The PASADENA study announcement (part 2)

# # # #

In April of this year it was announced that the closely watched Phase II PASADENA clinical trial had not to met its primary objective. This was a large clinical evaluation of an immunotherapy approach (called prasinezumab) for disease modification in Parkinson’s. 

At the time of the announcement, it was indicated that the researchers who conducted the study had seen “signals of efficacy” in the data.

This week the results of the study were presented at an international conference and it was reported that prasinezumab “significantly reduced decline in motor function by 35% (pooled dose levels) vs. placebo after one year of treatment“.

In today’s post, we will discuss what the PASADENA study was, review the results that have been released, and discuss what might happen next.

# # # #


At 7am (just prior to the opening of the Swiss Stock Exchange) on Wednesday 22nd April 2020, the pharmaceutical company Roche published its sales results for the 1st Quarter. The financial report looked good, particularly considering the current COVID-19 economic climate, but there was one sentence on page 133 of the results (highlighted below) that grabbed a lot of attention:

From page 133. Source: Roche

For those of you (like myself) who struggle with fine print, the sentence reads:

Study did not meet its primary objective, but showed signals of efficacy

This was how the Parkinson’s community found out about the top line result of the closely followed Phase II PASADENA study evaluating the immunotherapy treatment prasinezumab in individuals recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Many within the Parkinson’s community were basically:

Yet another negative clinical trial result.

But then, later that same day, the biotech firm Prothena – which developed prasinezumab and is partnered with Roche in the clinical testing – kindly provided a press release.

And in that document, the company repeated that prasinezumab “showed signals of efficacy, but importantly: “These signals were observed on multiple prespecified secondary and exploratory clinical endpoints“.

And then the Parkinson’s community was like:

This week we found out more about those “signals of efficacy” and the results of the PASADENA study, and they look interesting.

What do the results show?

Continue reading “The PASADENA study announcement (part 2)”

The Pasadena study announcement

# # # #

This week the outcome of an ongoing Parkinson’s clinical trial was announced.

Data collected during Part 1 of the ongoing Phase 2 PASADENA alpha synuclein immunotherapy study for Parkinson’s apparently suggests that the treatment – called prasinezumab – has not achieved it’s primary endpoint (the pre-determined measure of whether the agent has an effect in slowing Parkinson’s progression – in this case the UPDRS clinical rating scale).

But, intriguingly, the announcement did suggest ‘signals of efficacy‘ in secondary and exploratory measures.

In today’s post, we will discuss what immunotherapy is, what we know about the PASADENA study, and why no one should be over reacting to this announcement.

# # # #


At 7am on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2020, the pharmaceutical company Roche published its sales results for the 1st Quarter. This was just prior to the opening of the Swiss Stock Exchange. The financial report looked very good, particularly considering the current COVID-19 economic climate.

There was, however, one sentence on page 133 of the results that grabbed some attention:

Source: Roche

For those of you (like myself) who struggle with fine print, the sentence reads:

Study did not meet its primary objective, but showed signals of efficacy

This was how the pharmaceutical giant announced the top line result of the ongoing Phase II PASADENA study evaluating the immunotherapy treatment prasinezumab in recently diagnosed individuals with Parkinson’s (listed on the Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03100149).

At the time of publishing this SoPD post, Roche are yet to provide any further information (press release, announcement, memo, tweet, etc) regarding the results of the study.

Thankfully, a smaller biotech firm called Prothena – which is also involved in the development of the agent being tested in the Pasadena study – has kindly provided a few more details regarding these results.

I usually don’t like discussing clinical trial results on the SoPD until the final report is published, but in this circumstance I will make an exception.

In today’s post we will discuss what details have been shared in the Prothena press release regarding the Prasinezumab clinical trial in Parkinson’s (Click here to read the press release).

What is Prasinezumab?

Continue reading “The Pasadena study announcement”