« The stem cell debate continues... | Main | Crime, punishment and neurotoxicity »

Clinical trials and tribulations

It's double-blind or nothing when it comes to phase III clinical trials. Although placebo groups are absolutely vital to the clinical validity of medical treatments, a recent article in The Lancet has me thinking about the ethics of treating desperate patients with saline.

The subthalamic nucleus is overactive in people with Parkinson's disease, presumably because it loses GABAergic input from the globus pallidus. Subthalamic nucleus lesions improve Parkinson's disease symptoms. Kaplitt et al. generated a gene therapy agent that would silence but not destroy subthalamic nuclei neurons. They inserted glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), the enzyme responsible for GABA production, into a viral vector and injected it into subthalamic nuclei of people with Parkinson's disease. In their phase I trial in 12 patients, the authors showed that their therapy was safe and virtually side-effect-free. Unlike most phase I trials, the authors also showed that their treatment was effective: intra-thalamic injections of the GAD agent reduced Parkinson's symptoms.

That's great news for a possible new treatment for Parkinson's disease. But it also means that at some point soon, people with advanced Parkinson's symptoms will volunteer for brain surgery and a 50% chance at treatment. Some would argue that even placebos have their upside, and I certainly understand their importance. I also understand that the patients who volunteer for these studies are often at the end of their medical ropes and are willing to roll the dice. I just feel for the folks who wake up 6 months after surgery and realize that their symptoms haven't improved.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2926

Comments

Placebo groups definitely have their upsides though. I think the benefits by far outweigh the costs in using placebo groups, as they help determine if the IV in the other groups are affecting the DV. What would be the point in research otherwise?

In this article, you said that you have doubts that the treatment was effective, why?

Thanks for your question, Hagen. I don't doubt the treatment's effectiveness. However, in determining how effective it is, many people who would have potentially benefited from it will have to undergo painful and dangerous procedures without receiving the actual treatment. Although I absolutely understand the necessity for control groups, sometimes I feel bad for the people involved.

In this article, you said that you have doubts that the treatment was effective, why?

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are useful in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'actionpotential at natureny dot com'.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 331 total comments,
the most recent eight were: