Motor and cognitive advantages persist 12 months after exenatide exposure in
Parkinson's disease.
Author(s): Aviles-Olmos I(1), Dickson J(2), Kefalopoulou Z(1), Djamshidian A(3), Kahan J(1),
Ell P(2), Whitton P(4), Wyse R(5), Isaacs T(5), Lees A(3), Limousin P(1),
Foltynie T(1).
Affiliation(s): Author information:
(1)Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience, UCL Institute of Neurology, London,
UK. (2)Department of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS
Trust, London, UK. (3)Reta Lila Weston Laboratories, London, UK. (4)UCL School of
Pharmacy, London, UK. (5)The Cure Parkinson's Trust, St. Botolph's, London, UK.
Publication date & source: 2014, J Parkinsons Dis. , 4(3):337-44
BACKGROUND: Data from an open label randomised controlled trial have suggested
possible advantages on both motor and non-motor measures in patients with
Parkinson's disease following 12 months exposure to exenatide.
OBJECTIVE: Continued follow up of these same patients was performed to
investigate whether these possible advantages persisted in the prolonged absence
of this medication.
METHODS: All participants from an open label, randomised controlled trial of
exenatide as a treatment for Parkinson's disease, were invited for a further
follow up assessment at the UCL Institute of Neurology. This visit included all
20 individuals who had previously completed twelve months exposure to exenatide
10ug bd and the 24 individuals who had acted as randomised controls. Motor
severity of PD was compared after overnight withdrawal of conventional PD
medication using blinded video assessment of the MDS-UPDRS, together with several
non-motor tests. This assessment was thus 24 months after their original baseline
visit, i.e. 12 months after cessation of exenatide.
RESULTS: Compared to the control group of patients, patients previously exposed
to exenatide had an advantage of 5.6 points (95% CI, 2.2-9.0; p = 0.002) using
blinded video rating of the MDS-UPDRS part 3 motor subscale. There was also a
difference of 5.3 points; (95% CI, 9.3-1.4; p = 0.006) between the 2 groups on
the Mattis Dementia Rating scale.
CONCLUSIONS: While these data must still not be interpreted as evidence of
neuroprotection, they nevertheless provide strong encouragement for the further
study of this drug as a potential disease modifying agent in Parkinson's disease.
|