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 

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 

  

Parkinson's ex machina

Last week Anna talked about the need to ensure the 'human' is kept at the centre of drug design for Parkinson's treatments - "focussing on human cells, tissues and subjects". Today I also want to discuss the role of humans in Parkinson's and the role of machines.

Neurology (and neurologists) take pride from being a bastion of clinical medicine - the heart and soul of our practice is listening to our patient and observing their every movement. In some ways neurology has not moved on much (in spirit) from the historic view of 'physicians' portrayed so poignantly by Sir Luke Fields. Movement disorders, and the diagnosis and management of Parkinson's are perfect examples of this human approach, with no equipment other than a tendon hammer necessary to make the diagnosis.

taken from https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/fildes-the-doctor-n01522 with thanks

However, today's world has moved on leaps and bounds, and medicine and neurology are desperately trying to keep pace. In the 130 years since this scene was painted, our world has changed almost unrecognisably (although a Google image search of 'doctor' would make anyone believe that it is still delivered primarily by middle aged white men - which thankfully is less true now than ever).

It is old hat to say that technology continues at a blistering pace. Miniaturisation  has made yesterday's science fiction into the everyday. 'The Fantastic Voyage' described a vessel that was shrunk and inserted into a person's body to save them - well thrombectomy for stroke, stunting for heart attacks, and a video camera so small you can swallow it to get diagnostic pictures throughout the gut are all in routine clinical practice in the NHS today.

The Fantastic Voyage (1966) - picture from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fantastic-Voyage

High street technology has revolutionised our lives. There is more processing power in my 4 year old iPhone than Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had on Apollo 11. There is now an enormous market in wearable technology that will give you a beat-by-beat analysis of your heart rate, count your steps in a day, your calorie output, measure your power in watts on a bike, feet climbed on the stairs and just about any other metric you can imagine.

Just a small number of the dizzying array of activity tracking watches available on the high street (picture from  Groupon.co.uk)

All this brings me onto a review I have read, "Optimizing clinical assessments in Parkinson's disease through the use of wearable sensors and data driven modelling"

The article offers a review on some of the hardware software and statistical approaches to understanding the data. At its heart is the understanding that a neurologist sees their patient for perhaps 3 or 4 15-20 appointments in a year. That clearly leaves 8,759 hours per year where the neurologist has no ability to observe their patient move. Wearable technology brings us a (relatively) non-intrusive window into the 'real lives' of our patients. With the vast amounts of data that this can bring, we need very sophisticated algorithms to understand it, and we need to understand the computer science and mathematical constructs that underlie those algorithms.

Going further than mere observation is prediction - the holy grail in healthcare, and our clearly stated aim in PREDICT-PD. This article concludes by cautioning us about the variation in quality and output of this technology, but offering us the hope that these devices and underlying data analysis will improve clinical decision making, provide more personalised care, and better understand and highlight the differences in the manifestations of what we currently call 'Parkinson's disease', leading to better trials, treatments and one day - cure.

RNR

Why aren't you developing a treatment for Parkinson's Disease???

I gave a presentation to my neurology department on PREDICT-PD this week and, in preparation, my unsuspecting partner was put to use as a test audience. His first comment was - "You keep talking about identifying people for future Parkinson's Disease treatments, why aren't you developing a treatment???"

It's a good question, and this recent article, published in Drug Discovery Today, illuminates the issues around drug-development well. It calls for adopting a more human approach to developing treatments, focussing on human cells, tissues and subjects. Levodopa therapy for Parkinson's, which treats the symptoms but not the process that leads to cell damage, was introduced around 50 years ago. It was the result of investigations into the human brain and observations on the side effects of anti-dopaminergic substances. Since then, there has been very little progress in developing treatments which actually prevent the death of brain cells.

This article suggests that a focus on imperfect animal models has delayed progress - for example animal models often don't show the same side effects that humans do. No animal model has exactly the combination of brain damage and progressive symptoms we see with Parkinson's in humans and so promising results in animals have often not translated into humans. They discuss different therapeutic approaches - for example surgical approaches to repairing cells or DNA including stem cell treatments, gene therapy and peptide therapy, suggesting the need to observe results in human cells and tissues. They go on to discuss the use of computer-based techniques to model the potential interactions between new molecules and human systems as well as the detrimental effects of toxic molecules. Finally, they mention the importance of imaging techniques to monitor disease progression before symptoms develop.

The key to the success of all of these techniques is defining the right group of people to give treatments to, before they develop disease. Whilst the PREDICT-PD study may offer new insights into risk factors that could potentially suggest new therapies, it's main role will be in the selection of this group, in whom the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks. So, in a sense we are developing treatments, by playing a role in the bigger picture.

-Anna

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644618301442#bib1115

Drug Discov Today. 2018 Sep 18. pii: S1359-6446(18)30144-2. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.010. [Epub ahead of print]

Parkinson's disease research: adopting a more human perspective to accelerate advances.
Marshall LJ, Willett C

Parkinson's disease (PD) affects 1% of the population over 60 years old and, with global increases in the aging population, presents huge economic and societal burdens. The etiology of PD remains unknown; most cases are idiopathic, presumed to result from genetic and environmental risk factors. Despite 200 years since the first description of PD, the mechanisms behind initiation and progression of the characteristic neurodegenerative processes are not known. Here, we review progress and limitations of the multiple PD animal models available and identify advances that could be implemented to better understand pathological processes, improve disease outcome, and reduce dependence on animal models. Lessons learned from reducing animal use in PD research could serve as guideposts for wider biomedical research.

The Importance of being Picky

This week the UCL Institute of Neurology who ran the randomised trial of the diabetes drug, Exenatide as a disease modifying treatment for Parkinson’s, have published a paper looking at particular groups who may benefit more from the treatment. 

The tenet of clinical trials is that you specify who can enter the trial, and you give one group the intervention (in this case drug) of interest, and you give another group something else (in this case placebo), and see which does better against a pre-specified list of measures. This implies a ‘winner-takes-all’ outcome that is beyond reproach. Either the new drug did better than no drug, or it didn’t – end of discussion. 

This approach is important. New drugs are met with excitement, clinicians want it to work, scientists have often spent years suggesting that it will, and patients are desperate for it to work. Therefore rigid and robust tests with a categorical ‘winner’ help to provide an unbiased outcome.

However, the disadvantage is that the baby can get thrown out with the bathwater. The randomised clinical trial, when done well is a robust and unbiased tool for making a judgement. However, it is not ‘perfect’. No matter how good the design of the study, there will be flaws and biases that are both explicit and hidden, and there is always the issue of ‘generalisability’ – how well the recruited volunteers represent the patient in clinic.

The UCL team have continued to look at the data. For a future trial, are there some people that are likely to do better from this treatment, and are the some people that will never respond. This is key and at the heart of this endeavour is the understanding that a ‘One-size-fits-all’ approach in Parkinson’s will never work.

As Exenatide, and other compounds, are proven to be safe for people with Parkinson’s, great care will need to be taken to ensure that the right people are chosen for trials of effectiveness. This will entail careful analysis and subgroup analyses of early studies.

In this analysis, it seems that people with a shorter duration of disease and less impact of disease (in other words, milder disease) may get more benefit from Exenatide. This fits closely with the hypothesis that lies at the heart of PREDICT-PD: very early identification of Parkinson’s will allow effective disease modification that may be enough to proactively prevent the onset of motor symptoms.

RNR

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ejn.14096

Athauda D, Maclagan K, Budnik N, Zampedri L, Hibbert S, Aviles-Olmos I, et al. Post hoc analysis of the Exenatide-PD trial - factors that predict response. Eur J Neurosci. 2018 Aug 2.

Exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist and a licensed treatment for Type 2 diabetes significantly reduced deterioration in motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Additionally, there were trends favouring the exenatide group in assessments of non-motor symptoms, cognition and quality of life. The aim of this exploratory post-hoc analysis was to generate new hypotheses regarding (1) whether candidate baseline factors might predict the magnitude of response to exenatide and (2) whether the beneficial effects of exenatide reported for the overall population are consistent in various subgroups of patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine possible predictors of motor response to exenatide in this cohort. Potential treatment by subgroup interactions for changes in; motor severity, non-motor symptoms, cognition and quality of life after 48-weeks treatment with exenatide were evaluated among post-hoc subgroups defined by age, motor phenotype, disease duration, disease severity, BMI and insulin resistance. In the subgroup analyses, exenatide once-weekly was associated with broadly improved outcome measures assessing motor severity, non-motor symptoms, cognition and quality of life across all subgroups, however tremor-dominant phenotype and lower MDS-UPDRS Part-2 scores predicted greatest motor response to exenatide and there was an indication that patients with older age of onset and disease duration over 10 years responded less well. While patients with a range of demographic and clinical factors can potentially benefit from exenatide once-weekly, these data support an emphasis towards recruiting patients at earlier disease in future planned clinical trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in PD. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Another one bites the dust

This week’s medical journal, The Lancet, carries an editorial about the latest spate of anti-Alzheimer’s trials that have been stopped early. Two of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, have announced that they have stopped phase 3 trials of a new kind of treatment called BACE inhibitors (β-amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme inhibitors). These studies were designed on the back of good evicence that they might work, and indeed the compounds have made it all the way to phase 3 trials – a large number of individuals with Alzheimer’s being given either the compound or placebo. These trials are hugely costly to run, and so typically, the drug companies and financial investors, tend to only back what they think will be a winning horse.

This year brings more disappointment for the Alzheimer’s community, Janssen stopped a BACE inhibitor trial in May, and Merck pulled their BACE inhibitor trial in February. 

The editorial comments that although these studies have been stopped frequently because an early look at the data suggest no meaningful effect, so no point in continuing the study, it is not necessarily the end of the road for these treatments, but that the prodromal phase of Alzheimer’s may be where the treatments will work.

I fear that the Parkinson’s world should ready ourselves for a similar journey. The road may be long, and fraught with disappointments, but the goal remains to develop a safe and effective treatment to stop or slow down Parkinson’s. Each failure does not sound the death knell, and each time we, as a global Parkinson’s community, must learn as much as we can from the failures to increase our chances of success. A vital lesson to learn from the Alzheimer’s world, is that established disease is likely to be a case of “too little, too late”. 

RNR

Alzheimer's disease research: the future of BACE inhibitors

Talha Burki

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31425-9

Using Smartphones and Machine Learning to Quantify Parkinson Disease Severity: The Mobile Parkinson Disease Score

Smart phone technology and app-based approaches for measuring PD symptoms and signs have been around for some time and there are seemingly innumerable companies and groups that all suggest that their approach is the best...

The results of this recent study published in JAMA Neurology do however look really impressive. I have always felt that given the heterogeneity of PD (motor and non-motor), a good measuring device will take account of multiple domains. This app measures voice, gait, balance, reaction time and finger tapping (which you might argue are exclusively motor)... but the results suggest that it does measure these really well. 

The hardest thing is to develop a tool that captures fluctuation well and objectively. Some purpose-built devices do (the PKG for example), but it is impressive to see these kind of results through utilisation of the standard hardware that comes with a smart phone. Furthermore the objective response to dopaminergic therapy is substantial and apparently clinically meaningful. 

Will we see this app used in clinical trials in the coming years... I expect we might!

- Alastair Noyce

JAMA Neurol. 2018 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0809. [Epub ahead of print]
Zhan A, Mohan S, Tarolli C, Schneider RB, Adams JL, Sharma S, Elson MJ, Spear KL, Glidden AM, Little MA, Terzis A, Dorsey ER, Saria S.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2676504

IMPORTANCE: Current Parkinson disease (PD) measures are subjective, rater-dependent, and assessed in clinic. Smartphones can measure PD features, yet no smartphone-derived rating score exists to assess motor symptom severity in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an objective measure of PD severity and test construct validity by evaluating the ability of the measure to capture intraday symptom fluctuations, correlate with current standard PD outcome measures, and respond to dopaminergic therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational study assessed individuals with PD who remotely completed 5 tasks (voice, finger tapping, gait, balance, and reaction time) on the smartphone application. We used a novel machine-learning-based approach to generate a mobile Parkinson disease score (mPDS) that objectively weighs features derived from each smartphone activity (eg, stride length from the gait activity) and is scaled from 0 to 100 (where higher scores indicate greater severity). Individuals with and without PD additionally completed standard in-person assessments of PD with smartphone assessments during a period of 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ability of the mPDS to detect intraday symptom fluctuations, the correlation between the mPDS and standard measures, and the ability of the mPDS to respond to dopaminergic medication.

RESULTS: The mPDS was derived from 6148 smartphone activity assessments from 129 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [8.6] years; 56 [43.4%] women). Gait features contributed most to the total mPDS (33.4%). In addition, 23 individuals with PD (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [11.5] years; 11 [48%] women) and 17 without PD (mean [SD] age 54.2 [16.5] years; 12 [71%] women) completed in-clinic assessments. The mPDS detected symptom fluctuations with a mean (SD) intraday change of 13.9 (10.3) points on a scale of 0 to 100. The measure correlated well with the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease's Rating Scale total (r = 0.81; P < .001) and part III only (r = 0.88; P < .001), the Timed Up and Go assessment (r = 0.72; P = .002), and the Hoehn and Yahr stage (r = 0.91; P < .001). The mPDS improved by a mean (SD) of 16.3 (5.6) points in response to dopaminergic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using a novel machine-learning approach, we created and demonstrated construct validity of an objective PD severity score derived from smartphone assessments. This score complements standard PD measures by providing frequent, objective, real-world assessments that could enhance clinical care and evaluation of novel therapeutics.