to compare outcomes in patients previously on levodopa monotherapy (i.e., opicapone as first-line adjunct therapy).
In summary, the results of this pooled analysis indicate that opicapone is a well-tolerated and effective option for patients who have developed the early signs of wearing-off.

Acknowledgements

The ADOPTION clinical program was funded by BIAL—Portela & Ca, S.A. and SK Chemicals (Korean study). Medical writing assistance was provided by Anita Chadha-Patel PhD (ACP Clinical Communications Ltd, funded by BIAL—Portela & Ca, S.A) in accordance with good publications practice.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Joaquim J. Ferreira has provided consultancy and received speaker fees from Lundbeck, BIAL, Biogen, Acadia, Abbvie, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Zambon, Affiris, Roche, ONO and SK Chemicals and has received grants from Abbvie, Bial, Medtronic and Angelini. Jee-Young Lee received a research grant of NRF funded by the MSIT of Korea and a multidisciplinary research grant-in-aid and a focused clinical research grant-in-aid from the Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University (SMG-SNU) Boramae Medical Center, and speaker honorarium from Esai Korea, Bial, SK chemicals and Scientific Advisory Board of Regeners Inc. Beomseok Jeon has received research grant from Peptron and Abbvie Korea and has participated in an expert panel for Aspen Neuroscience. Werner Poewe has received lecture fees and honoraria for consultancy in relation to clinical drug development programs from Alterity, AbbVie, Affiris, AstraZeneca, Axovant, BIAL, Biogen, Britannia, Lilly, Lundbeck, NeuroDerm, Neurocrine, Denali Pharmaceuticals, Orion Pharma, Roche, Stada, Sunovion, Takeda, UCB and Zambon, as well as grant support from the MJFF and the EU FP7 & Horizon 2020 programs. Angelo Antonini has received compensation for consultancy and speaker-related activities from UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, Britannia, AbbVie, Zambon, Bial, NeuroDerm, Theravance Biopharma, Roche; he receives research support from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals, Lundbeck, Horizon 2020 - Grant 825785, Horizon2020 Grant 101016902, Ministry of Education University and Research (MIUR) Grant ARS01_01081, Cariparo Foundation. He serves as consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim for legal cases on pathological gambling; owns Patent WO2015110261-A1; and owns shares in PD Neurotechnology Limited. Fabrizio Stocchi has received compensation for consultancy and speaker related activities from Lundbeck, UCB, Chiesi, Zambon, Britannia, Cynapsus, Sunovion, Kyowa, Abbvie, NeuroDerm, Biogen, Bial. Daniela M. Rodrigues, Miguel M. Fonseca, Guillermo Castilla-Fernández, Joerg Holenz and José-Francisco Rocha are employed by BIAL. Olivier Rascol has participated in advisory boards and/or provided consultancy for AbbVie, Adamas, Acorda, Addex, AlzProtect, ApoPharma, AstraZeneca, Axovant, Bial, Biogen, Britannia, Buckwang, CereSpir, Clevexel, Denali, INC Research, IPMDS, Lundbeck, Lupin, Merck, MundiPharma, NeurATRIS, NeuroDerm, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Osmotica, Parexel, Pfizer, Prexton Therapeutics, Quintiles, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Theranexus, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Vectura, Watermark Research, XenoPort, XO, Zambon; received grants from Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), CHU de Toulouse, France-Parkinson, INSERM-DHOS Recherche Clinique Translationnelle, MJ Fox Foundation, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, European Commission (FP7, H2020), Cure Parkinson UK; and received a grant to participate in a symposium and contribute to the review of an article by the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Neuer Inhalt

e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Anhänge

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Pringsheim T, Day GS, Smith DB, Rae-Grant A, Licking N, Armstrong MJ, de Bie RMA, Roze E, Miyasaki JM, Hauser RA, Espay AJ, Martello JP, Gurwell JA, Billinghurst L, Sullivan K, Fitts MS, Cothros N, Hall DA, Rafferty M, Hagerbrant L, Hastings T, O’Brien MD, Silsbee H, Gronseth G, Lang AE (2021) Dopaminergic therapy for motor symptoms in early Parkinson disease practice guideline summary: a report of the AAN guideline subcommittee. Neurology 97:942–957CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pringsheim T, Day GS, Smith DB, Rae-Grant A, Licking N, Armstrong MJ, de Bie RMA, Roze E, Miyasaki JM, Hauser RA, Espay AJ, Martello JP, Gurwell JA, Billinghurst L, Sullivan K, Fitts MS, Cothros N, Hall DA, Rafferty M, Hagerbrant L, Hastings T, O’Brien MD, Silsbee H, Gronseth G, Lang AE (2021) Dopaminergic therapy for motor symptoms in early Parkinson disease practice guideline summary: a report of the AAN guideline subcommittee. Neurology 97:942–957CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Jenner P, Rocha JF, Ferreira JJ, Rascol O, Soares-da-Silva P (2021) Redefining the strategy for the use of COMT inhibitors in Parkinson’s disease: the role of opicapone. Expert Rev Neurother 21:1019–1033CrossRefPubMed Jenner P, Rocha JF, Ferreira JJ, Rascol O, Soares-da-Silva P (2021) Redefining the strategy for the use of COMT inhibitors in Parkinson’s disease: the role of opicapone. Expert Rev Neurother 21:1019–1033CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Stocchi F, Jenner P, Obeso JA (2010) When do levodopa motor fluctuations first appear in Parkinson’s disease? Eur Neurol 63:257–266CrossRefPubMed Stocchi F, Jenner P, Obeso JA (2010) When do levodopa motor fluctuations first appear in Parkinson’s disease? Eur Neurol 63:257–266CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Stocchi F, Antonini A, Barone P, Tinazzi M, Zappia M, Onofrj M, Ruggieri S, Morgante L, Bonuccelli U, Lopiano L, Pramstaller P, Albanese A, Attar M, Posocco V, Colombo D, Abbruzzese G, group Ds (2014) Early DEtection of wEaring off in Parkinson disease: the DEEP study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 20:204–211CrossRefPubMed Stocchi F, Antonini A, Barone P, Tinazzi M, Zappia M, Onofrj M, Ruggieri S, Morgante L, Bonuccelli U, Lopiano L, Pramstaller P, Albanese A, Attar M, Posocco V, Colombo D, Abbruzzese G, group Ds (2014) Early DEtection of wEaring off in Parkinson disease: the DEEP study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 20:204–211CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Olanow CW, Kieburtz K, Rascol O, Poewe W, Schapira AH, Emre M, Nissinen H, Leinonen M, Stocchi F, Stalevo Reduction in Dyskinesia Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease I (2013) Factors predictive of the development of Levodopa-induced dyskinesia and wearing-off in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 28:1064–1071CrossRef Olanow CW, Kieburtz K, Rascol O, Poewe W, Schapira AH, Emre M, Nissinen H, Leinonen M, Stocchi F, Stalevo Reduction in Dyskinesia Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease I (2013) Factors predictive of the development of Levodopa-induced dyskinesia and wearing-off in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 28:1064–1071CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Colombo D, Abbruzzese G, Antonini A, Barone P, Bellia G, Franconi F, Simoni L, Attar M, Zagni E, Haggiag S, Stocchi F (2015) The “gender factor” in wearing-off among patients with Parkinson’s disease: a post hoc analysis of DEEP study. ScientificWorldJournal 2015:787451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Colombo D, Abbruzzese G, Antonini A, Barone P, Bellia G, Franconi F, Simoni L, Attar M, Zagni E, Haggiag S, Stocchi F (2015) The “gender factor” in wearing-off among patients with Parkinson’s disease: a post hoc analysis of DEEP study. ScientificWorldJournal 2015:787451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Armstrong MJ, Okun MS (2020) Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: a review. JAMA 323:548–560CrossRefPubMed Armstrong MJ, Okun MS (2020) Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: a review. JAMA 323:548–560CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Grosset KA, Bone I, Grosset DG (2005) Suboptimal medication adherence in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 20:1502–1507CrossRefPubMed Grosset KA, Bone I, Grosset DG (2005) Suboptimal medication adherence in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 20:1502–1507CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Grosset D, Antonini A, Canesi M, Pezzoli G, Lees A, Shaw K, Cubo E, Martinez-Martin P, Rascol O, Negre-Pages L, Senard A, Schwarz J, Strecker K, Reichmann H, Storch A, Löhle M, Stocchi F, Grosset K (2009) Adherence to antiparkinson medication in a multicenter European study. Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc 24:826–832CrossRef Grosset D, Antonini A, Canesi M, Pezzoli G, Lees A, Shaw K, Cubo E, Martinez-Martin P, Rascol O, Negre-Pages L, Senard A, Schwarz J, Strecker K, Reichmann H, Storch A, Löhle M, Stocchi F, Grosset K (2009) Adherence to antiparkinson medication in a multicenter European study. Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc 24:826–832CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fox SH, Katzenschlager R, Lim SY, Barton B, de Bie RMA, Seppi K, Coelho M, Sampaio C, Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine C (2018) International Parkinson and movement disorder society evidence-based medicine review: Update on treatments for the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 33:1248–1266CrossRefPubMed Fox SH, Katzenschlager R, Lim SY, Barton B, de Bie RMA, Seppi K, Coelho M, Sampaio C, Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine C (2018) International Parkinson and movement disorder society evidence-based medicine review: Update on treatments for the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 33:1248–1266CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferreira JJ, Lees A, Rocha JF, Poewe W, Rascol O, Soares-da-Silva P, Bi-Park i, (2016) Opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease and end-of-dose motor fluctuations: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 15:154–165CrossRefPubMed Ferreira JJ, Lees A, Rocha JF, Poewe W, Rascol O, Soares-da-Silva P, Bi-Park i, (2016) Opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease and end-of-dose motor fluctuations: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 15:154–165CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Lees AJ, Ferreira J, Rascol O, Poewe W, Rocha JF, McCrory M, Soares-da-Silva P, Investigators B-S (2017) Opicapone as Adjunct to levodopa therapy in patients with Parkinson disease and motor fluctuations: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 74:197–206CrossRefPubMed Lees AJ, Ferreira J, Rascol O, Poewe W, Rocha JF, McCrory M, Soares-da-Silva P, Investigators B-S (2017) Opicapone as Adjunct to levodopa therapy in patients with Parkinson disease and motor fluctuations: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 74:197–206CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferreira JJ, Lees A, Rocha JF, Poewe W, Rascol O, Soares-da-Silva P (2019) Long-term efficacy of opicapone in fluctuating Parkinson’s disease patients: a pooled analysis of data from two phase 3 clinical trials and their open-label extensions. Eur J Neurol 26:953–960CrossRefPubMed Ferreira JJ, Lees A, Rocha JF, Poewe W, Rascol O, Soares-da-Silva P (2019) Long-term efficacy of opicapone in fluctuating Parkinson’s disease patients: a pooled analysis of data from two phase 3 clinical trials and their open-label extensions. Eur J Neurol 26:953–960CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Rocha JF, Ebersbach G, Lees A, Tolosa E, Ferreira JJ, Poewe W, Rascol O, Stocchi F, Antonini A, Magalhaes D, Gama H, Soares-da-Silva P (2021) The added benefit of opicapone when used early in Parkinson’s disease patients with levodopa-induced motor fluctuations: a post-hoc analysis of BIPARK-I and -II. Front Neurol 12:754016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rocha JF, Ebersbach G, Lees A, Tolosa E, Ferreira JJ, Poewe W, Rascol O, Stocchi F, Antonini A, Magalhaes D, Gama H, Soares-da-Silva P (2021) The added benefit of opicapone when used early in Parkinson’s disease patients with levodopa-induced motor fluctuations: a post-hoc analysis of BIPARK-I and -II. Front Neurol 12:754016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee JY, Ma HI, Ferreira JJ, Rocha JF, Sung YH, Song IU, Ahn TB, Kwon DY, Cheon SM, Kim JM, Lee CS, Lee PH, Park JH, Lee JH, Park MY, Kim SJ, Baik JS, Choi SM, Shin HW, Lee HW, Kang SY, Jeon B (2024) Opicapone to treat early wearing-off in Parkinson’s disease patients: the Korean ADOPTION trial. Mov Disord Clin Pract 11:655–665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lee JY, Ma HI, Ferreira JJ, Rocha JF, Sung YH, Song IU, Ahn TB, Kwon DY, Cheon SM, Kim JM, Lee CS, Lee PH, Park JH, Lee JH, Park MY, Kim SJ, Baik JS, Choi SM, Shin HW, Lee HW, Kang SY, Jeon B (2024) Opicapone to treat early wearing-off in Parkinson’s disease patients: the Korean ADOPTION trial. Mov Disord Clin Pract 11:655–665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauser RA, Friedlander J, Zesiewicz TA, Adler CH, Seeberger LC, O’Brien CF, Molho ES, Factor SA (2000) A home diary to assess functional status in patients with Parkinson’s disease with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Clin Neuropharmacol 23:75–81CrossRefPubMed Hauser RA, Friedlander J, Zesiewicz TA, Adler CH, Seeberger LC, O’Brien CF, Molho ES, Factor SA (2000) A home diary to assess functional status in patients with Parkinson’s disease with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Clin Neuropharmacol 23:75–81CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Park J, Koh SB, Kwon KY, Kim SJ, Kim JW, Kim JS, Park KW, Paik JS, Sohn YH, Ahn JY, Oh E, Youn J, Lee JY, Lee PH, Jang W, Kim HJ, Jeon BS, Chung SJ, Cho JW, Cheon SM, Kang SY, Park MY, Park S, Huh YE, Kang SJ, Kim HT (2020) Validation study of the official korean version of the movement disorder society-unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. J Clin Neurol 16:633–645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Park J, Koh SB, Kwon KY, Kim SJ, Kim JW, Kim JS, Park KW, Paik JS, Sohn YH, Ahn JY, Oh E, Youn J, Lee JY, Lee PH, Jang W, Kim HJ, Jeon BS, Chung SJ, Cho JW, Cheon SM, Kang SY, Park MY, Park S, Huh YE, Kang SJ, Kim HT (2020) Validation study of the official korean version of the movement disorder society-unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. J Clin Neurol 16:633–645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P, Poewe W, Sampaio C, Stern MB, Dodel R, Dubois B, Holloway R, Jankovic J, Kulisevsky J, Lang AE, Lees A, Leurgans S, LeWitt PA, Nyenhuis D, Olanow CW, Rascol O, Schrag A, Teresi JA, van Hilten JJ, LaPelle N, Movement Disorder Society URTF (2008) Movement disorder society-sponsored revision of the unified parkinson’s disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord 23:2129–2170CrossRefPubMed Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P, Poewe W, Sampaio C, Stern MB, Dodel R, Dubois B, Holloway R, Jankovic J, Kulisevsky J, Lang AE, Lees A, Leurgans S, LeWitt PA, Nyenhuis D, Olanow CW, Rascol O, Schrag A, Teresi JA, van Hilten JJ, LaPelle N, Movement Disorder Society URTF (2008) Movement disorder society-sponsored revision of the unified parkinson’s disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord 23:2129–2170CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N (1997) The PDQ-8: development and validation of a short-form parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Psychol Health 12:805–814CrossRef Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N (1997) The PDQ-8: development and validation of a short-form parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Psychol Health 12:805–814CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Schade S, Mollenhauer B, Trenkwalder C (2020) Levodopa equivalent dose conversion Factors: An Updated Proposal Including Opicapone and Safinamide. Mov Disord Clin Pract 7:343–345CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schade S, Mollenhauer B, Trenkwalder C (2020) Levodopa equivalent dose conversion Factors: An Updated Proposal Including Opicapone and Safinamide. Mov Disord Clin Pract 7:343–345CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauser RA, Gordon MF, Mizuno Y, Poewe W, Barone P, Schapira AH, Rascol O, Debieuvre C, Frassdorf M (2014) Minimal clinically important difference in Parkinson’s disease as assessed in pivotal trials of pramipexole extended release. Parkinsons Dis 2014:467131PubMedPubMedCentral Hauser RA, Gordon MF, Mizuno Y, Poewe W, Barone P, Schapira AH, Rascol O, Debieuvre C, Frassdorf M (2014) Minimal clinically important difference in Parkinson’s disease as assessed in pivotal trials of pramipexole extended release. Parkinsons Dis 2014:467131PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferreira JJ, Poewe W, Rascol O, Stocchi F, Antonini A, Moreira J, Guimaraes B, Rocha JF, Soares-da-Silva P (2022) Effect of opicapone on levodopa pharmacokinetics in patients with fluctuating Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 37:2272–2283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ferreira JJ, Poewe W, Rascol O, Stocchi F, Antonini A, Moreira J, Guimaraes B, Rocha JF, Soares-da-Silva P (2022) Effect of opicapone on levodopa pharmacokinetics in patients with fluctuating Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 37:2272–2283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Opicapone for the treatment of early wearing-off in levodopa-treated Parkinson’s disease: pooled analysis of patient level data from two randomized open-label studies
verfasst von
Joaquim J. Ferreira
Jee-Young Lee
Hyeo-il Ma
Beomseok Jeon
Werner Poewe
Angelo Antonini
Fabrizio Stocchi
Daniela M. Rodrigues
Miguel M. Fonseca
Guillermo Castilla-Fernández
Joerg Holenz
José-Francisco Rocha
Olivier Rascol
on behalf of the ADOPTION study investigators
Publikationsdatum
21.08.2024
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Journal of Neurology / Ausgabe 10/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-5354
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1459
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-024-12614-8

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Neurologie (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Neu im Fachgebiet Neurologie

Schlaganfall oder Schlaganfall-Imitator?

Ein breites Spektrum von Erkrankungen kann einen Schlaganfall vortäuschen. Bei der notwendigen schnellen Unterscheidung zwischen solchen „stroke mimics“ und echten Schlaganfällen können einige klinische Faktoren und Symptome unterstützend herangezogen werden. 

Ein pulverisierter Plastiklöffel im Gehirn

Das menschliche Gehirn besteht zu etwa 0,5% aus Nanoplastik – Tendenz weiter steigend. Nach Resultaten eine Autopsiestudie reichert sich Plastik im Gehirn 10- bis 30-fach stärker an als in anderen Organen – mit bislang noch völlig unklaren Folgen.

Schlaganfall durch wandernde A. carotis interna

Die Thrombolyse nützte nichts, vielmehr war eine Teilresektion des Zungenbeins nötig: Es hatte eine verlagerte Carotis interna komprimiert und so bei einem älteren Mann einen Schlaganfall ausgelöst. Per Bildgebung lässt sich eine solche Ursache manchmal nur schwer nachweisen.

Epileptischer Anfall nach Darmreinigung

Die Darmreinigung vor einer Koloskopie führte einen älteren Mann auf die Intensivstation: Seine Natriumwerte waren durch die Prozedur so gesunken, dass er Bewusstseinstrübungen und Krampfanfälle entwickelte.

Update Neurologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.