Effect of opicapone multiple‐dose regimens on levodopa pharmacokinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To compare the levodopa/carbidopa (LC) and levodopa/benserazide (LB) pharmacokinetic profiles following repeated doses of opicapone (OPC) administered apart from levodopa. Methods Two randomized, double blind, sex‐balanced, placebo‐controlled studies in four groups of 12 or 18 healthy subjects each. In each group, enrolled subjects received a once‐daily morning (5, 15 and 30 mg) or evening (5, 15 and 50 mg) administration of OPC or placebo for up to 28 days. On the morning of Day 11, 12 h after the OPC or placebo evening dose, or the morning of Day 21, 1 h after the OPC or placebo dose, a single dose of immediate‐release 100/25 mg LC was administered. Similarly, on Day 18 morning, 12 h after the OPC or placebo evening dose, or Day 28 morning, 1 h after the OPC or placebo dose, a single dose of immediate‐release 100/25 mg LB was administered. Results All OPC treatments, in relation to the placebo group, presented a higher extent of exposure (AUC) to levodopa following either LC or LB doses. A relevant but not dose‐dependent increase in the levodopa AUC occurred with all OPC dose groups in relation to placebo. All active treatments significantly inhibited both peak (Emax) and extent (AUEC) of the catechol‐O‐methyltransferase activity in relation to placebo. The tolerability profile was favourable. Conclusion Opicapone, as once‐daily oral evening regimen and/or 1 h apart from levodopa therapy, increases the bioavailability of levodopa associated with its pronounced, long‐lasting and sustained catechol‐O‐methyltransferase inhibition. The tolerability profile was favourable and similar between OPC and placebo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".