↓ Skip to main content

Opicapone versus placebo in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease patients with end-of-dose motor fluctuation-associated pain: rationale and design of the randomised, double-blind OCEAN (OpiCapone…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, March 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Opicapone versus placebo in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease patients with end-of-dose motor fluctuation-associated pain: rationale and design of the randomised, double-blind OCEAN (OpiCapone Effect on motor fluctuations and pAiN) trial
Published in
BMC Neurology, March 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12883-022-02602-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Ray Chaudhuri, Per Odin, Joaquim J. Ferreira, Angelo Antonini, Olivier Rascol, Mónica M. Kurtis, Alexander Storch, Kirsty Bannister, Patrício Soares-da-Silva, Raquel Costa, Diogo Magalhães, José Francisco Rocha

Abstract

Optimisation of dopaminergic therapy may alleviate fluctuation-related pain in Parkinson's disease (PD). Opicapone (OPC) is a third-generation, once-daily catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor shown to be generally well tolerated and efficacious in reducing OFF-time in two pivotal trials in patients with PD and end-of-dose motor fluctuations. The OpiCapone Effect on motor fluctuations and pAiN (OCEAN) trial aims to investigate the efficacy of OPC 50 mg in PD patients with end-of-dose motor fluctuations and associated pain, when administered as adjunctive therapy to existing treatment with levodopa/dopa decarboxylase inhibitor (DDCi). OCEAN is a Phase IV, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, interventional trial in PD patients with end-of-dose motor fluctuations and associated pain. It consists of a 1-week screening period, 24-week double-blind treatment period and 2-week follow-up period. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 to OPC 50 mg or placebo once daily while continuing current treatment with levodopa/DDCi and other chronic, stable anti-PD and/or analgesic treatments. The primary efficacy endpoint is change from baseline in Domain 3 (fluctuation-related pain) of the King's Parkinson's disease Pain Scale (KPPS). The key secondary efficacy endpoint is change from baseline in Domain B (anxiety) of the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored Non-Motor rating Scale (MDS-NMS). Additional secondary efficacy assessments include other domains and total scores of the KPPS and MDS-NMS, the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8), the MDS-sponsored Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Parts III and IV, Clinical and Patient's Global Impressions of Change, and change in functional status via Hauser's diary. Safety assessments include the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The study will be conducted in approximately 140 patients from 50 clinical sites in Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Recruitment started in February 2021 and the last patient is expected to complete the study by late 2022. The OCEAN trial will help determine whether the use of adjunctive OPC 50 mg treatment can improve fluctuation-associated pain in PD patients with end-of-dose motor fluctuations. The robust design of OCEAN will address the current lack of reliable evidence for dopaminergic-based therapy in the treatment of PD-associated pain. EudraCT number 2020-001175-32 ; registered on 2020-08-07.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Unspecified 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 18 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2022.
All research outputs
#13,531,752
of 23,347,114 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,068
of 2,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,572
of 440,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#28
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,347,114 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.