Futurism, Parkinson's
Comments 10

The Pursuit of A Cure

 

Parkinson’s disease does not exist.

There is nothing that we can point to and say, ‘that is Parkinson’s’. We have never found it in a brain, recreated it in a dish, nor given it to any animal.

What we have are people living with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. There is currently nothing that allows us to separate the disease from the people that experience it.

We have assumed that there is an underlying biology that connects most, if not all, of those diagnosed, but we have no clear signs that what we are looking for exists.

And yet, we talk about it as if we know it does. Medical journals are filled with references to ‘Parkinson’s models’ and ‘Parkinson’s pathology’, without mention of the fact that we have no proof that there is anything there.

We even have two distinct categories of therapies: ‘symptom modifying’ and ‘disease modifying’, as if we know the difference. And how do we claim to modify what we cannot define? Through a series of motor tests that output a single number. Generally, the longer it has been since a person’s diagnosis, the higher that number is. Disease modifying trials aim to slow, stop or reverse that trend.

But that test is a test of patients’ motor symptoms. So, since we cannot uncouple the symptoms from the disease, why the distinction?

Levodopa, the gold standard therapy for Parkinson’s disease is not considered ‘disease modifying’, yet its introduction in the 1960’s doubled life expectancy for people diagnosed with Parkinson’s and has done more to help people live better lives than any other tool in the neurologist’s toolbox.

Again I ask, why do we try to separate the disease, which we have no way of measuring, from the symptoms we can measure?

The pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease is murky at best. For decades experts have acknowledged that PD has a multi-causal heterogenous etiology that results in a wide spectrum of disorder. Yet, despite all that we have learned of its complexity, and the array of neurochemicals and brain regions and cell types involved, we continue to put forward therapies that target single pathways in groups of patients, acting as if all that heterogeneity converges on a unifying pathology.

Some might say that if we try and try and try again we might happen upon a solution that does hit the disease. We may, but what are the chances? What are the odds that if we use what knowledge we have and just try enough things, something is going to work? I don’t have the answer, (though it seems like one we might be able to compute?) but for now, we have no proof-of-concept, there is no chronic degenerative neurological condition that we have solved by trial and error.

So, how should we proceed? Perhaps until we know better (that is, have biomarkers that can tell us more about these diseases than symptoms can) we should dispense with the distinction between ‘disease modifying’ & ‘symptom modifying’ while being agnostic to any claims about what Parkinson’s is.

Such a shift would also give us clearer targets as outcome measures in trials. Measuring constipation, time spent On vs. Off, choking, or rate of falls, are much more tangible outcomes to measure in trials than the amorphous ‘disease-modification’. In fact, words like ‘disease-modifying’ and ‘neuroprotective’ are not even suitable goals for pharmacological intervention as they lack clear physiological definitions and thus are not something that can be put on a drug label.

Finally, when it comes to any attempt at a cure, we must remember that for patients, symptoms are the disease. People cannot feel genetic mutations, or mitochondrial dysfunction; we can only feel their macro effects. Since any functional cure would have to ameliorate symptoms to earn the name, perhaps, until we understand the biology well enough to purposefully intervene, the best way forward is not by trying to modify the amorphous blob that is disease, but instead focus on the only things we can empirically measure, the symptoms, and tackle each, one by one.

After all, if we get rid of the symptoms we will have no disease to speak of.

 

 


 

Advice to companies and research centers:

For short term gains (5-10 years): Hire a panel of knowledgeable patients who share a common symptom and work with them to find the best solution to that symptom.

For long-term gains (10-20 years): Invest in agnostic biomarker discovery programs. (More on this to come)

 


 

Featured image Source

The Blind Leading the Blind is a painting by the Netherlandish Renaissance artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder, completed in 1568.

 

 


 

10 Comments

  1. gavinmogan says

    Ben,

    I tried posting a comment to your post. Doesn’t seem to accept unless there is an approval lag. Anyway, my response follows in case you want to publish. Gavin

    Ben,

    You’re becoming invaluable and perhaps the thought leader for Parkinson’s. To me, this is your most important offering yet. You’ve raised questions and suggestions that we need to all consider and take action on. It may be sobering, but objectively assessing ourselves is the first step to progress. I firmly believe your conclusions here will ripple through the scientific community and profoundly impact it’s direction. We must insist upon it.

    I have only one issue to raise… Is the preferred route to look to the outside and hope and wait treatments are discovered/developed for each symptom independently? Each person could have 10 or more, and possibly exasperated by treatments for other symptoms. Further, a given symptom is not even homogeneous across the population.

    Or is a better immediate route to look within and reframe the way we view symptoms and the way we view ourselves. What can we do to address or adapt to the “problem”? Is it really even a “problem”?

    We’ve forever resisted and fought symptom after symptom, insisting on the continuance of self as we know it, else feel as if we’ve suffered a loss.

    What if we better incorporated symptoms and allowed their reshaping, not degeneration, of us? Must we always need to be “fixed”, conforming to some imagined standard? Or can we “fix” our narrow view of acceptable outcomes and our narrow view of our limitations?

    I’m not diminishing our most severe symptoms, i.e., tremor, movement difficulties, or voice/swallowing strength. I am suggesting that our inability to accept or adapt when necessary often worsens the specific symptom and almost always seems to worsen the true measure, us as a whole person.  I am suggesting that our response to Parkinson’s is the one thing under our control.

    I guess my supplement to your treatise is: Before we address science, health care, or a faulty corporate system, or anything else for that matter, shouldn’t we address ourselves?

    Like

    • Thanks Gavin. On an individual level I share your sentiment, with each new ‘problem’ we must each find ways within us to adapt and overcome.

      Like

  2. Benjamin yet another perfect post. You continue to hit the nail on the head as you point out the problems with the current system AND offer a well reasoned alternative. Don’t stop your campaign to refocus research priorities and continue to fight for what we all know is right. The search for a cure will be driven by you and others who are bringing a fresh look at all neurological diseases. Thank you for clearly expressing what many of us knew but didn’t have the skill or the platform to get the word out. Keep it up!
    Tom

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks very much for this, Ben. I think the value of this perspective grows even larger if we think about the bigger picture. For every person with recognized Parkinson’s symptoms around gait and tremor, there is a larger group of us “in the pipeline” as it were. We have genetic risk factors, or prodromal symptoms like hyposmia or Rem-sleep Behavior Disorder. We have been told (in the latter cases) that 80 or 90% of us may go on at some point to develop motor symptoms. And with our aging populations, there are more and more of us in this phase all the time.

    Yet for us, the defined disease of Parkinson’s really doesn’t exist, or if it does it is defined as “prodromal PD”. Further, this is a stage or a process that may take decades to unfold.

    My experience is that at this stage, my symptoms are quite manageable, at least through the full court press of lifestyle activities I currently deploy. This makes me one of the lucky ones, at least so far!

    In your near term (next 5-10 years) recommendation model, it would be ideal to look at the full range of symptomatic solutions across all of us, including those ‘prodromal’ or high-risk, alongside those with an actual Parkinson’s diagnosis. Ultimately, there is sure to be lots to be uncovered and learned from one another, across both sides of the ‘diagnosis line’.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: A.S.A.P | The Science of Parkinson's

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s