Chair: Professor John Zajicek, Peninsula Medical School
Clinical research needs hard
outcomes. More than 250 years ago, in 1747, the Scottish naval surgeon James
Lind performed the first randomised controlled trial, treating selected
scurvy-ridden sailors with lemons and oranges. He obtained dramatic cures in the
citrus-treated group, which was pronounced ‘fit for purpose’, enabling sailors
to get back to work. This is indeed a hard outcome measure, but unfortunately
over the past 250 years, development in the way we do clinical trials has not
kept pace with developments in basic science.
We have virtually no treatments
to slow neurodegenerative diseases (ie only one treatment in motor neurone
disease that may be neuroprotective)
Clinical trials to test new drugs
are extremely expensive and many billions of pounds spent so far have not led
to any treatments to slow the commonest conditions of Parkinson’s and
Alzheimer’s disease
Most of the commonly used
measurement methods and instruments fall short of what is required for modern
clinical trials
Most of the measurement
instruments take little account of the patient and carer perspective of disease
impact on day-to-day activities
There are many new methods of
testing the measuring instruments we currently use and many new ways to develop
more modern measurement instruments. These all need to be investigated and
introduced into the way we do clinical trials
If we can find robust ways of
measuring disease impact over the short term, which we have confidence reflects
disease progression and not just symptom relief, then we can test more drugs
that may be useful to slow neurodegenerative diseases
Research priorities and questions One: why do we only have one drug
that slows neurodegeneration? Is it because all our drugs are useless? Or is it
that the way we do clinical trials, and the way we measure outcomes, could be
much better? There is an urgent need for us to tackle this situation. Two: how do we separate symptoms
from the underlying disease course? Parkinson’s disease specialists know from
the DATATOP study that this is of great importance; that treatments seemingly
showing evidence of a disease-modifying effect actually had an effect on
disease symptoms. Three: Are our outcome measures
up to scratch? This is a very important area. Most outcome measures are currently
not based on good qualitative frameworks. They are not good rulers against
which we measure the progression of our diseases. Four: What size of effect is
important to patients? Is the size of the effect, to a patient with Parkinson’s
disease, the same at the beginning of the disease as at the end? Do we really
know what kinds of effects we are looking for, in order to effectively design
clinical trials around these effects? We don’t know – but we really do need to. Five: Current clinical trials are
geared towards looking for a big effect, fast – a neurodegenerative ‘eureka’
moment. We need to take a different approach: to build one trial on the results
of previous ones so that, eventually, trials lead to cures. Tracking responders in a
heterogeneous condition is difficult, and we need to get much wiser about how
we pick up patients that respond to treatment. How do we monitor the responder
effect in a sub group of patients? Importantly, we also need to bring the
pharmaceutical industry on board. These companies are beginning to seriously
question their business model, with only one drug coming to market after all
the millions spent on research and development. The pharmaceutical industry
simply can’t afford for the work planned for the DeNDRoN SIG not to occur.