Why is our research effort for PD so SLOW? Are we barking up the wrong tree? I found this broadcast most interesting
What are the most promising potential treatments for Parkinson's? Professor Peter Jenner at Kings College London gives a unique overview of the science which offers the potential for a cure or better treatments . . .
His thoughts about the problem:
Needed is focus on discrete patient groups when doing research. Right now
we're too focused on "one disease", "one cause", "one cure"
He Suggests repurposing of drugs . . . shorter time, less risk, less cost, side effects known, rapidly explored hypothesis
Anti-diabetics: glitazones, exenatide
Cholesterol lowering drugs: simvastin
Anti-cancer drugs: nilotinib
Anti-malarials: chloroquine, amodiaguine
Iron chelators: desferrioxamine
He suggests - Parkinsons is a syndrome
Differing patterns of pathology and biochemical change
No single cause or pathogenic mechanism
Classical clinical trials design ignores subtypes
unlikely to find that 'one size' drug fits all
Gene therapy and stem cell approach
Neuroprotection seems a more difficult and longer term objective
Modification of processes linked to gene defects may provide modifying
Treatment must be started early
All these approaches must be aimed at the complex pathology of Parkinsons
What are your thoughts. Is he on track ?