Crying out for a new biomarker

The hunt for a biomarker for Parkinson's has led researchers to investigate a lot of different bodily fluids and techniques! A biomarker is a test that can diagnose Parkinson's, at the moment the only way to diagnose Parkinson's is by using your eyes and your ears. Previously people have tested blood, CSF (the fluid around your brain), skin, saliva, MRI scans, skin samples and even samples of colon. But this pilot study is about a potential location for a biomarker that I had not yet heard of: Tears.

Its well known already that people with Parkinson's have reduced amounts of tears and a lower blink rate. And the researchers point out the the nerves that control the tear gland (lacrimal gland) connect to the brainstem. The brainstem is where a lot of the changes in early Parkinson's take place.

In this study they took 36 people with Parkinson's and 18 healthy people without Parkinson's and collected their tears by using some filter paper to absorb them. They then extracted the proteins from the collected tears.

They found that the Parkinson's participants had a smaller volume of tears but the protein concentration in the tears was about the same as healthy controls. They also identified 21 proteins that people with Parkinson's had significantly higher amounts of and 19 that were significantly reduced in Parkinson's too.

This is only a very small pilot study so we need some further studies in larger groups of patients before we draw any conclusions. But tears are a very attractive biomarker simply because they are so accessible. So this is definitely one to keep in mind and watch out for any further studies about.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019 Mar 6. pii: S1353-8020(19)30094-X. doi:

Proteomic analysis of tear fluid reveals disease-specific patterns in patients with Parkinson's disease - A pilot study.

Boerger M¹, Funke S², Leha A³, Roser AE⁴, Wuestemann AK⁵, Maass F⁶, Bähr M⁷, Grus F⁸, Lingor P⁹.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is still challenging and biomarkers could contribute to an improved diagnostic accuracy. Tear fluid (TF) is an easily accessible body fluid reflecting pathophysiological changes in systemic and ocular diseases and is already used as a biomarker source for several ophthalmological disorders. Here, we analyzed the TF of patients with PD and controls (CTR) to describe disease-related changes in TF and identify putative biomarkers for the diagnosis of PD.

METHODS:

Unstimulated TF samples of a pilot cohort with 36 PD patients and 18 CTR were collected via Schirmer tear test strips and then analyzed via a Bottom-up liquid chromatography electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (BULCMS) workflow, followed by functional analysis encompassing protein-protein interaction as well as cellular component and pathway analysis.

RESULTS:

BULCMS analysis lead to the identification of 571 tear proteins (false discovery rate, FDR < 1%), whereby 31 proteins were exclusively detected in the PD group and 7 only in the CTR group. Whereas 21 proteins were significantly increased in the PD versus CTR groups, 19 proteins were significantly decreased. Core networks of proteins involved in immune response, lipid metabolism and oxidative stress were distinctly altered in PD patients.

CONCLUSIONS:

To our best knowledge, this is the first description of TF proteome in PD patients. Tear protein level alterations suggest the contribution of different disease-related mechanisms in ocular pathology in PD and propose candidate proteins to be validated as potential biomarkers in larger cohorts.

Remedies from the natural world

An article caught my eye this week as several comments received on this blog and in clinic relate to ‘natural’ remedies for Parkinson’s. To provide some background, my therapeutic philosophy is a common one: I will only prescribe or endorse treatments that have gone through robust, unbiased, reproducible testing, and where the benefits outweight the risks. I also believe that there are undoubtedly treatments that have the power to radically alter diseases that are under our noses in the natural world, and once they are identified, purified and tested, will revolutionise medicine. Exenatide is a perfect example: originally derived from the saliva of the Gila monster, this is now a powerful drug against diabetes and may even have the ability to halt or slow Parkinson’s. 

This article looks at whether blackberry juice can reduce levodopa-induced dyskinesia. The first thing to point out was that they didn’t test it in humans with Parkinson’s disease, this experiment involved the MPTP mouse model of Parkinson’s. Mice were given the same amount of levodopa and then different groups were given increasing doses of blackberry juice. The good news is that there was some benefit on the extra movements associated with ‘dopamine overdose’. However, this was mainly seen in the 15mL/kg group. To put this into a human context (assuming that it works as well in humans with Parkinson’s as mice with MPTP induced parkinsonism, which is a very  big assumption, a human would have to drink over a litre of pure blackberry juice per day to have less dyskinesia. 

Science is a journey of increments. These positive results may yield a useful weapon for people with Parkinson’s, but plenty of work needs to be done. I highly recommend blackberries, especially ones forraged on a nice walk in the woods, but I wouldn’t suggest they’re going to make your Parkinson’s better just yet.

RNR

Effects of blackberry (Morus nigra) fruit juice on levodopa-induced dyskinesia in a mice model of Parkinson's disease.

Fahimi Z¹, Jahromy MH¹.

J Exp Pharmacol. 2018 Jul 4;10:29-35. doi: 10.2147/JEP.S161782. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: 

Levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) is a movement disorder that occurs due to levodopa consumption for a long period to attenuate Parkinsonism. Plants have been the basis for medical treatments in human history and still widely practiced. Blackberry (Morus nigra) is one of the fruits rich in anthocyanin. The present study examined the effect of blackberry fruit juice on LID in 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP)-induced Parkinson's disease in mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 

In this study, 42 male mice were used, which were divided into six groups equally: one control group and five groups receiving MPTP injection. After confirmation of Parkinsonism in MPTP groups, one group was preserved without treatment and four other groups were treated with levodopa (50 mg/kg ip). After the onset of LID (2 weeks), one group was kept without additional treatment and three other groups were treated with three different doses of blackberry fruit juice (5, 10, and 15 mL/kg) with levodopa orally for 7 days. Abnormal involuntary movement scale (AIMS) and cylinder behavioral test were carried out according to the schedule. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS software with the significant level of P<0.05.

RESULTS: 

Parkinson's disease was confirmed with AIMS test on the fourth day after MPTP injection. The onset of LID was observed after 2 weeks of levodopa treatment using both behavioral tests. The result of administration of M. nigra fruit juice for 1 week showed that this addition is useful in hindering LID. These effects were more pronounced at doses 10 and 15 mL/kg with nearly the same results on attenuating AIMS. Low dose of the fruit juice does not seem to affect LID significantly.

CONCLUSION: 

M. nigra fruit juice is effective to attenuate LID in an MPTP-induced Parkinson mice model.

Is the horizon getting closer ?

Week after week we talk about the need for a disease modifying drug in Parkinson’s, and week after week we hope to reassure you, dear reader, (as well as ourselves) that this Holy Grail is getting ever closer. 

This week marks the publication of a study that may mark a turning point in this journey. Prothena Pharmeceuticals have run a study looking at the safety and tolerability of a new compound (excitingly called PRX002/RG7935). This is a compound that sticks to the toxic protein that is understood to cause the brain cell loss in Parkinson’s – α-synuclein. Once it sticks to this substance, it ‘flags’ the body’s immune system to come and clear up the mess. This, we think, reduces the amount of the α-synuclein that is floating around and causing damage. 

In this study 80 participants with mild-moderate Parkinson’s were given one of six different doses of this medicine or salt-water (placebo) through a ‘drip’. They attended once a month and the infusion lasted 1-2 hours. Neither the participants nor the investigators knew how much (if any) of the drug they were getting. They received three infusions in total.

I must stress that this study wasn’t designed to see if this did anything at all for their Parkinson’s. The study was too small, and too short for any changes to be detected. The primary purpose of this study was to evalute whether the medicine was safe and tolderable, with secondary objectives of studying what happens to the drug when it is in the body.

Overall, of the 55 participants that had any strength of the medicine, 50 completed the study, and 5 did not manage all 24 weeks of the study. 1 stopped because their Parkinson’s worsened, 1 decided to withdraw (reason not stated), 2 (both in the highest dose group) stopped because of side effects, and 1 also in the highest group withdrew. I also note that 3 out of 25 getting placebo also withdrew.

This study is a vital step. After extensive laboratory testing, a compound like this will be given to a very small number of totally healthy volunteers to ensure it is safe in humans. Then it will be given to a small number of volunteers with the condition to make sure it is safe in the ‘target’ population and to determine a range of safe doses, which is this study. Then it will be given to a moderately large sample to see if there are any suggestions of positive effects and to refine the ideal dose, and finally it will undergo a large study of affected individuals where the investigators (and cruicially the funders) hope to find that it has a true benefit.

All the participants in this study had had Parkinson’s for around 3 years (although this was as much as 15 years) and was moderately advanced. We hope that in future studies, the investigators take people with the earliest possible disease duration and learn lessions from the Alzheimer’s journey. 

This compound has been being studied in the earliest stages of the research process for around 10 years. The next stage of the path for this compound, the PASADENA trial, started almost exactly 1 year ago, and will be running until February 2021. I would expect results to come out towards the end of 2021, and then (hopefully) a phase 3 study will start which will take several more years to run and analyse. If all these steps are successful, we may be in a position to prescribe this medication in around 7-10 years from now.

RNR

Safety and Tolerability of Multiple Ascending Doses of PRX002/RG7935, an Anti-α-Synuclein Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients With Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Neurol. Published online June 18, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1487

Joseph Jankovic, MD; Ira Goodman, MD; Beth Safirstein, MD; Tonya K. Marmon, DrPH; Dale B. Schenk, PhD; Martin Koller, MD, MPH; Wagner Zago, PhD; Daniel K. Ness, DVM, PhD; Sue G. Griffith, MD, PhD, MRCP; Michael Grundman, MD, MPH; Jay Soto, BS; Susanne Ostrowitzki, MD, PhD;Frank G. Boess, PhD; Meret Martin-Facklam, PhD; Joseph F. Quinn, MD; Stuart H. Isaacson, MD; Omid Omidvar, MD; Aaron Ellenbogen, DO;Gene G. Kinney, PhD

Importance:Aggregated α-synuclein is believed to be central to the pathogenesis of Parkinson disease (PD). PRX002/RG7935 (PRX002) is a humanized monoclonal antibody designed to target aggregated forms of α-synuclein, thereby inhibiting neuron-to-neuron transfer of presumed pathogenic forms of α-synuclein, potentially resulting in neuronal protection and slowing disease progression.

Objective:To evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple intravenous infusions of PRX002 in patients with idiopathic PD.

Design, Setting, and Participants:Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending-dose trial at 8 US study centers from July 2014 to September 2016. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 80 years with mild to moderate idiopathic PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3).

Interventions:Participants were enrolled into 6 ascending-dose cohorts and randomly assigned to receive PRX002 (0.3 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg, 3.0 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 30 mg/kg, or 60 mg/kg) or placebo. Participants received 3 intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of PRX002 or placebo and were monitored during a 24-week observational period.

Main Outcomes and Measures:Safety and tolerability assessments included physical and neurological examinations, laboratory tests, vital signs, and adverse events. Pharmacokinetic parameters included maximum PRX002 concentration, area under the curve, and half-life.

Results:Of the 80 participants, most were white (97.5%; n = 78) and male (80%; n = 64); median (SD) age was 58 (8.4) years. PRX002 was generally safe and well tolerated; no serious or severe PRX002-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported. The TEAEs experienced by at least 5% of patients receiving PRX002, irrespective of relatedness to study drug, were constipation (9.1%; n = 5), infusion reaction (7.3%; n = 4), diarrhea (5.5%; n = 3), headache (5.5%; n = 3), peripheral edema (5.5%; n = 3), post-lumbar puncture syndrome (5.5%; n = 3), and upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%; n = 3). No antidrug antibodies were detected. Serum PRX002 levels increased in an approximately dose-proportional manner; mean terminal elimination half-life was similar across all doses (10.2 days). Rapid dose- and time-dependent mean reductions from baseline vs placebo in free serum α-synuclein levels of up to 97% were seen after a single infusion at the highest dose (F78,284 = 1.66; P = .002), with similar reductions after 2 additional infusions. Mean cerebrospinal fluid PRX002 concentration increased with PRX002 dose and was approximately 0.3% relative to serum across all dose cohorts.

Conclusions and Relevance:Single and multiple doses of PRX002 were generally safe and well tolerated and resulted in robust binding of peripheral α-synuclein and dose-dependent increases of PRX002 in cerebrospinal fluid, reaching cerebrospinal fluid concentrations that may be expected to engage extracellular aggregated α-synuclein in the brain. Findings support the design of an ongoing phase 2 clinical study (NCT03100149).

Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02157714.

Changing Tack

In a very wide ranging and well written review, two leaders of the Parkinson’s field lay down set the terms of engagement and (to mix my combative metaphors), lay down the gauntlet in the quest to find disease modifying treatments.

After defining three kinds of ‘disease modification’ (neuroprotection: preventing the progression of PD; neurorescue: repairing damaged brain cells; neurorestoration: replacing what has been lost), they provide a brief but comprehensive overview of why every attempt so far has failed, from both a mechanistic perspective as well as a methodological perspective.

The key messages to take from this article are thus:

1.     We really need to stop thinking of Parkinson’s as a single condition. As well as many different ways that people experience their Parkinson’s (the different phenotypes), there are also many different molecular and cellular processes. Each person will likely have a different milieu of process that results in their particular phenotype.

2.     Once we can do this, we can start approaching disease modification in a more personalised way. This means recruiting the people with the right kind of Parkinson’s, at the right time, to the right study. We need to become much more sophisticated in the way we study new treatments, probably recruiting very specific groups of participants, for example people with particular genetic changes related to their Parkinson’s, and testing cocktails of treatments, rather than our current blunderbuss approach.

3.     Given that Parkinson’s is a complex, and slowly progressive condition, we must have better progression markers on which to design our studies.

This is going to require a lot of work, with the Parkinson’s population, scientists, clinicians, and industry. In order to get the highly effective treatments that our oncologists have avaiable to them, we need to change the terms of warfare.

What can we all do in the mean time? Pay attention to these three battles. Not necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater if a particular study doesn’t prove miraculous (which it almost certainly won’t). And if you have Parkinson’s: exercise more!

At PREDICT-PD towers, we strongly believe that identifying the disease earlier, in the prodromal phase, will bring us closer to many of these objectives. Earlier disease is more likely to be simpler disease; it may be possible to identify early phenotypes that map onto particular pathological pathways; we have an opportunity to identify biomarkers that predict the development of established Parkinson’s, thus giving an ideal method of proving efficacy of new treatments.

RNR

Disease modification in Parkinson's Disease: Current approaches, challenges, and future considerations.

Anthony E Lang and Alberto J Espay.

Mov Disord, 2018 vol. 386 p. 896.

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/mds.27360

The greatest unmet therapeutic need in Parkinson's disease is the development of treatment that slows the relentless progression of the neurodegenerative process. The concept of "disease modification" encompasses intervention types ranging from those designed to slow the underlying degeneration to treatments directed at regenerating or replacing lost neurons. To date all attempts to develop effective disease-modifying therapy have failed. Many reasons have been proposed for these failures including our rudimentary understanding of disease pathogenesis and the assumption that each targeted mechanisms of disease apply to most patients with the same clinical diagnosis. Here we review all aspects of this broad field including general concepts and past challenges followed by a discussion of treatment approaches under the following 4 categories: (1) α-synuclein, (2) pathogenic mechanisms distinct from α-synuclein (most also potentially triggered by α-synuclein toxicity), (3) non-SNCA genetic subtypes of "PD," and (4) possible disease-modifying interventions not directly influencing the underlying PD pathobiology. We emphasize treatments that are currently under active clinical development and highlight a wide range of important outstanding questions and concerns that will need to be considered to advance the field of disease modification in PD. Critically, it is unknown whether the dysfunctional molecular pathways/organelles amenable to modification occur in a sequential fashion across most clinically affected individuals or manifest differentially in independent molecular subtypes of PD. It is possible that there is no "order of disruption" applicable to most patients but, rather, "type of disruption" applicable to subtypes dependent on unknown factors, including genetic variability and other causes for heterogeneity in PD. Knowing when (early vs late), which (eg, synaptic transmission, endosomal sorting and maturation, lysosomal degradation, mitochondrial biogenesis), and in whom (PD subtype) specific disrupted cell pathways are truly pathogenic versus compensatory or even protective, will be important in considering the use of single or combined ("cocktails") putative disease-modifying therapies to selectively target these processes. Beyond the current phase 2 or 3 studies underway evaluating treatments directed at oxidative stress (inosine), cytosolic Ca2+ (isradipine), iron (deferiprone), and extracellular α-synuclein (passive immunization), and upcoming trials of interventions affecting c-Abl, glucagon-like peptide-1, and glucocerebrosidase, it might be argued that further trials in populations not enriched for the targeted pathogenic process are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Do subjects with minimal motor features have prodromal PD?

This is a study of potentially vital importance to our understand of the prodrome(s) of PD. Here the authors show that people with mild parkinsonian signs (subtle bradykinesia, tremor, rigidity, gait disturbance) have Parkinson's disease pathology at post-mortem. The authors observed no PD pathology in participants without mild parkinsonian signs, moderate PD pathology in those with mild parkinsonian signs and frank PD pathology in those with a clinical diagnosis of PD. Some caution should be exercised that the group with mild parkinsonian signs was significantly older than the other two groups, but the pattern of pathology was not typically age-related.

Their observation add further weight the notion that there is a significant motor aspect to the phase of PD before diagnosis, as suggested by our group and others... (the citations in this paper relating to the previous literature on prodromal motor symptoms are a little light if you ask me ! 😀)... 

However this new study could turn out to be a landmark one. I (and some others) have long been asserting that the term 'premotor' may not be an appropriate one. Unless we have laid eyes on people with idiopathic anosmia, RBD or other non-motor prodromal features, then we can't be sure that there are no motor signs. The really important thing to work on now is characterising what specifically starts to change in terms of motor function in those that will eventually go on to get a diagnosis of PD? This is a major focus of the PREDICT-PD study over the next 3 years... and we are exploring this in a variety of ways...

Ann Neurol. 2018 Feb 8. doi: 10.1002/ana.25179. [Epub ahead of print]
Chu Y, Buchman AS, Olanow CW, Kordower JH.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25179/full

BACKGROUND: Understanding the pathological changes underlying mild motor features of the eldery and defining a patient population with prodromal Parkinson's disease (PD) are of great clinical importance. It remains unclear, however, how to accurately and specifically diagnose prodromal PD. We examined whether older adults with minimal parkinsonian motor features have nigrostriatal degeneration and α-synuclein pathology consistent with prodromal PD.

METHODS: Brain sections were obtained from older adults with a clinical diagnosis of PD (N=21) and without a clinical diagnosis of PD (N=27) who underwent motor examination proximate to death. Cases without PD were further dichotomized into no motor deficit (n=9) or minimal motor features (n-18) groups using a modified Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. We performed quantitative unbiased stereological analyses of dopaminergic neurons/terminals and α-synuclein accumulation in the nigrostriatal system.

RESULTS: In all subjects with minimal motor features, there were significant reductions in dopaminergic neurons and terminals in the substantia nigra and putamen that was intermediate between subjects with no motor deficit and PD. Phosphorylated α-synuclein inclusions were observed in the substantia nigra that were of similar density to what was seen in PD. Furthermore, there was greater Lewy neuritic pathology in the putamen relative to PD patients. Lastly, neurons with α-synuclein inclusions displayed reductions in tyrosine hydroxylase expression that was comparable in subjects with both minimal motor features and PD.

INTERPRETATION: Minimal motor features in older adults may represent prodromal PD and identify at risk individuals for testing putative neuroprotective interventions that could slow or prevent PD progression.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. © 2018 American Neurological Association.

On the road to nowhere

This week brings the publication of the (much-anticipated) EXPEDITION 3 study. This reports the results of a very large drug trial of a drug that is hoped to reduce the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. As you might be able to tell by the name, it has been preceded by two previous similar studies.

What is unique about this study? Firstly, the people involved all had ‘early’ Alzheimer’s disease. Secondly, participants had to have ‘evidence’ of Alzheimers pathology – this is key because in the previous studies although all the participants had dementia, a significant number ended up having dementia of another cause.

What are the other notable aspects of the design? The scales they used assessed ‘everyday’ performance (as best as a validated scale can), rather than an abstract cognitive assessment; the study compared cognitive performace after 18 months of treatment, which is a reasonable time given the tradeoff of the cost of a trial such as this, and the rate of progression of the disease.

What are the results? Unfortunately, there was no significant difference when comparing the two groups after 18 months.

There are many lessons for researchers in the Parkinson’s world to learn from this study. A potential reason for failure is that even at the stage of ‘mild’ dementia, there may be too much ‘toxic protein’ in the brain for the process to be reversed, or slowed. To overcome this would require recruiting people with evidence of the disease, but without symptoms. Fortunately, this is exactly whom we hope to identify in PREDICT-PD. Another potential reason for the failure of this drug in three trials is that with solenizumab, they’re barking up the wrong tree. The drug has been specifically designed to reduce the amount of abnormal amyloid protein in the brain. However, although there is strong evidence for the Amyloid Hypothesis, the lack of efficacy of anti-amyloid treatments has brought many in the field to challenge the concept. In Parkinson’s there is less doubt over the Synuclein Hypothesis, and the challenge remains to find a compound that can reduce it, or stop it accumulating and causing brain destruction.

RNR

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1705971?query=BUL

Trial of Solanezumab for Mild Dementia Due to Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. The humanized monoclonal antibody solanezumab was designed to increase the clearance from the brain of soluble Aβ, peptides that may lead to toxic effects in the synapses and precede the deposition of fibrillary amyloid.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving patients with mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, defined as a Mini–Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 to 26 (on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognition) and with amyloid deposition shown by means of florbetapir positron-emission tomography or Aβ1-42 measurements in cerebrospinal fluid. Patients were randomly assigned to receive solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 76 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 80 in the score on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; scores range from 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment).

RESULTS

A total of 2129 patients were enrolled, of whom 1057 were assigned to receive solanezumab and 1072 to receive placebo. The mean change from baseline in the ADAS-cog14 score was 6.65 in the solanezumab group and 7.44 in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference at week 80 (difference, −0.80; 95% confidence interval, −1.73 to 0.14; P=0.10). As a result of the failure to reach significance with regard to the primary outcome in the prespecified hierarchical analysis, the secondary outcomes were considered to be descriptive and are reported without significance testing. The change from baseline in the MMSE score was −3.17 in the solanezumab group and −3.66 in the placebo group. Adverse cerebral edema or effusion lesions that were observed on magnetic resonance imaging after randomization occurred in 1 patient in the solanezumab group and in 2 in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease did not significantly affect cognitive decline. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EXPEDITION3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900665.)