De-Qi Jiang1, Hua-Kun Wang2, Yan Wang3, Ming-Xing Li4, Li-Lin Jiang2, Yong Wang5. 1. Department of Biology and Pharmacy, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources Chemistry and Biotechnology, Yulin Normal University, Jiaoyudong Road No. 1303, Yuzhou District, Yulin, 537000, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China. dqjiang888@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Biology and Pharmacy, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources Chemistry and Biotechnology, Yulin Normal University, Jiaoyudong Road No. 1303, Yuzhou District, Yulin, 537000, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Guangdong Province Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Foshan, 528200, China. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310016, China. 5. Department of Pharmacy, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510282, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of rasagiline (R) plus levodopa (L) (R + L) for the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) compared with that of L monotherapy, in order to provide a reference resource for rational drug use. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of R + L for PD published up to September 2018 were searched. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 2531 participants were included. Compared with L monotherapy, the pooled effects of R + L combination therapy on unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) score were (SMD - 0.50, 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.30, P < 0.00001) for UPDRS motor score, (SMD - 0.59, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.39, P < 0.00001) for UPDRS activities of daily living (ADL) score, (SMD - 0.65, 95% CI - 0.81 to - 0.49, P < 0.00001) for UPDRS total score. R + L combination therapy was better than L monotherapy in reducing daily off-time (SMD - 1.15, 95% CI - 2.13 to - 0.17, P = 0.02), but there was a statistically nonsignificant result in daily on-time increase (SMD 1.39, 95% CI - 0.69 to 3.48, P = 0.19). There were no statistical differences in number of adverse events (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.82, P = 0.07) and number of dropout (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, P = 0.39) between R + L combination therapy and L monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: R + L combination therapy was superior to L monotherapy for improvement of UPDRS scores and off-time in PD patients. Moreover, R + L combination therapy and L monotherapy were similar in terms of safety and tolerability.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of rasagiline (R) plus levodopa (L) (R + L) for the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) compared with that of L monotherapy, in order to provide a reference resource for rational drug use. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of R + L for PD published up to September 2018 were searched. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 2531 participants were included. Compared with L monotherapy, the pooled effects of R + L combination therapy on unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) score were (SMD - 0.50, 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.30, P < 0.00001) for UPDRS motor score, (SMD - 0.59, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.39, P < 0.00001) for UPDRS activities of daily living (ADL) score, (SMD - 0.65, 95% CI - 0.81 to - 0.49, P < 0.00001) for UPDRS total score. R + L combination therapy was better than L monotherapy in reducing daily off-time (SMD - 1.15, 95% CI - 2.13 to - 0.17, P = 0.02), but there was a statistically nonsignificant result in daily on-time increase (SMD 1.39, 95% CI - 0.69 to 3.48, P = 0.19). There were no statistical differences in number of adverse events (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.82, P = 0.07) and number of dropout (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, P = 0.39) between R + L combination therapy and L monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: R + L combination therapy was superior to L monotherapy for improvement of UPDRS scores and off-time in PDpatients. Moreover, R + L combination therapy and L monotherapy were similar in terms of safety and tolerability.
Authors: C Venkateshappa; G Harish; Rajeswara Babu Mythri; Anita Mahadevan; M M Srinivas Bharath; S K Shankar Journal: Neurochem Res Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Robert A Hauser; Fabrizio Stocchi; Olivier Rascol; Susan B Huyck; Rachel Capece; Tony W Ho; Peter Sklar; Christopher Lines; David Michelson; David Hewitt Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Thien Thien Lim; Benzi M Kluger; Ramon L Rodriguez; Irene A Malaty; Rafael Palacio; Oluwadamilola O Ojo; Shnehal Patel; Yogesh Gujrati; Benjamin Nutter; Camille Swartz; Carol Hennessy; Hubert H Fernandez Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Sam Chun Sum Yuen; Ka Kit Chua; Linda L D Zhong; Kam Wa Chan; Conrad Kwan Ho Chan; Kam Leung Chan; Zhixiu Lin; Vincent Mok; Alexander Y Lau; Min Li Journal: Chin Med Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 5.455