no evidence of neuroprotection? perhaps not…perhaps so
TRANSCRIPT
Accepted Manuscript
No evidence of neuroprotection? Perhaps Not…Perhaps So
Matthew R. Lewin , MD, PhD Diana P. Blum , MD
PII: S1353-8020(14)00188-6
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.05.002
Reference: PRD 2341
To appear in: Parkinsonism and Related Disorders
Received Date: 19 March 2014
Accepted Date: 2 May 2014
Please cite this article as: Lewin MR, Blum DP, No evidence of neuroprotection? Perhaps Not…PerhapsSo, Parkinsonism and Related Disorders (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.05.002.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Title:
No evidence of neuroprotection? Perhaps Not…Perhaps So
Authors:
Matthew R. Lewin, MD, PhD*
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California
Diana P. Blum, MD
Peninsula Private Neurology, Palo Alto, California
*Correspondence
Matthew R. Lewin, MD, PhD
Director
Center for Exploration and Travel Health
California Academy of Sciences
55 Music Concourse Drive
San Francisco, CA 94118
Phone: 415-425-7892
Fax: 415-891-8530
e-mail: [email protected]
Declaration: The authors have no conflicts to declare
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Title:
No evidence of neuroprotection? Perhaps Not…Perhaps So
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
We read the report by Park and Colleagues with keen interest, but think an important
and readily assessed surrogate for neuroprotection (or lack thereof) in exercise was
overlooked in reporting the effects of their delayed start design as well as in the
limitations of the study [1].
Though they used the change in total change in UPDRS and three simultaneous
endpoints as their primary outcome measure, they did not report on changes in
medication use or requirements any form within either the primary or secondary
endpoints. Increased or decreased need for medication could have influenced the
authors’ conclusions and is a significant limitation of the study. UPDRS scores might not
have changed to suggest neuroprotection or the opposite, but an effect could have
been masked by changed in the use of Parkinson’s-related medication.
Returning to the original data and abstracting this information could be useful for
hypothesis generation going forward. If these data are available, we hope the authors
have the opportunity to comment on this, here.
[1] Park A, Zid D, Russell J, Malone A, Rendon A, Wehr A, Li X. Effects of a
formal exercise program on Parkinson's disease: a pilot study using a delayed
start design. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2014 Jan;20(1):106-11. doi:
10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.10.003. Epub 2013 Oct 15.