Authors

Tom Foltynie, University College London
Sonia Gandhi, University College London
Cristina Gonzalez-Robles, University College London
Marie Louise Zeissler, Peninsula Medical School
Georgia Mills, University College London
Roger Barker, University of Cambridge
James Carpenter, Medical Research Council
Anette Schrag, University College London
Anthony Schapira, University College London
Oliver Bandmann, University of Sheffield
Stephen Mullin, Peninsula Medical School
Joy Duffen, Medical Research Council
Kevin McFarthing, Parkinson’s research advocate
Jeremy Chataway, University College London
Mahesh Parmar, Medical Research Council
Camille Carroll, Peninsula Medical School
Yoav Ben Shlomo
Mark Edwards
Alan Whone
Carl Counsell
Caroline Clarke
Matthew Burnell
Dorothy Salathiel
Sue Whipps
Anna Jewell
Tom Barber
Rimona Weil
Caroline Williams Gray
Michele Hu
Lynn Rochester
Paola Piccini
Henrik Zetterberg
Alastair Noyce
Ray Chaudhuri
Michael Lawton
Ashwani Jha
Carroll Siu
Michèle Bartlett
Wamelen D van
Simon Stott
George Tofaris
Esther Sammler
Heather Mortiboys
Li Wei
Alan Wong
Susan Duty
David Dexter
Paula Scurfield
Edwin Jabbari
Huw Morris
D Breen
C Lambert
P Korlipara
M Silverdale
K Bhatia
A Yarnall
R Khengar
H Collins
F Hudson
G Baxendale
R Croucher
S Bartolomeur-Pires
J Allison
A Morgan
S Wonnacott
D Athauda
E Henderson
S Clegg
K Matthews
E Deeson
L Miller
J Handley
H Matthews
A Batla
N Bakshi
B Port
R Ellis-Doyle
SL Collins
J Rudiger
R Chapman
J Cedarbaum
A Lang
B Fiske
R Wyse
A Boxer
D Wilson
JC Corvol
J Harris

ORCID

Abstract

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson’s disease is appealing, but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in Parkinson’s disease, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm; however, in Parkinson’s disease there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson’s disease.

Publication Date

2023-07-03

Publication Title

Brain

Volume

146

Issue

7

ISSN

0006-8950

Embargo Period

2023-08-02

First Page

2717

Last Page

2722

Plum Print visual indicator of research metrics
PlumX Metrics
  • Citations
    • Citation Indexes: 18
  • Usage
    • Downloads: 14
    • Abstract Views: 3
  • Captures
    • Readers: 26
  • Mentions
    • News Mentions: 2
see details

Share

COinS