The 2019 Linked Clinical Trials meeting

October 16, 2019October 30, 2019 ~ Simon ~ 18 Comments

Things were a bit quiet on the SoPD over the summer, but for good reasons. There was a short hiatus for a family break, but the rest of the time I was rather occupied with the day job. Tremendous efforts were being made at the Cure Parkinson’s Trust, as we were gearing up for our main event of the year: the Linked Clinical Trials (LCT) meeting.

This is an annual meeting at which 20 Parkinson’s experts from around the world, gather for a two day face-to-face pow-wow. They evaluate dossiers which contain everything we know about 20+ compounds which have exhibited potential for disease modification in Parkinson’s. The goal of the committee is to decide which of them is ready for clinical evaluation.

The writing of those LCT dossiers is a year long exercise, which inevitably becomes a bit of a panic in June and July (hence the lack of activity here at SoPD HQ during that period). It is a mammoth, marathon task, but as you shall see it is one that I rather like.

In today’s post, we will discuss what the Linked Clinical Trials initiative is, the process behind the project, and some of the progress being made by the programme.

Archimedes. Source: Lecturesbureau

Archimedes of Syracuse (287 BC – 212 BC) the ancient Greek mathematician, once said that the “shortest distance between two points is a straight line“.

My dad (who is not a regular readers of this blog, but is possibly on par with Archie – just in case he does ever read this) has often been heard saying “Just get to the point Simon“.

Source: Actioncoach

Millennia apart, but their collective wisdom is same: Ignore everything else, and get straight to the heart of the matter as quickly as you can.

And this is one of the aspect I really like about the Linked Clinical Trials initiative.

It is all about getting to potentially disease modifying treatments for Parkinson’s to the community as quickly as possible.

What is the Linked Clinical Trials programme?

Continue reading “The 2019 Linked Clinical Trials meeting” →

Is Radotinib ABL to beat Nilotinib?

June 17, 2018 ~ Simon ~ 16 Comments

At the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in 2015, the results of a small phase I clinical trial were presented and the Parkinson’s community got really excited by what they saw.

The study had investigated the use of a cancer drug called ‘Nilotinib’ (also known as Tasigna) on Parkinson’s and the initial results were rather interesting.

Two larger phase II clinical trials of Nilotinib in Parkinson’s are currently being conducted, but this week preclinical research of a new drug (called Radotinib) was published. And these new findings suggest that Nilotinib may have some impressive competition.

In today’s post, we will look at what Nilotinib and Radotinib actually do, we will review the new research, and we will discuss what the findings could mean for the Parkinson’s community.

Lots of research. Source: Thedaily

Earlier this week I wrote a post highlighting research involving a new drug (NLY01; a GLP1 receptor agonist) being developed for Parkinson’s (Click here to read that post). It was an amazing amount of work and a very impressive achievement for the research group that conducted the work.

It must have taken a long time to perform the experiments, and I figured that the researchers behind the study would probably take a well earned break.

You will understand that I was a little surprised the day after publishing the post, that I woke up to find that that same research group had published another rather remarkable amount of research… on a completely different novel drug (called Radotinib) which is also being developed for Parkinson’s!!!

Basically sums my reaction. Source: Canacopegdl

The words ‘You have to be kidding me‘ actually passed across my lips as I downloaded the new research report.

And the new drug is really interesting.

It is very similar to Nilotinib.

What is Nilotinib?

Continue reading “Is Radotinib ABL to beat Nilotinib?” →

The road ahead: Parkinson’s research in 2018

January 7, 2018January 12, 2018 ~ Simon ~ 9 Comments

The great ice hockey player Wayne Gretzky once said “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be” (the original quote actually came from his father, Walter).

At the start of each year, it is a useful practise to layout what is planned for the next 12 months. This can help us better anticipate where ‘the puck’ will be, and allow us to prepare for things further ahead.

2017 was an incredible year for Parkinson’s research, and there is a lot already in place to suggest that 2018 is going to be just as good (if not better).

In this post, we will lay out what we can expect over the next 12 months with regards to the Parkinson’s-related clinical trials research of new therapies.

Charlie Munger (left) and Warren Buffett. Source: Youtube

Many readers will be familiar with the name Warren Buffett.

The charming, folksy “Oracle of Omaha” is one of the wealthiest men in the world. And he is well known for his witticisms about investing, business and life in general.

Warren Buffett. Source: Quickmeme

He regularly provides great one liners like:

“We look for three things [in good business leaders]: intelligence, energy, and integrity. If they don’t have the latter, then you should hope they don’t have the first two either. If someone doesn’t have integrity, then you want them to be dumb and lazy”

“Work for an organisation of people you admire, because it will turn you on. I always worry about people who say, ‘I’m going to do this for ten years; and if I really don’t like it very much, then I’ll do something else….’ That’s a little like saving up sex for your old age. Not a very good idea”

“Choosing your heroes is very important. Associate well, marry up and hope you find someone who doesn’t mind marrying down. It was a huge help to me”

Mr Buffett is wise and a very likeable chap.

Few people, however, are familiar with his business partner, Charlie Munger. And Charlie is my favourite of the pair.

Continue reading “The road ahead: Parkinson’s research in 2018” →

2017 – Year in Review: A good vintage

December 31, 2017January 31, 2018 ~ Simon ~ 13 Comments

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 “2017 – Year in Review: A good vintage” →

The EMPRSN talk #1

November 28, 2017November 28, 2017 ~ Simon ~ 3 Comments

Recently I was invited to speak at the 6th Annual East Midlands Parkinson’s Research Support Network meeting at the Link Hotel, in Loughborough. The group is organised and run by the local Parkinson’s community and supported by Parkinson’s UK. It was a fantastic event and I was very grateful to the organisers for the invitation.

They kindly gave me two sessions (20 minutes each) which I divided into two talks: “Where we are now with Parkinson’s research?” and “Where we are going with Parkinson’s research?”. Since giving the talk, I have been asked by several attendees if I could make the slides available.

The slides from the first talk can be found by clicking here.

I have also made a video of the first talk with a commentary that I added afterwards. But be warned: my delivery of this second version of the talk is a bit dry. Apologies. It has none of my usual dynamic charm or energetic charisma. Who knew that talking into a dictaphone could leave one sounding so flat.

Anyways, here is the talk – enjoy!

I hope you find it interesting. When I have time I’ll post the second talk.

Nilotinib: the other phase II trial

July 31, 2017July 31, 2017 ~ Simon ~ 12 Comments

DSK_4634s

In October 2015, researchers from Georgetown University announced the results of a small clinical trial that got the Parkinson’s community very excited. The study involved a cancer drug called Nilotinib, and the results were rather spectacular.

What happened next, however, was a bizarre sequence of disagreements over exactly what should happen next and who should be taking the drug forward. This caused delays to subsequent clinical trials and confusion for the entire Parkinson’s community who were so keenly awaiting fresh news about the drug.

Earlier this year, Georgetown University announced their own follow up phase II clinical trial and this week a second phase II clinical trial funded by a group led by the Michael J Fox foundation was initiated.

In todays post we will look at what Nilotinib is, how it apparently works for Parkinson’s disease, what is planned with the new trial, and how it differs from the ongoing Georgetown Phase II trial.

FDA-deeming-regulations

The FDA. Source: Vaporb2b

This week the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given approval for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled Phase IIa clinical trial to be conducted, testing the safety and tolerability of Nilotinib (Tasigna) in Parkinson’s disease.

This is exciting and welcomed news.

What is Nilotinib?

What does any that mean?

Basically, it is the drug that is used to treat a type of blood cancer (leukemia) when the other drugs have failed. It was approved for treating this cancer by the FDA in 2007.

Continue reading “Nilotinib: the other phase II trial” →

Phase II trial launched for Nilotinib

February 27, 2017February 28, 2017 ~ Simon ~ 4 Comments

DSK_4634s

Big news today from Georgetown University with the announcement that they will be starting a phase II trial for the cancer drug Nilotinib.

Click here to read the press release.

In this post we will discuss what has happened thus far and what the new trial will involve.

Georgetown University (Washington DC). Source: Wallpapercave

In October 2015, researchers from Georgetown University announced the results of a small clinical trial at the Society for Neuroscience conference in Chicago.

It is no understatement to say that the results of that study got the Parkinson’s community very excited.

The study (see the abstract here) was a small clinical trial (12 subjects; 6 month study) that was aiming to determine the safety and efficacy of a cancer drug, Nilotinib (Tasigna® by Novartis), in advanced Parkinson’s Disease and Lewy body dementia patients. In addition to checking the safety of the drug, the researchers also tested cognition, motor skills and non-motor function in these patients and found 10 of the 12 patients reported meaningful clinical improvements.

In their presentation at the conference in Chicago, the investigators reported that one individual who had been confined to a wheelchair was able to walk again; while three others who could not talk before the study began were able to hold conversations. They suggested that participants who were still in the early stages of the disease responded best, as did those who had been diagnosed with Lewy body dementia.

The study involved the cancer drug Nilotinib.

What is Nilotinib?

Nilotinib (pronounced ‘nil-ot-in-ib’ and also known by its brand name Tasigna) is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, that has been approved for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). That is to say, it is a drug that can be used to treat a type of leukemia when the other drugs have failed. It was approved for this treating cancer by the FDA in 2007.

How does Nilotinib work?

The researchers behind the study suggest that Nilotinib works by turning on autophagy – the “garbage disposal machinery” inside each neuron. Autophagy is a process that clears waste and toxic proteins from inside cells, preventing them from accumulating and possibly causing the death of the cell.

The process of autophagy. Source: Wormbook

Waste material inside a cell is collected in membranes that form sacs (called vesicles). These vesicles then bind to another sac (called a lysosome) which contains enzymes that will breakdown and degrade the waste material.

The investigators believe that nilotinib may be helping in Parkinson’s disease, by clearing away the waste building up in cells – allowing the remaining cells to function more efficiently.

This is great, so what happened in 2016?

That’s a great question.

First, the results of the study being published (Click here to read those results). Second, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed Georgetown’s investigational new drug application (IND) for nilotinib in Parkinson’s disease, and they informed the Georgetown University investigators that a new clinical trial could proceed.

But after that, there were whispers of issues and problems behind the scenes.

Back in August we wrote a post about the Phase II trial being delayed due to disagreements about the design of the study (Read that post by clicking here). Two separate research groups emerged from those disagreements (Georgetown University researchers themselves and a consortium including the Michael J Fox Foundation). Click here for the STAT website article outlining the background of the issues, and click here for the Michael J Fox Foundation statement regarding the situation. The Georgetown University team have a lot of leverage in this situation as they control the patent side of things (Click here to see the patent).

We are not sure what has happened since August, but the Georgetown University team has now announced that they are going to go ahead with a phase II trial to look at safety and efficacy of nilotinib in Parkinson’s disease.

What do we know about the new trial?

At the moment the details are basic:

The design of the study involves two parts:

In the first part of the study, one third of the participants receiving a low dose (150mg) of nilotinib, another third receiving a higher dose (300mg) of nilotinib and the final third will receive a placebo drug (a drug that has no bioactive effect to act as a control against the other two groups). The outcomes will be assessed clinically at six and 12 months by investigators who are blind to the treatment of each subject. These results will be compared to clinical assessments made at the start of the trial. (We are not sure if brain imaging – for example, a DATscan – will be included in the assessment, but it would be useful)

In the second part of the study, there will be a one-year open-label extension trial, in which all participants will be randomized given either the low dose (150mg) or high dose (300mg) of nilotinib. This extension is planned to start upon the completion of the first part (the placebo-controlled trial) to evaluate nilotinib’s long-term effects. (We are a little confused by this study design with regards to efficacy, but determining the safety issues of using nilotinib long term is important to establish).

We are not clear on how many subjects will be involved in the study or what the criteria for eligibility will be. All we can suggest is that if you are interested in finding out more about this new study, you can sign up here to receive more information as it becomes available.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Summing up, this is welcomed news for the Parkinson’s community as we will finally be able to determine if nilotinib is having positive effects in Parkinson’s disease. There have been some concerns raised that the effects of the drug in the first clinical study may have been the result of removing additional Parkinsonian treatments during the study (Click here for more on this). This new study will hopefully help to clarify things.

And fingers crossed provide us with a useful new treatment for Parkinson’s disease.

The banner for today’s post was sourced from William-Jon

An interesting commentary on the interpretation of the Nilotinib trial results

January 9, 2017January 10, 2017 ~ Simon ~ 2 Comments

DSK_4634s

“The devil is in the detail”

A frequently used quote and sage words when analysing scientific data, especially clinical trial data.

Nilotinib is a cancer drug from Novartis that has the Parkinson’s community very excited. In October 2015, researchers at Georgetown University announced that a phase 1 open-label clinical study involving 12 people with Parkinson’s had demonstrated some pretty impressive results (click here to read more about this). The results of that first clinical trial have been published (click here to read more on this), but follow up studies have been hampered by study design issues (click here for more on this).

Today a letter to the editor of the Journal of Parkinson’s disease (published in this months issue) was brought to our attention (click here to read the letter). It queries one important aspect of the results from that first Nilotinib clinical trial for Parkinson’s disease.

In the letter, Prof Michael Schwarzschild of Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston) notes that 8 of the 11 subjects in the study had their monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B) inhibitor treatment withdrawn less than a month after starting the trial. The change of treatment regime was made due to “increased psychosis in the first 2–4 weeks after Nilotinib administration”.

For reasons which we will outline below, a small change like this in a clinical trial could have major implications for the end results.

What are MAO-B inhibitors?

After the chemical dopamine is used by a neuron, it is reabsorbed by the dopamine cell and broken down for disposal. MAO-B is the enzyme that breaks down dopamine.

Selegiline is an example of a MAO-B inhibitor. Source: KnowMental

As the schematic above illustrates, dopamine is released by dopamine neurons and then binds to a receptor on a neighbouring cell. After this process has occurred, the dopamine detaches and it is reabsorbed by the dopamine neuron via a particular pathway called the dopamine transporter. Back inside the dopamine cell, dopamine is quickly broken down by the enzyme MAO-B into 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (or DOPAC).

Now, by blocking MAO-B, more dopamine is left hanging around inside the cell where it can be recycled and used again. Thus, this blockade increases the level of dopamine in the brain, which helps with alleviating the motor features of Parkinson’s disease. This simple concept has lead to the development of MAO-B inhibitors which are used in the treatment of the condition.

Why is this important to the Nilotinib results?

Dopamine is broken down by MAO-B into DOPAC. DOPAC can be further broken down into Homovanillic acid (HVA), and both DOPAC and HVA are often used in research studies to indicate levels of dopamine activity. Higher levels of both (in theory) should indicate higher levels of dopamine. It is a means of inferring greater dopamine production.

In the published results of the Nilotinib clinical trial, the researchers used increased HVA levels as an indication of greater dopamine production as a result of taking Nilotinib. But Prof Schwarzschild is correct in providing a cautionary warning of over-interpreting this result. You see, by discontinuing the treatment of MAO-B inhibitors shortly after starting the study, one would expect to see a rise in HVA levels regardless of any effect Nilotinib may be having. Without the MAO-B inhibitors, more dopamine will be broken down thus resulting in increased levels of HVA (compared to the baseline measurements at the start of the study).

And this issue is particularly important since HVA measurements taken at the start of the study (before the MAO-B inhibitors were removed) were compared with HVA measurement taken at the end of the study.

Another commentary discussing the Nilotinib results published in July of last year (in the same journal) actually questioned the value of measuring HVA levels, saying that prior studies have suggested that HVA levels can vary greatly between subjects at similar disease stages, and in general do not correlate well with disease progression.

Whether the removal of MAO-B inhibitors alters the overall interpretation of the first clinical study results is a subject for debate. Something interesting did appear to be happening in the participants involved in the first trial (whether this could have been a placebo effect could also be debated). Obviously, as Prof Schwarzschild’s letter indicates, what we really require now is a carefully designed, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial to determine if the initial results can be replicated.

And we are still awaiting news regarding a start date for that delayed trial.

Nilotinib update – new trial delayed

August 30, 2016August 30, 2016 ~ Simon ~ 3 Comments

DSK_4634s

It is with great frustration that we read today of the delayed start to the phase 2 clinical trial of the re-purposed cancer drug Nilotinib for Parkinson’s disease (click here for a story outlining the background, and click here for the Michael J Fox Foundation statement).

We have previously discussed both the preclinical and clinical research regarding Nilotinib and its use in Parkinson’s disease (click here and here for those posts). And the Parkinson’s community certainly got very excited about the findings of the small phase 1 unblinded clinical trial conducted by researchers at Georgetown University in 2015.

With the recent failure of the GDNF trial in Bristol, what the Parkinson’s community (both suffers and researchers alike) needs to do is refocus on moving ahead with exciting new projects, like Nilotinib. To hear that the follow-up trials for Nilotinib, however, will be delayed until 2017 (TWO YEARS after the initial results were announced) due to disagreements regarding the design of the study and who is seemingly in charge of the project, is both baffling and deeply disappointing.

Currently it appears that parties involved in the follow-up clinical trial have decided to go their separate ways, with the researchers at Georgetown University looking to conduct a single site phase 2 study of 75 subjects (if they can access the drug from supplier Novartis), while the Michael J Fox backed consortium will set up a multi-site phase 2 study.

We will continue to follow this situation as it develops and will report events as they happen.

Nilotinib and Parkinson’s disease – an update

July 12, 2016January 9, 2017 ~ Simon ~ 4 Comments

We have previously discussed news briefings regarding a cancer drug that displayed interesting results in a pilot clinical study of Parkinson’s disease (click here to read that post). Today we will delve more deeply into the results of that particular study and consider what they mean.

DSK_4634s

Nilotinib (Tasigna) from Novartis. Source: William-Jon

In October of last year, at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago, a presentation of data from a clinical trial got the Parkinson’s community really excited. The study was investigating the effects of a cancer drug called ‘Nilotinib’ (also known as Tasigna) on Parkinson’s disease and the initial results were rather interesting.

The results of the pilot clinical study for Nilotinib were published today in the Journal of Parkinson’s disease:

Nilo-title

Title: Nilotinib Effects in Parkinson’s disease and Dementia with Lewy bodies
Authors: Pagan F, Hebron M, Valadez E, Tores-Yaghi Y,Huang X, Mills R, Wilmarth B, Howard H, Dunn C, Carlson A, Lawler A, Rogers S, Falconer R, Ahn J, Li Z, & Moussa C.
Journal: Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, vol. Preprint
PMID: Yet to be allocated (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it).

The study was setup to determine safety of using Nilotinib in Parkinson’s disease dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies.

What is Nilotinib?

Nilotinib is a drug that can be used to treat a type of leukemia when the other cancer drugs have failed. It was approved for this treating cancer by the FDA in 2007.

The researchers behind the current study believe that Nilotinib works by turning on autophagy – the “garbage disposal machinery” inside brain cells. Autophagy is a process that clears waste and toxic proteins from inside cells, preventing them from accumulating and possibly causing the death of the cell.

The process of autophagy – Source: Wormbook

The researchers suggest that Nilotinib may be working in Parkinson’s disease by helping affected cells to better clear away the build up of unnecessary proteins, which helps cells to function more efficiently.

What happened in the clinical study?

Twelve people with either Parkinson’s disease dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies were randomized given either 150 mg (n = 5) or 300 mg (n = 7) daily doses of Nilotinib for 24 weeks. After the treatment period the subjects were followed up for 12 weeks. All of the subjects were considered to have mid to late stage Parkinson’s features (Hoehn and Yahr stage 3–5). One subject was withdrawn from the study at week 4 due to a heart attack and another discontinued at 5 months due to unrelated circumstances.

An important question in the study was whether Nilotinib could actually enter the brain. Various tests conducted on the subjects suggesting that the drug had no problem crossing the ‘blood brain barrier‘ and having an effect in the brain. The levels of Nilotinib in the brain peaked at 2 hrs after taking the drug and the levels of the target protein (called p-Abl) were reduced by 30% at 1 hr. This level of activity remained stable for several hours.

The motor features of Parkinson’s disease were assessed using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the investigators observed an average decrease of 3.4 points and 3.6 points at six months (week 24) compared to the baseline measures (scores from the start of the study) with 150 mg and 300 mg Nilotinib, respectively. A decrease in motor scores represent a reduction in Parkinson’s motor features.

The really remarkable result, however, comes from the testing of cognitive performance, which was monitored with Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE). The researchers report an average increase of 3.85 and 3.5 points in MMSE at six months (24-week) compared to baseline, for 150 mg and 300 mg of Nilotinib, respectively. This means that the mental processing of the subjects improved across the study.

The motor and cognitive results were complemented by measures of proteins in blood and cerebrospinal fluid samples taken from the subjects. The researchers saw increases in dopamine related proteins (suggesting that more dopamine was present in the brain) and stabilization of alpha synuclein levels.

The researchers concluded that these observations warrant a larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to truly evaluate the safety and efficacy of Nilotinib.

Here at the SoPD, we are inclined to agree.

So what does all this mean?

The results of the study are very interesting, and the researchers should be congratulated on the outcome (and presentation of all the data in the report). As they themselves acknowledge, the study was open labelled – meaning that everyone in the study knew that they were getting the treatment – so the placebo effect could be at play here.

One intriguing note in the report was that most of the participants in the study ‘experienced increased psychotic symptoms (hallucination, paranoia, agitation) and some dyskinesia whilst on Nilotinib’ suggesting an increase in dopamine levels in the brain.

Obviously a larger, double-blind study is required to determine whether the effect of the drug in Parkinson’s disease is real. The Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Van Andel Research Institute (Michigan, USA) and the Cure Parkinson’s Trust are collaborating on the development program for a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of nilotinib, which it is hoped will begin in 2017.

The banner for today’s banner was sourced from Wikimedia