Patients’ views on the ethical challenges of early PD detection

I read this paper this morning and thought it represented an important step forward in our understanding of this delicate issue

https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2020/04/14/WNL.0000000000009400

Many of us are working on risk factors of Parkinson's and early identification strategies, but what do patients with PD think about finding out they were at risk before the point of diagnosis? Here the authors surveyed >100 patients with PD and found interesting results. 

More than half would not have wanted to know that they were at risk if there was no medical treatment that could be offered prior to diagnosis... but this number dropped to 15% if there were lifestyle changes that one could make to reduce risk.

10% of patients thought disclosure of being high risk should never happen before diagnosis, but about a quarter (23%) thought that such disclosures should be made. The largest proportion of patients thought that it depended on what an individual wants to know. This personal preference is something that we considered in a paper last year focussed on Early vs Timely diagnosis (link here).

These issues are fundamental to arriving at a point where we have early identification strategies, either lifestyle or medical, and a real preventive approach to neurodegenerative disease. There is an awful lot of work that needs to be done and we require 'buy-in' and commitment from patients, the public, primary care, public health, policymakers and research. Our Time Matters initiative launched last year covers the various requirements to make Preventive Neurology a reality, and studies such as the one outlined here are examples of things that will take us further forward...

- Alastair

The Parkinson’s Drug Trial: A Miracle Cure?

I’m sure many of you have seen the programme about a landmark Parkinson’s study, that was aired on the BBC last night (28^th February 2019). It is a very well-produced fly-on-the-wall documentary that follows the investigators, inventors and some participants that have pioneered a truly ‘disruptive’ trial. If you haven’t seen it, stop reading and watch now (UK readers only).

The inimitable Tom Isaacs, who was one of the first patients into the study, and who's charity the Cure Parkinson's Trust funded this study.

What made it so unique – after all, there are thousands of drug studies that take place across the UK every day. Usually a study is designed to test one thing – most often a drug. In this study, they didn’t just test if the new drug worked. They had to invent new hardware – that needed to be tested. They had to invent a new kind of brain surgery – that needed to be tested. They had to persuade fairly risk-averse regulatory bodies and ethics panels that doing all three, together, at once was fair, safe and acceptable. Regardless of the outcomes of the study, I can only marvel at the courage and dedication shown by every person involved, from the chief investigator and the whole study team, to each and every participant and their families. Medicine usually progresses by small evolution, this study was a major revolution.

So what did the study show? ***Spoiler alert*** (The second part of the documentary is due to be aired next week. Here I will review the peer-reviewed scientific data that was published in two papers this year)

The one sentence summary from the first paper might, on the surface, appear to indicate defeat, “At the 40-week point, however, we have not shown clinical benefit despite this putamen-wide tissue engagement.” However, despite the headline ‘failure’, there is so much to celebrate.

Firstly, the managed to recruit (in fact, for 42 study ‘spots’, they had over 200 people volunteer). This is no small challenge, especially when there is the very real risk of making people worse off, and asking people with Parkinson’s to travel to Bristol every month for nearly a year.

Secondly, they proved that the hardware and surgery worked, and worked safely. 

Image from BBC.com

Thirdly, and very importantly, they showed that after 40 weeks, there was no change in the dopamine-scan in those who’d had placebo; but in the GDNF group there was a marked change that took the appearances back to those expected at the early stage of Parkinson’s. Bear in mind that on average, the participants had had symptoms of Parkinson’s for over 10 years, and in some for well over 15 years!

Fourthly, at the end of 40 weeks, no patients in the placebo group had movement scores that improved by 10 or more points. However, 9 out of the 17 participants given GDNF improved by between 10 and 16 points. This was not only statistically significant (albeit as a post hoc analysis), but most definitely clinically significant.

So what else can be said? Well, firstly, there was a very strong placebo effect. At one point in the film, the mother of one of the participants says, “To have a huge operation like that, and then have to have a placebo. Is that human? Not really, is it!” The BBC have produced a very good summary on the placebo (and nocebo) effects. The fact that the placebo group did improve so much, means that there is much less of a difference between the two groups. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GDNF didn’t work, it means that the effect is ‘lost’ in the statistical analysis. 

Furthermore, the numbers in the study were very small, with only 41 patients in total, (21 GDNF, 20 placebo.) This further reduces the chance of finding statistical differences.

A - model showing the novel equipment that was designed and made specifically for this study. B - the port that participants lived with, with which they were 'hooked up' to treatment. C - brain scan showing that the drug delivery worked exactly where it needed to. D - patient sat being infused with treatment via the 'head port'. E - A (not-so) ordinary infusion suite. (image from linked Brain paper)

After the original 40 week study, both groups continued to get another 40 weeks treatment, this time with everyone getting the GDNF. At the end of this phase, there was still no overall group differences from the very beginning to the very end between those who had 80 weeks vs 40 weeks of GDNF treatment, in terms of the movement scores off all treatment. However, those who’d had GDNF all along had fewer increases in their regular medication (to a tune of nearly 5 tablets-worth per day (59mg vs 289mg)). There was also ongoing improvement in the ability to do daily activities in those having GDNF for 80 weeks, and a continued improvement in the proportion of the day when the medication was working well.

There are several other factors that need to be borne in mind. The study cost £3m. Divided over each of the participants amounts to over £73,000 per person. Although this seems like a lot, the actual treatment cost, should this every come to clinical practice would likely be much lower, as it includes all the extra costs associated with running a complex clinical trial. Furthermore, if GDNF is ultimately shown to slow the progression of the condition, if it means that someone maintains their independence and can either carry on working (and paying tax), or stay in their own home independently, rather than take early retirement or move to a nursing home, this really is small change – and when you factor in Quality of Life benefits, must surely be a price worth paying.

Finally (and thank you for bearing with me to this point), all these patients had a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease for around 8 years. This means that they had the pathology for approaching 20 years. Many were profoundly affected by their symptoms. To use a metaphor I’ve used previously on this blog, it is easier to blow out a match than fight a forest fire. The brain of someone with advanced Parkinson’s is vastly more effected than at the early, or even pre-symptomatic stages. Any restorative attempts are far more likely to work if you can catch it early and intervene early. This is the overwhelming conclusion from treating infections and the whole concept of cancer treatment. 

Hopefully, you and your friends will help us reach that goal with Parkinson’s. You can do your bit by helping us to identify the very earliest phase of Parkinson’s: www.predictpd.com. Taking part involves 25 minutes in front of your own computer at home, and certainly doesn’t pose any of the risks that this study did!

As a final note, I would like to say that this programme reminded me how much of a privilege it is to look after people with Parkinson’s in the clinics of the Royal Free and Luton & Dunstable Hospital; how much of a privilege it is to be at the forefront of Parkinson’s research, funded by Parkinson’s UK, and how much this motivates me while training for the London Landmarks half-marathon and Virgin Money London Marathon.

RNR 

A few personal thoughts to round the year off.

At Predict-PD Towers we have had a busy and successful year. We have rebuilt the website from scratch, taking the opportunity to really review all the questions in the surveys, and select the very best questions to help us answer our research questions. We have pioneered new techniques that are now included in the website, including an online trailmaking task and making the tap-test even better. We have made excellent progress with the imaging substudy: selecting some high risk and similar low risk controls to see if we can see some of the early changes associated with Parkinson’s using cutting edge MRI techniques. We’ve been travelling the length and breadth of the country seeing many of the participants in our ‘special groups’: people with smell loss, and people with a certain kind of sleep disorder, to conduct physical and cognitive examinations in their own homes. We have grown our team allowing us to do similar in person assessments in the homes of many of our ‘regular’ participants, and now have some specialist statistical and techincal data management help. Most crucially of all, we have launched the second phase of the study, in which we aim to recruit 10,000 new participants aged 60-80 – please spread the word, and encourage as many friends and relatives to head to the website (www.predictpd.com) and consider taking part. It takes only about 25 minutes and could potentially change the future of Parkinson’s disease.

I also wanted to reflect on the festive period and what advice or suggestions I could make to individuals or families with someone who has Parkinson’s.

Christmas is a time for family and celebration. When someone has Parkinson’s not only can movement be slow, but many non-motor symptoms can make this time of year hard. Depression, apathy and difficulty keeping up with conversations can make participation in family events so much harder. If Parkinson’s affects your family, friends or neighbours, please try and make the effort not to leave them behind. Social and physical exercise are vital to people with Parkinson’s, so make the effort to make that easy. The post-Christmas lunch walk may doesn’t need to be fast, but by making it inclusive you’ll make a real difference.

Another, far less pleasant aspect of this time of year, is flu. Flu continues to be a significant cause of illness and even death, and although there is no magic bullet, for many people it is potentially preventable. The simplest things are the most effective: handwashing with soap and water (especially after using public transport, before eating, and after coughing and sneezing), using disposable tissues (catch it, bin it, kill it), and the flu jab. It is worth busting a few common flu-jab myths: the immunisation does not contain the live virus – therefore you cannot catch the flu from the jab. While the recommended time to have the jab is October – November, flu cases continue to be common all the way through to the end of March, so better late than never. Each year the vaccine covers different strains of the flu, so that is why it is recommended to have it every year. This also means that the vaccine won’t protect you from evey strain  of flu (there are hundreds), but it will protect you from the ones that are likely to be the most common each year. Being otherwise healthy doesn’t protect you: despite running around 50 miles a week and generally enjoying excellent health, I’ve had a grotty end to the year, with the flu, which then predisposed me to pneumonia (and as a responsible health professional, yes I did get the jab in October, but that just means I was unlucky, and would still recommend it). 

We are of course indebted and grateful to Parkinson's UK for the funding that has allowed us to do this research, and for the support they continue to give. I'm looking forward to my first training run on Christmas day for the London Marathon, where I'll be aiming to break both my targets: under 3 hour finishing time and over £2500 for Parkinson's UK (http://bit.ly/RNR4Parkinsons for those that are interested).

Finally, from the entire team at Predict-PD, we thank you for your interest and participation throughout this year, and wish you and your family a very merry Christmas, and a happy and healthy 2019.

RNR

Gout again.. and is work affected by early Parkinson's?

After my positive blog-post on uric acid a while ago, we have another reminder that unfortunately in research things are often not so simple, especially when moving from observational findings to affecting real-world changes. We are ending the year with another negative trial in Parkinson's - it's recently been announced that the trial of urate-elevating drug Inosine is ending early as the investigators don't believe that the trial will achieve it's stated goal of slowing progression of Parkinson's. Alastair's paper on the causal relationship between urate levels and Parkinson's https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30014513 gave us a hint that uric acid, while associated with reduced risk, may not be directly causing this - so it's still important to understand more about these relationships and it will be instructive to read about the data that has been collected when this is published next year.

Talking of real-world impact, this interesting paper below explored the very real impact of early symptoms of Parkinson's disease on the workforce. At PREDICT-PD we are fascinated by what happens in the years before diagnosis of Parkinson's - a lot has been published on non-motor symptoms such as constipation, depression and sleep disorders - but not much on how this affects specific activities such as work. They looked at patients with Parkinson's who had to take sick leave and compared them to people who had taken sick leave for other reasons. Those with Parkinson's sick leave were more likely in the preceeding 5 years to have taken sick leave for reasons other than Parkinson's and more likely to have taken sick leave for musculoskeletal issues in particular. Given that the study was only able to look at sick-leave episodes exceeding 14 days, it illustrates the significant impact that these symptoms are having on patients in the early disease and even before diagnosis.

On a more positive note as we look towards the end of the year and Christmas, we are very pleased that recruitment is ramping up for the next stage of the PREDICT-PD project. We are working towards new publications of our own data in the coming months and we'd like to thank all for their ongoing support. If you or any family members are interested, please do have a look on www.predictpd.com.

Reduced workforce participation 5 years prior to first Parkinson’s disease sick-leave 

Jonathan Timpka, Örjan Dahlström, Armin Spreco, Maria H. Nilsson, Susanne Iwarsson, Toomas Timpka & Per Odin
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41531-018-0072-2 

Wishing you all the best over the festive season.

-anna