I also blame us for not getting our butts into clinical trials. However, there is some sort of obsession in having dopa naive PWP in trials- pharmas only want the mildest of PD manifestation in their trials. They clearly avoid mid-stage disease and advanced disease PWP- why do you think that is?

Further, why don't our PD orgs begin a newly diagnosed patient education campaign to recruit newbies for clinical research?

There are many more potential better treatments than dopa stimulation. One vastly undertargeted area is Acetylcholine antagonists and allosteric modulators. The latter by Addex has huge potential as it controls dyskinesias. If I am not mistaken these might still be tested against agonists because the purpose is to compare efficacy not simply to improve agonists already on the market. Does anyone know if treatments targeting other receptor points are tested differently? Or do they all have to be in the same treatment family?

Laura

How about a registry of treatments that promised miracles and then just disappeared. Not disproven, just never heard from again? Sort of a "What ever became of...?" list.

Methylene blue?

"They clearly avoid mid-stage disease and advanced disease PWP- why do you think that is?"


likely for the reasons i mentioned, lack of enough willing subjects needed to prove small statistical improvement to FDA - btw, due to continuous progression very difficult to measure pd "improvement" WHEN patient getting worse from normal pd during trial - not like diabetes, difficult to get fda approval, recruit neuros, elderly may not drive so can't get to trial, have other diseases that may interfere, side affects more severe.
tough to work with elderly on any non-life threatening chronic disease and get also get FDA approval. seems more gene therapy, stem/fetal cell work going on, might be discouraging more drug research - why develop drug with minor affect when 3-4years gene therapy?
that said, what about ldopa/agonist patches, ldopa pump? azilect, extended release mirapex/requip?