Recent analysis of blood samples collected during the Phase II clinical trial of Exenatide in Parkinson’s has uncovered a very interesting finding that could have major implications for not only Parkinson’s, but for many different neurological conditions.
Exenatide is a treatment that helps to control glucose levels in people with diabetes. More recently, however, it has been suggested that this drug may also have beneficial effects in Parkinson’s. A collection of clinical trials in Parkinson’s are currently unway to test this idea.
The researchers who conducted a Phase II clinical trial of Exenatide in Parkinson’s have analysed ‘exosomes‘ collected from the blood of participants, and they found something rather remarkable.
In today’s post we will discuss what exosomes are, what the researchers found, and why their discovery could have major implications for all of neurological research.
This week, however, researchers involved in the study reported yet another really interesting finding from the trial. And this one could have profound consequences for how we study not only Parkinson’s, but many other neurological conditions.
What did they find?
Last week this report was published:
Title: Utility of Neuronal-Derived Exosomes to Examine Molecular Mechanisms That Affect Motor Function in Patients With Parkinson Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the Exenatide-PD Trial.
Authors: Athauda D, Gulyani S, Karnati H, Li Y, Tweedie D, Mustapic M, Chawla S, Chowdhury K, Skene SS, Greig NH, Kapogiannis D, Foltynie T.
Journal: JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4304. [Epub ahead of print]
In the Exenatide Phase II clinical trial, 60 people with moderate Parkinson’s were randomly assigned to receive either 2mg of Exenatide or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks followed by a 12-week washout (no treatment) period. The results suggested a stablisation of motor features over the 48 weeks of the study in the treated group (while the condition in the placebo group continued to progress).
During the study (which was conducted between June 2014 – June 2016), blood samples were collected at each assessement.
From those blood samples, serum was collected and analysed.
Remind me again, what is serum?
At 23:30 on the 3rd August 2017, the results of a phase II clinical trial investigating the use of a Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist called Exenatide (Bydureon) in Parkinson’s were published the Lancet journal website.
The findings of the study were very interesting.
And after years of failed trials, the Parkinson’s community finally had a drug that appeared to be ‘doing something’. Naturally these results got many in the Parkinson’s community very excited.
Over the last couple of weeks, further research related to this topic has been published. In today’s post we will review some of this new research and ask some important questions regarding how to move forward with these results.
Dr John Eng. Source: Health.USnews
The Award was created in 2012 to celebrate researchers whose seemingly odd or obscure federally funded research turned out to have a significant and positive impact on society.
This week a research report was published in the journal Nature Medicine that expanded on the work of Dr Eng (some 25 years after his big discovery).
And it could be very important to the Parkinson’s community.
Sounds intriguing. What did Dr Eng do?
The results of a recent clinical study for Parkinson’s conducted in Georgia (USA) has grabbed the attention of some readers.
The study involved Niacin (also known as nicotinic acid), which is a naturally occurring organic dietary compound and a form of vitamin B3.
The study was very small, but the researchers noticed something interesting in the blood of the participants: Niacin was apparently switching some of the immune cells from an inflammatory state to an anti-inflammatory state.
In today’s post, we will discuss what Niacin is, how it relates to Parkinson’s, and we will consider some of the issues with having too much niacin in your diet.
It is one of the most common requests I get:
“Can you give an opinion on this supplement ____ or that vitamin ____ as a treatment for Parkinson’s?”
And I don’t like giving opinions, because (my standard disclosure) “I am not a clinician, just a research scientist. And even if i was a clinician, it would be unethical for me to comment as I am not familiar with each individual’s medical history. The best person to speak to is your personal doctor“.
But I also don’t like giving opinions because of a terrible fear that if I write anything remotely positive about anything remotely supplemental or vitamintal (is that a word?), a small portion of readers will rush off and gorge themselves on anything that sounds remotely similar to that supplement or vitamin.
So you will hopefully understand why I am hesitant to write this post.
But having said that, the recently published results of a small clinical study conducted in Augusta (Georgia, USA) are rather interesting.
An Advanced Glycation Endproduct (or AGE) is a protein or lipid that has become glycated.
Glycation is a haphazard process that impairs the normal functioning of molecules. It occurs as a result of exposure to high amounts of sugar. These AGEs are present at above average levels in people with diabetes and various ageing-related disorders, including neurodegenerative conditions. AGEs have been shown to trigger signalling pathways within cells that are associated with both oxidative stress and inflammation, but also cell death.
RAGE (or receptor of AGEs) is a molecule in a cell membrane that becomes activated when it interacts with various AGEs. And this interaction mediates AGE-associated toxicity issues. Recently researchers found that that neurons carrying the Parkinson’s associated LRRK2 G2019S genetic variant are more sensitive to AGEs than neurons without the genetic variant.
In today’s post we will look at what AGE and RAGE are, review the new LRRK2 research, and discuss how blocking RAGE could represent a future therapeutic approach for treating Parkinson’s.
The wonder of ageing. Source: Club-cleo
NOTE: Be warned, the reading of this post may get a bit confusing. We are going to be discussing ageing (as in the body getting old) as well as AGEing (the haphazard process processing of glycation). For better clarification, lower caps ‘age’ will refer to getting old, while capitalised ‘AGE’ will deal with that glycation process. I hope this helps.
Ageing means different things to different people.
For some people ageing means more years to add to your life and less activity. For others it means more medication and less hair. More wrinkles and less independence; more arthritis and less dignity; More candles, and less respect from that unruly younger generation; More… what’s that word I’m thinking of? (forgetfulness)… and what were we actually talking about?
Wisdom is supposed to come with age, but as the comedian/entertainer George Carlin once said “Age is a hell of a price to pay for wisdom”. I have to say though, that if I had ever met Mr Carlin, I would have suggested to him that I’m feeling rather ripped off!
George Carlin. Source: Thethornycroftdiatribe
Whether we like it or not, from the moment you are born, ageing is an inevitable part of our life. But this has not stopped some adventurous scientific souls from trying to understand the process, and even try to alter it in an attempt to help humans live longer.
Regardless of whether you agree with the idea of humans living longer than their specified use-by-date, some of this ageing-related research could have tremendous benefits for neurodegenerative conditions, like Parkinson’s.
What do we know about the biology of ageing?
At the end of each year, it is a useful practise to review the triumphs (and failures) of the past 12 months. It is an exercise of putting everything into perspective.
2017 has been an incredible year for Parkinson’s research.
And while I appreciate that statements like that will not bring much comfort to those living with the condition, it is still important to consider and appreciate what has been achieved over the last 12 months.
In this post, we will try to provide a summary of the Parkinson’s-related research that has taken place in 2017 (Be warned: this is a VERY long post!)
The number of research reports and clinical trial studies per year since 1817
As everyone in the Parkinson’s community is aware, in 2017 we were observing the 200th anniversary of the first description of the condition by James Parkinson (1817). But what a lot of people fail to appreciate is how little research was actually done on the condition during the first 180 years of that period.
The graphs above highlight the number of Parkinson’s-related research reports published (top graph) and the number of clinical study reports published (bottom graph) during each of the last 200 years (according to the online research search engine Pubmed – as determined by searching for the term “Parkinson’s“).
PLEASE NOTE, however, that of the approximately 97,000 “Parkinson’s“-related research reports published during the last 200 years, just under 74,000 of them have been published in the last 20 years.
That means that 3/4 of all the published research on Parkinson’s has been conducted in just the last 2 decades.
And a huge chunk of that (almost 10% – 7321 publications) has been done in 2017 only.
So what happened in 2017? Continue reading
Dopamine agonist treatments are associated with approximately 90% of hyper-sexuality and compulsive gambling cases that occur in people with Parkinson’s disease.
This issue does not affect everyone being treated with this class of drugs, but it is a problem that keeps popping up, with extremely damaging consequences for the affected people who gamble away their life’s saving or ruin their marriages/family life.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is yet to issue proper warning for this well recognised side-effect of dopamine agonists, and yet last week they gave clearance for the clinical testing of a new implantable device that will offer continuous delivery of dopamine agonist medication.
In today’s post, we will discuss what dopamine agonists are, the research regarding the impulsive behaviour associated with them, and why the healthcare regulators should acknowledge that there is a problem.
Dopamine. Source: Wikimedia
Before we start talking about dopamine agonists, let’s start at the very beginning:
What is dopamine?
By the time a person is sitting in front of a neurologist and being told that they ‘have Parkinson’s disease’, they will have lost half the dopamine producing cells in an area of the brain called the midbrain.
Dopamine is a chemical is the brain that plays a role in many basic functions of the brain, such as motor co-ordination, reward, and memory. It works as a signalling molecule (or a neurotransmitter) – a way for brain cells to communicate with each other. Dopamine is released from brain cells that produce this chemical (not all brain cells do this), and it binds to target cells, initiating biological processes within those cells.
Dopamine being released by one cell and binding to receptors on another. Source: Truelibido
Dopamine binds to target cells via five different receptors – that is to say, dopamine is released from one cell and can bind to one of five different receptors on the target cell (depending on which receptor is present). The receptor is analogous to a lock and dopamine is the key. When dopamine binds to a particular receptor it will allow something to happen in that cell. And this is how information from a dopamine neuron is passed or transmitted on to another cell.
Dopamine acts like a key. Source: JourneywithParkinsons
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (or DPP-4) is an enzyme that breaks down the protein (GLP-1) that stimulates insulin release in your body.
Inhibitors of DPP-4 are used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, because they help increase insulin levels in the body.
Recently some Swedish researchers noticed something curious about DPP-4 inhibitors: They appear to reduce the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
In today’s post, we will review what DPP-4 inhibitors do and look at how this could be reducing the risk of Parkinson’s disease.
Sitagliptin. Source: Diabetesmedicine
Last year an interesting research report about a class of medications that could possibly reduce the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease was published in the journal Movement disorders:
Title: Reduced incidence of Parkinson’s disease after dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors-A nationwide case-control study.
Authors: Svenningsson P, Wirdefeldt K, Yin L, Fang F, Markaki I, Efendic S, Ludvigsson JF.
Journal: Movement Disorders 2016 Jul 19.
In this study, the investigators used the Swedish Patient Register, to find the medical records of 980 people who were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease but also had type 2 diabetes. Importantly, all of the subjects had been treated with Type 2 diabetes medication for at least 6 months prior to the date of Parkinson’s being diagnosed.
For comparative sake, they selected 5 controls (non-Parkinsonian) with Type 2 diabetes (n = 4,900) for each of their Parkinsonian+diabetes subjects. They next looked at whether GLP-1R agonists (such as Exenatide), Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (or DPP-4) inhibitors, or any other oral Type 2 diabetic medication can influence the incidence of Parkinson’s disease.
Now, if all things are considered equal, then when looking at each diabetes medication there should be 1 person in the Parkinson’s disease + Type 2 diabetes for every 5 people in the Type 2 diabetes control group taking each medication right? That is because there are almost 1000 people in the first group and 5000 in the second group.
But this is not what the researchers found.
In my previous post, we briefly reviewed the results of the phase II double-blind, randomised clinical trial of Exenatide in Parkinson’s disease. The study indicates a statistically significant effect on motor symptom scores after being treated with the drug.
Over the last few days, there have been many discussions about the results, what they mean for the Parkinson’s community, and where things go from here, which have led to further questions.
In this post I would like to address several matters that have arisen which I did not discuss in the previous post, but that I believe are important.
I found out about the Exenatide announcement – via whispers online – on the afternoon of the release. And it was in a mad rush when I got home that night that I wrote up the post explaining what Exenatide is. I published the post the following evening however because I could not access the research report from home (seriously guys, biggest finding in a long time and it’s not OPEN ACCESS?!?!?) and I had to wait until I got to work the next day to actually view the publication.
I was not really happy with the rushed effort though and decided to follow up that post. In addition, there has been A LOT of discussion about the results over the weekend and I thought it might be good to bring aspects of those different discussion together here. The individual topics are listed below, in no particular order of importance:
1. Size of the effect
There are two considerations here.
Firstly, there have been many comments about the actual size of the effect in the results of the study itself. When people have taken a deeper look at the findings, they have come back with questions regarding those findings.
And second, there have also been some comments about the size of the effect that this result has already had on the Parkinson’s community, which has been considerable (and possibly disproportionate to the actual result).
The size of the effect in the results
The results of the study suggested that Exenatide had a positive effect on the motor-related symptoms of Parkinson’s over the course of the 60 week trial. This is what the published report says, it is also what all of the media headlines have said, and it sounds really great right?
The main point folks keep raising, however, is that the actual size of the positive effect is limited to just the motor features of Parkinson’s disease. If one ignores the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores and focuses on the secondary measures, there isn’t much to talk about. In fact, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary outcome measures. These included: