Regular readers will be aware that here at the SoPD, we are on a mission to change the way we clinically test drugs (Click here for the most recent rant on this topic).
We have a lot of interesting drugs waiting in the pipeline to be clinically tested and an eager (read: desperate) population of individuals affected by Parkinson’s, but we are missing one critical part of the equation: better tools of assessment.
How can we determine whether a drug is actually working or not? And how can we better monitor people over time on said drug?
Our current methods assessing individuals with Parkinson’s rely heavily on clinical rating scales and brain imaging. These are basic tools at best, conducted episodically (annually in general, or once every 2-6 months during a clinical trial), and provide little in the way of useful objective data (on an individual basis).
In today’s post, we will look at a single aspect of Parkinson’s – sleep – and try to nut-out a better/more informative method of assessing it over time.
The Bluesky project. Source: Mirror
Last week tech industry giants Pfizer and IBM made an big announcement.
It was news that I have been quietly waiting to hear for some time.
It related to their “BlueSky Project” – a collaboration between the two companies to provide better methods of assessment/monitoring of Parkinson’s.
The two companies announced that they are now ready to start accepting the first participants for a new clinical trial.
And it is a really intriguing study for one simple reason:
The entire trial will take place inside one house.
There has been a lot of discussion on this site (and elsewhere on the web) regarding the need for more objective systems of measuring Parkinson’s – particularly in the setting of clinical trials.
Yes, subjective reports of patient experience are important, but they can easily be biased by ‘placebo responses’.
Thus, measures that are beyond the clinical trial participants conscious control – and focused on biological outcomes – are needed.
In today’s post, we will consider one possible approach: Smart pills. We will discuss what they are, how they work, and how they could be applied to Parkinson’s research.
In order to encourage a growing discussion regarding objective measures of Parkinson’s (and to follow up on previous rants – Click here and here for examples), I have decided to regularly (once a month) highlight new technologies that could provide the sort of unbiased methods of data collection that are required for assessing whether a treatment is having an impact on Parkinson’s.
Today, we will look at smart pills.
What is a smart pill?
As the age of personalised medicine approaches, innovative researchers are rethinking the way we conduct clinical studies. “Rethinking” in radical ways – think: individualised clinical trials!
One obvious question is: Can you really conduct a clinical trial involving just one participant?
In this post, we will look at some of the ideas and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses these approaches.
A Nobel prize medal. Source: Motley
In the annals of Nobel prize history, there are a couple winners that stands out for their shear….um, well,…audacity.
One example in particular, was the award given to physician Dr Werner Forssmann. In 1956, Andre Cournand, Dickinson Richards and Forssmann were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries concerning heart catheterisation and pathological changes in the circulatory system”. Forssmann was responsible for the first part (heart catheterisation).
In 1929, at the age of 25, Forssmann performed the first human cardiac catheterisation – that is a procedure that involves inserting a thin, flexible tube directly into the heart via an artery (usually in the arm, leg or neck). It is a very common procedure performed on a daily basis in any hospital today. But in 1929, it was revolutionary. And the audacious aspect of this feat was that Forssmann performed the procedure on himself!
And if you think that is too crazy to be true, please read on.
But be warned: this particular story gets really bonkers.
It is particularly useful for groups like the Parkinson’s community though, who are tired of having just one hour per year of assessments with their neurologist.
In today’s post, we will look at some new tracking/monitoring technologies that are being developed that could have important implications for not only how we assess Parkinson’s disease, but also for how we treat it.
Homo deus. Source: RealClearLife
I have recently finished reading ‘Homo Deus‘ by Yuval Noah Harari – the excellent follow-up to his previous book ‘Sapiens‘ (which is an absolute MUST READ!). The more recent book provides an utterly fascinating explanation of how we have come to be where we will be in the future (if that makes any sense).
In the final few chapters, Harari discusses many of the technologies that are currently under development which will change the world we live in (with a lot of interesting and cautionary sections on artificial intelligence – the machines that will know vastly more about us than we know about ourselves).
Of particular interest in this part of the book was a section on the Google-Novartis smart lens.
What is the Google-Novartis smart lens?
The initial project is rather ambitious: develop and take to the clinic a glucose-sensing contact lens for people with diabetes. The idea has been particularly championed by Google founder Sergey Brin (a prominent figure within the Parkinson’s community with his significant contributions to Parkinson’s research each year).
People with diabetes have to keep pricking their finger over the course of a day in order to check the levels of insulin in their blood. A less laborious approach would be welcomed by the diabetic world (an estimated 415 million people living with diabetes in the world).
This is what the lens may eventually look like: