The Personalized Parkinson Project: examining disease progression through broad biomarkers in early Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of the etiology, pathophysiology, phenotypic diversity, and progression of Parkinson's disease has stagnated. Consequently, patients do not receive the best care, leading to unnecessary disability, and to mounting costs for society. The Personalized Parkinson Project (PPP) proposes an unbiased approach to biomarker development with multiple biomarkers measured longitudinally. Our main aims are: (a) to perform a set of hypothesis-driven analyses on the comprehensive dataset, correlating established and novel biomarkers to the rate of disease progression and to treatment response; and (b) to create a widely accessible dataset for discovery of novel biomarkers and new targets for therapeutic interventions in Parkinson's disease. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, longitudinal, single-center cohort study. The cohort will comprise 650 persons with Parkinson's disease. The inclusion criteria are purposely broad: age ≥ 18 years; and disease duration ≤5 years. Participants are followed for 2 years, with three annual assessments at the study center. Outcomes include a clinical assessment (including motor and neuro-psychological tests), collection of biospecimens (stool, whole blood, and cerebrospinal fluid), magnetic resonance imaging (both structural and functional), and ECG recordings (both 12-lead and Holter). Additionally, collection of physiological and environmental data in daily life over 2 years will be enabled through the Verily Study Watch. All data are stored with polymorphic encryptions and pseudonyms, to guarantee the participants' privacy on the one hand, and to enable data sharing on the other. The data and biospecimens will become available for scientists to address Parkinson's disease-related research questions. DISCUSSION: The PPP has several distinguishing elements: all assessments are done in a single center; inclusion of "real life" subjects; deep and repeated multi-dimensional phenotyping; and continuous monitoring with a wearable device for 2 years. Also, the PPP is powered by privacy and security by design, allowing for data sharing with scientists worldwide respecting participants' privacy. The data are expected to open the way for important new insights, including identification of biomarkers to predict differences in prognosis and treatment response between patients. Our long-term aim is to improve existing treatments, develop new therapeutic approaches, and offer Parkinson's disease patients a more personalized disease management approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT03364894 . Registered December 6, 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Milk thistle for alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and hepatotoxic viruses cause the majority of liver diseases. Randomised clinical trials have assessed whether extracts of milk thistle, Silybum marianum (L) Gaertneri, have any effect in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of milk thistle or milk thistle constituents versus placebo or no intervention in patients with alcoholic liver disease and/or viral liver diseases (hepatitis B and hepatitis C). SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and full text searches were combined (July 2007). Manufacturers and researchers in the field were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases (acute and chronic) were included. Interventions encompassed milk thistle at any dose or duration versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double blind, single blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measure was mortality. Binary outcomes are reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen randomised clinical trials assessed milk thistle in 1088 patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases. The methodological quality was low: only 28.6% of the trials reported high methodological quality characteristics. Milk thistle versus placebo or no intervention had no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15), complications of liver disease (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09), or liver histology. Liver-related mortality was significantly reduced by milk thistle in all trials (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), but not in high-quality trials (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). Milk thistle was not associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results question the beneficial effects of milk thistle for patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases and highlight the lack of high-quality evidence to support this intervention. Adequately conducted and reported randomised clinical trials on milk thistle versus placebo are needed.

Milk thistle for alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and hepatotoxic viruses cause the majority of liver diseases. Randomised clinical trials have assessed whether extracts of milk thistle, Silybum marianum (L) Gaertneri, have any effect in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of milk thistle or milk thistle constituents versus placebo or no intervention in patients with alcoholic liver disease and/or viral liver diseases (hepatitis B and hepatitis C). SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and full text searches were combined (December 2003). Manufacturers and researchers in the field were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases (acute and chronic) were included. Interventions encompassed milk thistle at any dose or duration versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double blind, single blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measure was mortality. Binary outcomes are reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen randomised clinical trials assessed milk thistle in 915 patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases. The methodological quality was low: only 23% of the trials reported adequate allocation concealment and only 46% were considered adequately double-blinded. Milk thistle versus placebo or no intervention had no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15), complications of liver disease (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09), or liver histology. Liver-related mortality was significantly reduced by milk thistle in all trials (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), but not in high-quality trials (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). Milk thistle was not associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results question the beneficial effects of milk thistle for patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases and highlight the lack of high-quality evidence to support this intervention. Adequately conducted and reported randomised clinical trials on milk thistle versus placebo are needed.

Patterns of complementary and alternative medicine use in ED patients and its association with health care utilization.

This study characterizes the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among ED patients and demonstrates patterns of healthcare utilization among users and nonusers of CAM therapies. A cross-sectional observational study was performed by administering questionnaires to ED patients at a university teaching hospital. Of the 356 patients surveyed, more than half (55%) had tried at least one complementary and alternative therapy within the past 12 months and 17% had tried CAM for their presenting medical problem. The use of CAM interventions varied significantly among different demographic groups. The number of ED visits over the past year did not differ between the users and nonusers of CAM, but those using alternative therapies did have more visits to outpatient physicians over the past 12 months (7.8 vs. 5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7-4.6; P <.01). After controlling for age, ethnicity, education level, religion, income, and self-report of overall health status, users of CAM had more frequent visits to outpatient physicians (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.1; P <.01), had no difference in their rates of hospitalization, but trended toward spending fewer days in the hospital when they were admitted (OR,.96; 95% CI,.92-1.0; P =.06). Complementary and alternative medicines are being used by a majority of ED patients with a significant number having used CAM for their presenting complaint before visiting the ED. CAM users do not differ in their utilization of the ED when compared with nonusers, but do have a significantly increased frequency of outpatient physician visits.