Extended Treatment with Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor in Parkinson's Disease.

Alan L Whone, Mihaela Boca, Matthias Luz, Max Woolley, Lucy Mooney, Sonali Dharia, Jack Broadfoot, David Cronin, Christian Schroers, Neil U Barua, Lara Longpre, C Lynn Barclay, Chris Boiko, Greg A Johnson, H Christian Fibiger, Rob Harrison, Owen Lewis, Gemma Pritchard, Mike Howell, Charlie Irving, David Johnson, Suk Kinch, Christopher Marshall, Andrew D Lawrence, Stephan Blinder, Vesna Sossi, A Jon Stoessl, Paul Skinner, Erich Mohr, Steven S Gill

Journal: Journal of Parkinson's disease 2020;9(2):301-313

PMID: 30829619

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Intraputamenal glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), administered every 4 weeks to patients with moderately advanced Parkinson's disease, did not show significant clinical improvements against placebo at 40 weeks, although it significantly increased [18F]DOPA uptake throughout the entire putamen.

OBJECTIVE

This open-label extension study explored the effects of continued (prior GDNF patients) or new (prior placebo patients) exposure to GDNF for another 40 weeks.

METHODS

Using the infusion protocol of the parent study, all patients received GDNF without disclosing prior treatment allocations (GDNF or placebo). The primary outcome was the percentage change from baseline to Week 80 in the OFF state Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score.

RESULTS

All 41 parent study participants were enrolled. The primary outcome decreased by 26.7±20.7% in patients on GDNF for 80 weeks (GDNF/GDNF; N = 21) and 27.6±23.6% in patients on placebo for 40 weeks followed by GDNF for 40 weeks (placebo/GDNF, N = 20; least squares mean difference: 0.4%, 95% CI: -13.9, 14.6, p = 0.96). Secondary endpoints did not show significant differences between the groups at Week 80 either. Prespecified comparisons between GDNF/GDNF at Week 80 and placebo/GDNF at Week 40 showed significant differences for mean OFF state UPDRS motor (-9.6±6.7 vs. -3.8±4.2 points, p = 0.0108) and activities of daily living score (-6.9±5.5 vs. -1.0±3.7 points, p = 0.0003). No treatment-emergent safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The aggregate study results, from the parent and open-label extension suggest that future testing with GDNF will likely require an 80- rather than a 40-week randomized treatment period and/or a higher dose.

Address: Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; Neurological and Musculoskeletal Sciences Division, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.; Neurological and Musculoskeletal Sciences Division, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.; Med Genesis Therapeutix Inc., Victoria, BC, Canada.; Renishaw plc, New Mills, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, UK.; The Wales Research and Diagnostic Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Centre (PETIC), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.; School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.; Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.; Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.; Neurological and Musculoskeletal Sciences Division, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.; Renishaw plc, New Mills, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, UK.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.