A balanced carbohydrate: protein diet in the management of Parkinson’s disease
LevaDopa to someone with PD is like petrol is to a car, each needs the other to move.
Put more in and they travel further, run dry and they stop.
As the last few drops of petrol trickle through the engine, the car lurches to a stop.
As the remains of the levodopa are used up by the body, it becomes difficult to move or you shake more.
The problem is taking more levodopa is not the same as putting more fuel in the tank.. the levodopa has to pass through the stomach into the small intestine before it passes into the blood stream, on its way to the brain. That takes time, about 30 minutes if the stomach is empty; depending on what and how much has been eaten it can be twice as long. So there you are waiting for some levodopa to reach the brain. The more fat in your meal, the slower the journey.
A balanced carbohydrate: protein diet in the management of Parkinson’s disease
Article abstract-Although restricting dietary protein is a proposed adjunct to
treating Parkinson’s disease (PD), the effect of carbohydrate consumption is
unknown. We measured plasma levodopa and large neutral amino acid (LNAA)
levels in nine PD patients treated with carbidopa/levodopa and different isocaloric
meals containing high protein-low carbohydrate, low protein-high carbohydrate,
and balanced 5 :1 carbohydrate: protein mixtures. We found that levodopa levels
increased significantly regardless of the type of diet, but that plasma LNAA levels
varied less and motor performance was superior after the balanced diet than after
the other two meals. We conclude that PD patients can consume nutritionally
adequate meals and still maintain a stable plasma levodopa: LNAA ratio.
NEUROLOGY 1991;41:1295-1297
E.M. Berry, MD, FRCP; J.H. Growdon, MD; J.J. Wurtman, PhD; B. Caballero, MD, PhD;
and R.J. Wurtman, MD
Levodopa, the principal drug used in the treatment of
Parkinson’s disease (PD), is a large neutral amino acid
(LNAA) whose passage across biological membranes
depends on the same system that transports other
LNAAs- including valine, leucine, isoleucine, tyrosine,
tryptophan, and phenylalanine.1 Although there may be
some interaction between levodopa and the LNAAs in
absorption across the intestinal mucosa, competition
with LNAAs at the blood-brain barrier limits
levodopa’s entry into the brain because of the lowKm of
this transport system. Two factors determine the
amount oflevodopa entering the brain: the plasma concentration
of levodopa and the summed concentrations
of the LNAAs. Clinical experiments confirming the
importance of the plasma levodopa: LNAA ratio in PD
showed that administration of LNAAs to PD patients
worsened motor symptoms that had been stabilized by
constant infusions of levodopa.2,3 Pincus and Barry4
suggested that plasma levels of LNAAs in PD patients
are better predictors of clinical responses to levodopa
than levodopa levels alone.
Soon after levodopa was introduced into clinical
practice, Mena and Cotzias5 proposed that dietary manipulations
could potentiate drug effects. Subsequently,
Pincus and Barry6 recommended a diet low in protein
content for restoring clinical benefit to PD patients who
had become unresponsive to levodopa and for minimizing
fluctuations in motor activity such as on-off phenomena
and end-of-dose loss of efficacy. Whether lowprotein
diets are efficacious in PD remains controversial6-
8;they are, however, widely known and publicized.
In chronic conditions such as PD, emphasis on protein
restriction may be dangerous as it may lead to protein
malnutrition. Furthermore, protein restriction may be
unnecessary because consumption of carbohydrates, by
eliciting insulin secretion, can also lower plasma LNAA
levels. We, therefore, undertook a study to determine
the effects on plasma levodopa and LNAA levels of
giving PD patients test diets that contained carbohydrate
and protein in various ratios. Dietary means of
maintaining predictable plasma levels of LNAAs
should enhance precision in titrating oral doses of
levodopa to achieve optimal clinical benefit.
Methods. The participants in this study were nine men with
PD. All signed an informed consent form approved by the
MIT Subcommittee on the Use of Humans as Experimental
Subjects. The patients had a mean age (SEM) of 60.6 years
(1.9) and weight of80.3 kg (3.9); their mean duration of illness
was 12.4 years (1.4), and the mean Hoehn and Yahr stage was
2.3 (0.2). All patients took a combination of carbidopa/
levodopa (Sinemet) with a mean levodopa dose of 1,000 mg/d
(range, 600 to 1,750 mg/d) in divided doses. Throughout the
study, patients received their usual dose of medication; all
took 100 mg of levodopa at 8 AMwith breakfast, and four
patients also required 100 mg on rising at 6 AM.
All patients were admitted to the MIT Clinical Research
Center for 3 consecutive days and each morning consumed
breakfasts of different composition but equivalent caloric
value (table 1). All patients received the three meals in a
random order. Blood samples were collected at 8 AMfrom an
indwelling venous catheter before breakfast and levodopa, and
again 1and 2 hours after ingesting carbidopa/levodopa and the
experimental breakfast. Blood was centrifuged, and the
plasma separated and frozen at -20°C until assay. Plasma
levodopa and LNAA levels were measured by high-performance
liquid chromatography; plasma tryptophan was measured
by a spectrofluorometric method.
Three clinical measures were used to monitor the behavioral
consequences of levodopa-diet interactions at baseline
and 1 and 2 hours after levodopa administration:
(1)Subjective assessment by the patient. Subjects rated their
motor state on a qualitative scale that extended from hypokinetic
and trembling through normal to hyperkinetic and dystonic. One
ofthe investigators (E.M.B.) who did not know the composition
of the diet examined each patient during the morning to determine
the presence of involuntary movements.
Table 1. Composition of the three different breakfast
meals*
Carbo-
Carbohydrate Protein Fat hydrate:protein
Diet (g) (g) (g) ratio
High protein
High carbohydrate
Balanced
24 (15)t
128 (SO)
107 (67)
SO(50) 25 (35)
6 (3) 12 (17)
20 (12) 15 (21)
0.3
21.3
5.4 .All meals contained approximately 640 calories.
t Percent composition in parentheses.
900
600
c:::Jlime 0
IZ2I after I hr
IS:SI alter 2 hr
<t
Z
-‘
600
500
CARBOHYDRATE BALANCED PROTEIN
Figure. Plasma LNAA levels (nmol/ml) after highcarbohydrate,
high-protein, and balanced
carbohydrate:protein meals. Bars indicate SEM. LNAA
levels 1 and 2 hours after all three meals were significantly
different from each other.
(2) Purdue Pegboard Test. The number of pegs placed in
the board by the right hand, by the left hand, and then bimanually
were counted during a 30-second period. The three
scores were summed; the greater the number of pegs, the better
the performance.
(3) Writing a standard nine-word sentence. The length of
the sentence and the time taken to write it were measured.
The data were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) using the SAS statistical software package
(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Alpha was set at 0.05.
Post-hoc testing by the Newman-Keuls test was performed
when the ANOVA was significant.
Results. Plasma amino acid levels. Fasting levels of
LNAAs and levodopa were similar on all 3 days and did
not differ significantly across patients. There was a significant
difference (p < 0.001) in the LNAA levels in response
to the different diets (figure). Mean LNAA levels
rose 24% after the high-protein meal, fell 18% after the
high-carbohydrate meal, and remained the same «3%
change) after the balanced diet. Post-hoc analyses showed
that the LNAA levels resulting from all three diets were
significantly different from each other at 1 and 2 hours.
Levodopa levels. Levels oflevodopa increased significantly
(p < 0.01) after carbidopa/levodopa administration
regardless of diet (table 2). There was a significant
diet by time interaction in the calculated plasma
levodopa: LNAA ratio (p = 0.038); the ratio was still
rising at 2 hours after a high-carbohydrate meal, steady
after the balanced meal, and had returned to baseline
value after the high-protein meal.
Clinical assessment. According to the subjective
scores, all patients felt undermedicated before breakfast
and all improved after levodopa/carbidopa treatment
regardless of the diet consumed. Nonetheless, five ofthe
nine patients reported worsening of parkinsonian
symptoms after the high-protein diet, and three of them
also experienced dyskinesias or increased restlessness
after the high-carbohydrate meal. After the balanced
meal, only one subject developed dyskinesias, although
another felt especially energized (“like Popeye after
spinach”). Of the nine patients, only two were unaffected
by the dietary manipulations.
Motor performance. There was a significant correla- .
Table 2. Mean plasma levodopa levels (nmol/ml) in
nine patients with PD before and after ingesting
carbidopa/levodopa with breakfasts of different
nutrient composition
Time
High
carbohydrate Balanced
High
protein
Beforemeal
After 1 hr
After 2 hrs
1.95 :t 0.67
3.38 :t 0.62
3.55 :t 0.84
1.82 :t 0.51
4.57 :t 0.96
2.35 :t 0.32
1.88 :t 0.56
3.45 :t 1.06
2.26 :t 0.59
Repeated measures ANOV A:
Diet:p = 0.75.
Time: p = 0.011.
Diet X time: p = 0.17.
tion between the patients’ subjective assessment of
treatment response and pegboard performance (r =
0.64, P = 0.0001) and also sentence length (r = 0.48, P
= 0.0001). The pegboard score differed according to the
type of breakfast eaten, with a significant diet by time
interaction (p = 0.028). With the balanced diet, performance
improved steadily over 2 hours, whereas performance
peaked at 1 hour and declined at 2 hours after
both the high-protein and high-carbohydrate meals. A
similar but nonsignificant trend was observed with an
increase in sentence length. Two hours after eating, as
sentence length increased, writing time decreased by
10% after the carbohydrate and balanced diets, but
increased by 5% after the protein meal. The
levodopa: LNAA ratio correlated significantly with
clinical performance on the pegboard test (r = 0.40,P =
0.001) and sentence length (r = O.:W,p = 0.006).
Discussion. This study indicates that in PD patients
receiving levodopa/carbidopa, plasma LNAA levels remain
stable for 2 hours after a balanced meal containing
a carbohydrate: protein ratio of 5: 1. Such a balanced
diet in the management of PD fulfills two requirements:
the diet is nutritionally complete, and it stabilizes plasma
LNAA levels for titrating levodopa dosages. An analogy
may be drawn from the treatment of diabetes in which the
optimal control of blood glucose depends on the timing
and nature of the diet as well as the dose and type of
insulin. Similarly, the management of PD should include
attention to a balanced diet as well as to the levodopa dose
and schedule. Prior recommendations for PD diets have
focused entirely on restricting protein consumption to 0.5
gjkg body weight/d5 or omitting protein at breakfast and
lunch and providing this nutrient only in the evening.6
The recommended daily allowance for protein is 0.75 to
0.8 gjkg body weight/d,9 and even this intake may be
inadequate in the elderly to prevent negative nitrogen
balance.tO Our data suggest that it is not necessary to
limit protein intake of patients with PD to achieve
stable levels of levodopa and LNAAs, and therefore a
predictable plasma levodopa: LNAA ratio. In susceptible
patients, consumption of meals containing carbohydrate,
but lacking sufficient protein, can cause signs’ of
levodopa toxicity (dyskinesias), probably because too
much drug suddenly enters the brain.8 When presented
in a ratio of 5: 1, the divergent effects of carbohydrate
—–
and protein consumption are balanced and the plasma
LNAA levels remain stable. Equally important for
chronic treatment, the balanced diet used in this study,
if consumed for the other meals, would provide sufficient
protein (60 gld, equivalent to 0.86 gjkg for a 70-kg
adult) to meet recommended daily requirements.9
The focus of our study was nutritional and biochemical;
additional research will be required in order to
explore the clinical consequences of the balanced carbohydrate:
protein diet in minimizing fluctuations in
motor activity. That performance on the pegboard test
after the balanced diet was superior than after either the
high-protein or high-carbohydrate meals is a preliminary
finding, but suggests that the balanced diet does not
worsen and may, in fact, enhance motor performance.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Elizabeth Campbell, RN, and Rita Tsay, RD, for
helping with the study protocol, Christine Bilmazes and Carol
Watkins for the amino acid determinations, and Raymond Gleason,
PhD, for the statistical analyses.
From the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the Clinical Research
Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge. MA, and
the Department of Neurology, Massachuseits General Hospital, Boston, MA.
~ in part by a grant from the American Parkinson’s Iroease Foundation.
Received October 10, 1990.Aocept.edfor publication in final form Janwuy 18,199L
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. John H. Growdon, Massachusetts
General Hospital, ACC 830, Boston, MA 02114.
References
1. Pardridge WM. Kinetics of competitive inhibition of neutral
amino acid transport across the blood-brain barrier. J Neurochem
1977;28:103-108.
2. Nutt JG, Woodward WR, Hammerstad JP, Carter JH, Anderson
JL. The “on-off” phenomenon in Parkinson’s disease: relation to
levodopa absorption and transport. N Engl J Med
1984;310:483-488.
3. Nutt JG, Woodward WR. Levodopa pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
in fluctuating parkinsonian patients. Neurology
1986;36:739-744.
4. Pincus JH, Barry KM. Plasma levels of amino acids correlate with
motor fluctuations in parkinsonism. Arch Neurol
1987;44:1006-1009.
5. Mena I, Cotzias GC. Protein intake and treatment of Parkinson’s
disease with levodopa. N Engl J Med 1975;292:181-184.
6. Pincus JH, Barry K. Influence of dietary protein on motor
fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol
1987;44:270-272.
7. Juncos JL, Fabbrini G, Mouradian MM, Serrati C, Chase TN.
Dietary influences on the antiparkinsonian response to levodopa.
Arch NeuroI1987;44:1003-1005.
8. Wurtman RJ, Caballero B, Salzman E. Facilitation of levodopainduced
dyskinesias by dietary carbohydrates. N Engl J Med
1988;319:1287-1288.
9. National Research Council (US). Recommended dietary allowances.
10th ed. National Academy of Sciences, 1989.
10. Gersovitz M, Motil K, Munro HN, Scrimshaw NS, Young
YR. Human protein requirements: assessment of the adequacy
of the current recommended dietary allowance for
dietary protein in elderly men and women. Am J Clin Nutr
1982;35:6-14.
Reprinted from NEUROLOGY,Volume 41, Number 8, August 1991
@ Copyright 1991by EdgellCommunications,Inc.
Printed in U.S.A.
—- — – – —
Your Brain Is A Dopamine-Based Prediction Machine – YouTube
Your Brain Is A Dopamine-Based Prediction Machine – YouTube.
Neuro Ted Top 10 Videos – The Brain and Learning – Brain Training – Dubai – UAE
Neuro Ted Top 10 Videos – The Brain and Learning – Brain Training – Dubai – UAE.
The Gut
Management of illness through oral medication is the usual route of drug delivery. The limiting efficiency is the individual.
Significant to all is gastric emptying time, delayed or rapid, the result is fluctuations in response with each dose of medication taken.
GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT
The stomach is divided into 3 regions:
- fundus, reservoir for undigested material
- body
- antrum is for mixing motions and is a pump for gastric emptying.
EXIT OF MEDICATION
- To get out of the stomach a pill has to pass through the pyloric valve into the small intestine and its size needs to be 1 to 2 mm.
STOMACH PH
- Empty stomach 1.5 to 2.0
- Fed stomach is 2.0 to 6.0.
A large volume of water with medication raises the PH of stomach contents to 6.0 to 9.0.
Some drugs have a better chance of dissolving in fed state than in a fasting state.
STOMACH EMPTYING
The rate of your stomach emptying depends on the density volume and calories consumed.
Nutritive density of meals helps determine gastric emptying time.
It doesn’t matter for this part of the process whether the meal has high protein, fat, or carbohydrate it. It is the calorific load that is significant.
FACTS
- Increase in acidity and caloric value slows down gastric emptying time.
- Biological factors such as age, body mass index (BMI), posture and disease status influence gastric emptying.
- In elderly persons, gastric emptying is slowed down.
- Generally females have slower gastric emptying rates than males.
- Stress increases gastric emptying rates
- Depression slows it down.
- Fluids taken at body temperature leave the stomach faster than colder or warmer fluids.
- Studies have revealed that gastric emptying of some pills in the fed state can also be influenced by size. Small-size tablets leave the stomach earlier in the digestive process than larger ones.
CONCLUSION
Drug absorption in the gastrointestinal tract is a highly
variable procedure.
Delivery systems are emerging as an effective means
of enhancing the bioavailability by improving the controlled release of many drugs.
The increasing sophistication of new delivery technology will
ensure the development of an increased number of drugs that have at present absorption window, low bioavailability.
Explaining your medication needs
1. I have Parkinson’s disease which affects——————.details————-
2. Currrent medication for this is ————details———–.
3. My daytime medication effectively controls symptoms for periods of between 30 and 90 minutes on each occasion, effective about an hour after taking medication. I can be approximate but not precise as to the effectiveness or duration of action of each dose of medication as it does vary.
4. I have some limited benefit from the medication both when it is taking effect and when it is wearing off. The average time for which the medication is effective, is approximately 1 hour with half an hour on either side for ‘’wearing off and coming on’’.
5. When my medication wears off entirely my functionality, both physical and mental are seriously impaired
6. I cannot be sure that the effect of each dose of medication will be sufficient to enable me to perform or complete a particular task. The extent and time taken to sustain a task or to take it to completion are variables beyond my every day control .
7. The timing of medication is critical to me.
8. The timing of medication is a consideration essential to accommodating my personal self care needs in relation to hygiene, meal preparation and social events.
9. Side effects of my medications can cause me to experience involuntary episodes of drowsiness and to make me feel excessively sleepy. This drowsiness is the direct side effect of the medication taken to counter the effects of my Parkinson’s disease.This is a direct result of treatment prescribed and the absence of alternative therapies.
10. I am dependant on medication.
Levadopa its Strength and Weakness
By;Eduardo Tolosa
Oral levodopa was developed in laboratories in the US owned by the
Atomic Energy Commission: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long
Island, New York.
A neurologist from Crete – George Cotzias –
published a crucial paper in 1967 in the New England Journal of
Medicine about how he administered melanocyte-stimulating
hormone (MSH) to patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).
1967
He thought the problem was that patients needed melanin as the substantia nigra was depigmented. However, when he gave MSH the patients actually got worse and their skin darkened.
Cotzias’ focus then moved to levodopa, a precursor to melanin. In
the same paper he described how he administered D,L-dopa to
16 patients .
It was the first time this compound had been given orally in such massive amounts. Eight patients improved dramatically with the large doses of D,L-dopa, but many experienced profound nausea.
Improvements were seen and lasted for several months.
Nevertheless,in this study, dyskinesias were already being described – the first time they had been described in the literature.
Furthermore, D,L-dopa was toxic to bone marrow, and the dosing led to granulocytopoenia. Cotzias was forced to cease administration.
Despite these problems, Cotzias had achieved notable successes, including
laying the foundations of levodopa dosing:
- many doses
- slow titration
- increasing dosage as much as necessary
- daily doses distributed throughout the day.
1969
In 1969, Cotzias, still in the employ of the Atomic Energy Commission,
switched from D,L-dopa to levodopa. Again, all patients who received
the compound improved dramatically and had sustained improvements
in all symptoms for up to two years.
Even tremor improved – many
neurologists are reluctant to say that levodopa is as effective for tremor
as for bradykinesia, but Cotzias’ study shows that it is; it just takes a
little longer.
As early as this 1969 paper, Cotzias mentioned the emergence of
certain clinically significant symptoms in six patients: the ‘off’
phenomenon.
He noted that 14 patients also had involuntary
movements.
Furthermore, he described the antagonistic effect on
levodopa by pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and a high-protein diet.
Therefore,at this time Cotzias was already describing both the main benefits and the main weaknesses of levodopa as we know them today
.
In addition to levodopa, Cotzias laid the foundations for subsequent
work on oral dopamine agonists. He was the first to attribute the
effect of apomorphine to its dopamine-like structure.
2009
Levodopa and Parkinson’s Disease – 30 Years Later
There is no question that levodopa is the most effective symptomatic
treatment of PD. However, it has only recently been compared with
other treatments, particularly orally active dopamine agonist
monotherapy.
All trials to date have shown that levodopa has a more
potent antiparkinsonian effect, especially in the first years, than
dopamine agonists such as bromocriptine, ropinirole, pergolide,
cabergoline and pramipexole.3–7
To compare the benefits of initiating therapy with levodopa or the
dopamine agonist bromocriptine, the Parkinson’s Disease Research
Group of the United Kingdom (PDRGUK) conducted a long-term
(10-year) open-label, randomised study in 782 previously untreated
PD patients.3 The study found that although bromocriptine-treated
patients had a lower incidence of dyskinesia and dystonia than the
levodopa-treated patients, they also had significantly worse disability
scores throughout the first five years of therapy.
Professor Peter Jenner
The Role of Advocacy in finding a Cure for Parkinson’s
Good afternoon. We are incredibly lucky today to be able to start
the programme with a short talk from one of the most prolific,
most well known and most published expert on Parkinson’s
certainly in the UK. Professor Peter Jenner, even in his current
jet-lagged state is a tour de force and a world renowned
just at a scientific level but also takes more time out to speak to
patient groups more than anyone else in the scientific arena that
I know.
This afternoon he is just going to talk to us for ten minutes or so
about his view of the future in Parkinson’s.
Please will you welcome then, Professor Peter Jenner.
PETER JENNER TO SPEAK
Good afternoon everyone. At this meeting today, our hope is
that you will all go away feeling three things:
More positive about Parkinson’s than when you came in.
More informed about exciting research developments than when
you came in.
More influential in the drive to accelerate new treatments for PD.
But before you listen to me harp on about the specific
ingredients for a cure and ways in which we can lend a hand in
the cooking, we are first going to listen to a man in a skirt from
up north. Some of you may know this man as “Wobbly
Williams” some of you know him as Bryn, but whatever you
know him as, this was an exceptional speech, an inspirational
and moving address presented at the Opening Ceremony of the
World Parkinson Congress in Glasgow. This really sets the
scene for today.
‘As a community of Parkinson’s advocates we can be a
resource…….’
‘To be effective there must be cooperation and collaboration
across the whole of the Parkinson’s community. A partnership
of equals’
‘Now is the time to realise the promises of science. Now is the
time to bring our urgency to bear and deliver……’
‘Now is the time for a steady hand, a strong voice and a keen
sense of smell….’
These statements of intent really define what today is all about
and my job this morning is to look at the aspects of the delivery
of new treatments in which we, as people living with
Parkinson’s, can make a difference.
This is particularly pertinent now because we are on the cusp of
what one person has described as a ‘tectonic shift’ in
Parkinson’s at the moment and I think the source of this shift is
coming from two very distinct and new forces in the Parkinson’s
arena.
The first of these forces originates from the science. I don’t
know about the rest of you, but I have always thought that my
Parkinson’s was caused by something not in my head but in
here – call it a gut feeling. Despite imparting this nugget of
information to a lot of people, gut feelings have little credibility
in the scientific world and my rantings have fallen largely on
deaf ears. Evidence in science is everything and although it has
taken me quite a long time to accept this fact – that does not
mean to say I don’t see the sense in it.
For too long now we have been exclusively looking at neurology
for the answers to Parkinson’s to the exclusion of everything
else. But Parkinson’s, as we all know, is not just a condition
affecting the nervous system – it is a whole body condition
which manifests itself in ways too numerous to mention and
seems to be different in everyone. It stands to reason therefore
that the cause of Parkinson’s could be similarly complex and
individual in its pathology.
Perhaps neurology needs to become a ‘new’rology and should
not look at itself in isolation but spread its wings and establish
links with other ‘ologies’.
And at last, there is now a move to investigate Parkinson’s from
a much broader perspective. There are new avenues of research
which focus on immunology, endocrinology and
gastroenterology and from combining the findings from these
new sectors of medicine in the research of our condition, it is
becoming increasingly likely that we will identify many more
pieces of the Parkinson’s jigsaw.
Today, we have Dr John Tadross, a quite brilliant medic who
works with Professor Steve Bloom at Imperial College, London
who in turn is a world renowned specialist in gut hormones. Five
years ago, if we had asked such a person to be involved in our
conference about Parkinson’s, we would have been charged
with heresy and probably burnt at the stake!
I think we can all be hugely encouraged by these new lines of
research which are infiltrating the Parkinson’s scientific
network.
The other significant force in the quest for better treatments is
vested in us, the people who live with this condition and our
ability to influence, to accelerate and to focus the delivery of the
new and exciting science that is out there into the clinic, into
you and me so that we one day soon can feel better than we do
right now.
But why should we do this? Well, if you think about it, the health
sector is different to any other industry as its consumers (we
here in this room) have very little influence over the products.
Parkinson’s is a prime example of this. To date PwP’s have
neither had the inclination nor the platform to play a significant
role in influencing and informing the nature of consumer
demand i.e. our requirements. This seems absurd when the
condition is so all-consuming and no-one apart from those who
experience it from day-to-day can really have any in depth
insight into what it feels like and what type of products might
best serve them. And yet still we as PwP’s feel detached and
disempowered from the scientific community.
To ensure that the best science is developed into the best
treatments with urgency, safety, accuracy and efficacy, the
involvement of informed / expert and energetic PWP’s is
imperative because time is not neutral to PwP’s and in a world of
ever improving access to information; the Parkinson’s
community needs to embrace the enormous potential of the
patient resource and as Bryn said earlier, ‘Now is the time’ for
this.
So I thought the best way of explaining my view on how we can
contribute would be to start by looking at the key constituents of
our quest for a cure for Parkinson’s
So each of these sections can be broken down into further units.
So let’s start with the science.
So these are the ingredients for The Cure Parkinson’s pie but
what can we do to influence these? Well, I think in order to be
truly effective in this task we need the structure, support and
credibility of organisations But we can only be truly effective if such
organisations can provide a relevant and credible infrastructure
which can facilitate leadership, education, data collection and
analysis, and communication. These are the areas where patient
organisations can make the most impact. It is imperative that we
are given the guidance and the wherewithal to be the voice of
the patient. It is our voice and no-one else’s.
Here is a range of areas where patient
organisations can make their mark and contribute to the big
picture in Parkinson’s.
And finally how can we as PwP’s assist? I have identified a
number of areas in which we can directly make an impact on the
speed of development of new therapies.
These are listed on this final chart which I will run through along
with some specific suggestions as to practical methods of
achieving them.
We can develop media opportunities to raise awareness of the
issues that are important to us –
Passion, determination and focus e.g. Organising social or
formal gatherings between academic scientists, pharmas etc
where PwP’s can describe what PD is like.
Taking a moral standpoint e.g. Engaging with regulators to make the case
for fast tracking therapies which have particular potential and
ensuring that the payer understands the real impact on quality
of life.
Self assessment e.g. an increased tendency to assess quality of
life with reference to the people who are living it and, in so
doing, ensuring more precise outcome measurement in clinical
trials. – CLICK
Defining therapeutic needs e.g. encouraging pharma to call on
PwP’s to explain and describe real therapeutic needs rather than
those perceived by others. This should be an ongoing
relationship throughout the development process.
Best practice e.g responding to societal change where users
and consumers have far more influence and impact on change.
Data resource e.g establishing a register to show progression,
similarities, patterns in the Parkinson population. Such data
could be crucial not only in deciphering cause and correct
management but also to compartmentalise clinical trial cohorts
into homogenous groups.
Funding e.g sourcing significant funds PD research. PwP’s are
so often forgotten in terms of the amount they raise both from
their own resources and through other means – sponsorship
etc.
Clinical trial volunteering which is self explanatory.
In the past, many is the time I have been frustrated to the point
of disbelief by the research community’s lack of foresight and
lack of understanding of the ways in which PwP’s can contribute
to the scientific agenda. I remember going to a talk with a similar
title to this one ‘The Role of Advocacy in finding a Cure for
Parkinson’s’ except that it was given by a scientist. This
particular researcher’s vision of advocacy was that advocates
should donate their brains to a brain bank upon death. But I can
tell you that advocacy can do a little bit more than this. Call me’
big headed’ but my brain is far more useful to medical science
while it is still housed within a body which can use it to
communicate.
We, , represent a living brain bank and if you
take the subject of clinical trials as an example, we should, given
the right education and given the opportunity,to be involved in all
aspects of the procedure – from protocol to recruitment, from
patient rights to outcome measurement, from establishing the
concept of informed shared decision making to supplying
information and data about ourselves so that we can be
effectively grouped into the sub-types of Parkinson’s .We need
to enable people living with Parkinson’s to share their opinions
and to communicate this shared voice to policymakers,
opinion formers and stakeholders in the wider Parkinson’s
community because there is a need to challenge current
thinking about the treatment of Parkinson’s. We also need to
raise the expectations of people with Parkinson’s – of care, of
cure and all points in between. Our combined voice can help
break down the barriers to a cure with an urgency which no-one
else can communicate We need to find ways to establish a
better system of analysis of PwP’s in clinical trials so that these
measurements are more in line with the reality of their lives –
personally speaking it is not so important to me that I am able to
do this. What is more important is that I am able to do this.
Raising awareness of the Parkinson’s time bomb and the false
economy of no governmental investment now.
Better communication throughout the Parkinson’s community
through PwP and scientific meetings.
Challenging the system through suggesting more effective
methods of clinical trial and regulatory practice.
We can achieve these 3 things simply by bringing people
together, through establishing contacts and through addressing
what are the priorities for people living with Parkinson’s.
Finally, I’ll tell you what really makes me want to leap out of
bed every morning….. What makes me want to leap out of bed
every morning is the fact that I can’t leap out of bed every
morning, but also the fact that I am becoming increasingly
convinced, that one day I will. It’s simply a matter of when.
How can I be so sure about this? Well the research into gut hormones
advances in genetics. The work going on in gene therapy and GDNF is making potentially revolutionary treatments for Parkinson’s into dramatically improved therapies for Parkinson’s. You can make a difference to breakthrough treatments for this condition if we combine as a team to provide the missing link in the chain of events leading to more effective therapies for Parkinson’s.PwP’s can demand and realise a paradigm shift in the dynamics of the research system having a voice in the process of treatment development,
-
Recent
- Arvid Carlsson,Nobel Lecture A Half -Century of Research
- Neuro Ted Top 10 Videos – The Brain and Learning – Brain Training – Dubai – UAE
- Travelling with PD
- Braaks Gut Theory
- The stomach is the gateway
- Poem
- The night I saved the hamster
- Be Aware-Generic Brands
- Parkinson’s disease and Acid reflux
- Volunteer join other people in research
- The Scientific Power of Naps – YouTube
- A balanced carbohydrate: protein diet in the management of Parkinson’s disease
-
Links
-
Archives
- February 2015 (2)
- October 2014 (2)
- August 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (10)
- June 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (1)
- November 2013 (1)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (3)
- November 2011 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS