Study Reveals Limited Efficacy of GLP-1 Drug in Parkinson's Treatment

[Bolt_Upright]

Study Reveals Limited Efficacy of GLP-1 Drug in Parkinson's Treatment themunicheye.com/glp-1-drug...

"A recent clinical trial has found that exenatide, a GLP-1 drug, offers little to no benefit for individuals suffering from Parkinson's disease. This research, conducted by a team from University College London and published in The Lancet, aimed to assess whether exenatide could positively influence movement, symptoms, or brain imaging in these patients.

The study represents the largest and longest investigation of exenatide's effects on Parkinson's disease to date. Conducted over 96 weeks, it involved 194 participants from six research hospitals across the UK, including major cities such as London, Oxford, and Edinburgh. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either weekly exenatide injections or a placebo, with neither the participants nor the researchers knowing who received which treatment.

Upon completion of the trial, researchers reported no significant advantages for those receiving exenatide compared to the placebo group. Evaluations of patient movements, self-reported symptom severity, and imaging studies yielded no discernible benefits from the medication.

Professor Thomas Foltynie, the lead author of the study, acknowledged the disappointment that these findings would bring to patients and the broader research community focused on Parkinson's disease. The anticipation surrounding the trial's results stemmed from previous smaller studies that had suggested potential benefits of exenatide for Parkinson's patients."

[Raphaekg]

Why did you title this post "LIMITED efficacy?" Oh, I guess that's the title of the post where the information was found, If you take a look at the peer reviewed article, it's considerably less optimistic.

In the Lancet [thelancet.com/journals/lanc...] , the investigators report, "We found no evidence to support exenatide as a disease-modifying treatment for people with Parkinson's disease."

Sure, one can always hope that it helped a small subgroup, but such post hoc analyses are inherently problematic, if they show anything at all.

People had been optimistic after the much smaller Phase 2 study concluded that exenatide appeared efficacious. That study was flawed, since the treated and control group differed at baseline on a key measure that was the outcome measure (UPDRS Part 3 Motor Score). At no time point over 60 weeks of evaluation was the exenatide group actually doing better on average than controls. They always had higher motor symptom scores than controls. Only a change score (change in motor symptoms from baseline to 60 week follow-up) wrongly concluded that exenatide improved/decreased motor scores.