Back to what changed for Parkinson's Disease

Reported trial results for Parkinson's Disease

Every Parkinson's Disease trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.

145 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

NCT01883505 · results posted 9 July 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01883505) looked at what happens at the skin site when a medication called ND0612 is delivered under the skin through a small pump. In the first part of the trial (a 14-day blinded phase, meaning neither participants nor researchers knew who received which treatment), 19 people received ND0612 and 11 received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). A smaller, optional second phase ran for 7 days and involved 16 people split across two ND0612 groups. All participants who started each phase completed it, with no drop-outs recorded. The reported data shows that the primary outcomes all related to skin reactions at the infusion site, scored using a standard rating system called the Draize score, where higher numbers indicate more noticeable skin changes. The overall combined Draize score (adding together redness/crusting and swelling) was reported as 1.6 out of a maximum of 8 for the ND0612 group, compared with 1.0 for the placebo group. For redness and crusting alone, the ND0612 group scored 1.0 out of 4, versus 0.36 for placebo. For swelling, the ND0612 group scored 0.82 out of 4, compared with 1.2 for placebo. Scores for nodules (small lumps) under the skin were 1.8 out of 3 for ND0612 and 1.3 for placebo. Itchiness scored 0.8 out of 3 for ND0612 versus 0.4 for placebo, and skin staining scored 0.8 out of 3 for ND0612 versus 0.4 for placebo. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03516981 · results posted 8 June 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03516981) enrolled 245 participants across four treatment groups: 81 people received pembrolizumab combined with lenvatinib, 83 received pembrolizumab combined with quavonlimab, 30 received pembrolizumab combined with favezelimab at a lower dose (200 mg), and 51 received pembrolizumab combined with favezelimab at a higher dose (800 mg). The trial was measuring how these different drug combinations performed in people with cancer, using tumour biology markers to divide participants into subgroups. The main thing being measured was the percentage of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared (called the objective response rate). Secondary measurements included how long participants went without their cancer growing (progression-free survival), how long participants lived overall (overall survival), and how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (adverse events). The reported data shows that tumour shrinkage rates varied considerably depending on both the treatment group and the participant's biomarker subgroup. For the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib group, the reported response rates ranged from 12% in one subgroup up to 57.1% in another. For pembrolizumab plus quavonlimab, the range was 11.5% to 52.4%. For pembrolizumab plus favezelimab 200 mg, rates ranged from 0% to 60%. The reported data for the favezelimab 800 mg group did not include figures for all subgroups in the primary outcome. For progression-free survival, the reported median time without cancer worsening ranged from around 2.1 months to 17.8 months across the various treatment and biomarker subgroups. For overall survival, reported figures ranged from approximately 8.6 months to 51.6 months across subgroups, though one subgroup result was listed as not available in the reported data. Regarding adverse events (any unwanted medical occurrence during the trial), the reported data shows that 79 of 80 treated participants in the lenvatinib group, 78 of 82 in the quavonlimab group, 27 of 30 in the favezelimab 200 mg group, and 49 of 51 in the favezelimab 800 mg group experienced at least one adverse event. The number of participants who stopped taking their study treatment due to an adverse event was 34 in the lenvatinib group, 18 in the quavonlimab group, 4 in the favezelimab 200 mg group, and 15 in the favezelimab 800 mg group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04759898 · results posted 1 May 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 20 people with Parkinson's disease who were already undergoing deep brain stimulation surgery. All 20 participants completed the study, and none dropped out. The trial was measuring whether a non-invasive brain stimulation technique called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS — where a very mild electrical current is applied to the scalp) was associated with any change in a particular type of brain signal activity in the part of the brain that controls movement. Specifically, it looked at what are called "beta-band" brain signals — a pattern of electrical activity in the brain that researchers associate with movement preparation — recorded directly from the brain's surface during surgery. The reported data shows that the primary outcome measured was the change in these beta-band brain signals during a movement preparation task (reaching for a target on cue) while tDCS was being applied, compared to before stimulation began. The signals were measured in units called log10(µV²/Hz), which is simply a way of expressing the strength of the electrical activity. The trial reported a single average value of 12 in these units for the group as a whole. No additional breakdown of this figure — such as a comparison value from before stimulation, or any measure of how much variation there was between participants — was included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. No secondary outcome measure data was reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03867084 · results posted 24 April 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03867084) enrolled 476 people in the pembrolizumab group and 483 people in the placebo group — a total of 959 participants. The trial was studying pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine) compared to a placebo (an inactive treatment) in people with hepatocellular carcinoma (a type of liver cancer). The trial tracked a number of secondary outcomes, including how many people experienced unwanted health events (called adverse events), and changes in participants' quality of life and physical wellbeing using standardised questionnaires. The reported data shows that 430 out of 471 treated participants in the pembrolizumab group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 397 out of 482 in the placebo group. Of those, 58 people in the pembrolizumab group stopped treatment because of an adverse event, compared with 17 in the placebo group. Regarding quality of life, participants in both groups reported small declines from their starting scores across several measures. On the overall health and quality-of-life scale (scored 0–100, where higher is better), the pembrolizumab group's score changed by −3.48 points and the placebo group's by −2.13 points. Physical functioning scores changed by −1.98 and −1.74 respectively, and role functioning scores by −1.93 and −1.71. For abdominal swelling (where higher scores indicate more severe symptoms), scores increased by 2.20 in the pembrolizumab group and 0.86 in the placebo group. It should be noted that no primary outcome measure data was included in the submitted results, so those figures are not available to report here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05116189 · results posted 9 March 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05116189) enrolled 643 people in total — 322 in the group receiving pembrolizumab combined with paclitaxel (with or without bevacizumab), and 321 in the group receiving a placebo combined with paclitaxel (with or without bevacizumab). The trial was measuring how long participants went without their disease getting worse — a timeframe researchers call "progression-free survival" — comparing the two groups. This was looked at both across all participants and within a smaller subgroup whose tumours had a particular biological marker (called PD-L1 positive, with a score of 1 or higher). The reported data shows the following numbers for how long, on average, participants went before their disease progressed or they passed away. Among all participants, the pembrolizumab group recorded 8.3 months and the placebo group recorded 6.4 months. Within the PD-L1 positive subgroup, the pembrolizumab group recorded 8.3 months compared with 7.2 months in the placebo group. A separate review carried out by an independent team (who did not know which group participants were in) reported similar figures: 8.4 months versus 6.4 months across all participants, and 8.5 months versus 7.6 months in the PD-L1 positive subgroup. The reported data for two other secondary outcomes — overall survival (how long participants lived in total) and the number of people who experienced side effects — were not provided in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT06263673 · results posted 28 January 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT06263673) enrolled 13 people with Parkinson's disease across three groups — four participants took sitagliptin (a diabetes medication), four took dapagliflozin (another diabetes medication), and five took a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). One person in the placebo group did not complete the study. The trial was measuring changes in Parkinson's disease symptom scores and a basic memory and thinking test over the course of the study. The reported data shows changes in the MDS-UPDRS — a scale where higher numbers mean more severe Parkinson's symptoms, broken into four parts covering thinking and daily life (non-motor), physical daily tasks (motor daily living), physical examination (motor exam), and movement complications. For the sitagliptin group, scores changed by +3.0, +1.5, −2.0, and 0.0 across the four parts respectively (positive numbers mean scores went up, negative means they went down). For the dapagliflozin group, the changes were −2.5, −3.0, −3.0, and 0.0. For the placebo group, the changes were −2.5, −0.5, 0.0, and 0.0. For the memory and thinking test (MMSE, scored out of 30 where lower scores suggest more impairment), the reported changes were +1.5 for sitagliptin, +0.5 for dapagliflozin, and +1.5 for placebo. The reported data also shows changes in some secondary measures. Fasting blood sugar levels (mg/dL) changed by −3.5 in the sitagliptin group, −1.0 in the dapagliflozin group, and −5.0 in the placebo group. For standing blood pressure (mmHg), two readings were reported per group — the sitagliptin group showed changes of −0.1 and −4.6, the dapagliflozin group showed 3.4 and 0.0, and the placebo group showed 4.8 and 5.2. It is worth noting that this trial was very small (around four to five people per group), and the results should be interpreted with that context in mind. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04617496 · results posted 7 January 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04617496) involved 104 participants in total — 50 in the group that received a combined speech and exercise intervention, and 54 in a control group. By the end of the study, 45 participants in the intervention group and 50 in the control group had completed it. The trial was measuring changes in two things over six months: how clearly participants could be understood when speaking (called "speech intelligibility"), and how well participants felt they could communicate in everyday situations. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — speech intelligibility, scored on a scale from 0 to 100 based on how many words listeners could correctly transcribe — the intervention group's average score changed by +0.25 points from their starting point, while the control group's average score changed by −4.78 points. For the secondary measure — participants' own ratings of how effectively they could communicate across ten everyday situations, scored on a scale from 10 to 100 — the intervention group's average score changed by +6.8 points from their starting point, while the control group's average score changed by −6.4 points. These figures represent the average change across each group from the beginning of the trial to the six-month mark. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04221945 · results posted 5 January 2026

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04221945) enrolled 1,060 people in total — 529 in the group receiving chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy combined with radiation) plus pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine), and 531 in the group receiving chemoradiotherapy plus a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was primarily measuring two things: how long people went without their cancer growing or spreading (called progression-free survival), and how long people survived overall (overall survival). The reported data shows that for progression-free survival, the median time — meaning the point at which half the group had experienced disease progression or death — was reported as 47.6 months for the pembrolizumab group and 47.5 months for the placebo group, as assessed by the treating doctors. A separate independent review reported 48.9 months for the pembrolizumab group, while the figure for the placebo group was not reported for that review. Looking at the two-year mark specifically, the reported data shows that approximately 70.6% of the pembrolizumab group and 59.7% of the placebo group had not experienced disease progression or death by that point (as assessed by doctors), with a separate independent review reporting figures of 76.0% and 68.1% respectively. For overall survival, no median figure was reported for either group, which typically means not enough deaths had occurred yet to calculate that number. However, at the three-year mark, the reported data shows that approximately 81.8% of the pembrolizumab group and 74.4% of the placebo group were still alive. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05905302 · results posted 23 December 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 15 people in total — 8 in one group and 7 in another. It used a "crossover" design, meaning each person tried both types of exercise: voluntary exercise (where participants pedalled a stationary bike at their own pace) and forced exercise (where the bike was motorised to pedal at a faster rate). All 15 participants completed every stage of the trial. The study was measuring how the two types of exercise affected motor (movement) function and brain activity patterns in people with Parkinson's disease who had a deep brain stimulation (DBS) device implanted. The reported data shows three main things were measured. First, finger tapping ability was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 (where a higher number means more difficulty with movement) — the reported scores across the five recorded measurements were all 3. Second, a grip-force tracking task measured how accurately participants could match a target force with their hand; the reported data shows participants were within the target range roughly 41% to 45% of the time across the five measurements. Third, brain signal activity in a frequency range called the "beta band" (a type of electrical pattern in the brain linked to movement control) was measured relative to a resting baseline of 100%. The reported data shows that during exercise, beta band activity ranged from 100% to 131% of baseline across the eight recorded measurements, meaning it was at or above resting levels depending on the session. It is worth noting that the results were reported as individual measurement values rather than as a clear summary comparing voluntary exercise directly against forced exercise, so a straightforward side-by-side comparison is not possible from the data provided. Some additional detail on how the two exercise types compared was not reported in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04704219 · results posted 3 December 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04704219) enrolled 160 people, all of whom received a combination of two medicines: pembrolizumab and lenvatinib. Of those, 158 actually received treatment. The trial was measuring how tumours responded to this combination, as well as tracking how long any response lasted, how long participants lived without their disease getting worse, and how long they lived overall. No participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, which the reported data indicates reflects how the trial was structured rather than participants dropping out unexpectedly. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured — the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount or disappeared entirely (called the "objective response rate") — was reported at 50.6%, meaning roughly half of the 160 participants had tumours that shrank significantly or could no longer be detected on scans. Among those whose tumours did respond in this way, the reported median time that response lasted (called "duration of response") was 23.5 months — that is, half of those responders maintained their response for longer than this, and half for less. The reported data also shows that the median time before the disease started growing again or participants died (called "progression-free survival") was 17.9 months. The median time participants lived overall from the start of treatment was reported as 41.5 months. Additionally, 71.5% of participants were reported to have had their disease shrink, disappear, or stay stable for at least six months, and 82.3% had their disease shrink, disappear, or remain stable at any point during the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04662710 · results posted 28 November 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04662710) involved two parts. A small safety check (Part 1) enrolled 15 people who received a combination of lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy. The larger main study (Part 2) enrolled 880 people — 443 received the three-drug combination and 437 received chemotherapy alone. The trial was measuring, among other things, how long people lived overall, how long it was before their disease progressed or worsened, and what kinds of unwanted medical events (called adverse events) occurred. The reported data shows that in Part 1, all 15 participants experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence during the study), 2 out of 15 experienced what are called dose-limiting toxicities (serious side effects severe enough to limit the dose), and 5 out of 15 stopped treatment due to an adverse event. For the main Part 2 study, in participants whose tumours had a particular protein marker (PD-L1 CPS ≥1), the reported median overall survival — meaning the point in time by which half the participants in each group had died — was 12.6 months in the combination group and 12.9 months in the chemotherapy-only group. When looking at all Part 2 participants regardless of that marker, median overall survival was 13.1 months for the combination group and 13.0 months for the chemotherapy-only group. The reported median time before disease progression or death (progression-free survival) in the PD-L1 positive group was 7.3 months for the combination group and 6.9 months for the chemotherapy-only group. It is worth noting that no participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, and all were listed as "not completed" — what this means in practical terms was not explained in the submitted data. Any outcome figures for subgroups or other measures not listed above were not reported in the data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT04223193 · results posted 21 November 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04223193) enrolled 304 people with Parkinson's disease — 153 received a placebo (a dummy treatment) and 151 received a medicine called tavapadon. Of those who started, 130 in the placebo group and 94 in the tavapadon group completed the study. The trial's main goal was to measure changes in a standard Parkinson's rating scale called the MDS-UPDRS, which scores movement and day-to-day motor difficulties on a range from 0 (normal) to 184 (most severe) for the sections combined. A lower (more negative) change from the starting score means the score moved toward less difficulty. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — the combined motor score (Parts II and III of the scale) — the placebo group's score changed by −1.2 points from their starting point, while the tavapadon group's score changed by −10.3 points. For the secondary outcome looking at day-to-day motor activities alone (Part II), the placebo group's score did not change (0.0 points), while the tavapadon group's score changed by −1.5 points. When participants were asked to rate their own overall change in condition, 25 people in the placebo group and 46 people in the tavapadon group reported feeling "much improved" or "very much improved." Additional secondary measures tracking scores across multiple time points and across Parts I, II, and III together also showed varying degrees of change in both groups at different stages of the trial, as detailed in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05064059 · results posted 17 September 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05064059) enrolled 441 people with advanced colorectal cancer — 221 in the group receiving a combination of two immunotherapy medicines called favezelimab and pembrolizumab, and 220 in a group receiving one of two standard chemotherapy medicines (regorafenib or TAS-102). The trial was primarily measuring how long participants lived overall, and secondarily looking at how long the cancer took to worsen, how many participants' tumours shrank, how long those responses lasted, and how many participants experienced unwanted medical events. The reported data shows that participants in the favezelimab/pembrolizumab group lived for a median (midpoint) of 7.3 months from the time they joined the study, compared with 8.5 months in the standard-care group. Regarding how long it took for the cancer to worsen or for death to occur, the reported midpoint was 2.1 months in the favezelimab/pembrolizumab group and 2.6 months in the standard-care group. For tumour shrinkage, 6.8% of participants in the favezelimab/pembrolizumab group had their tumours shrink meaningfully, compared with 0.9% in the standard-care group. How long those responses lasted was not reported in the submitted data. Regarding unwanted medical events, 205 out of 221 participants in the favezelimab/pembrolizumab group and 199 out of 210 treated participants in the standard-care group experienced at least one such event. Twenty-one participants in the favezelimab/pembrolizumab group and 19 in the standard-care group stopped their treatment because of an unwanted medical event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03740165 · results posted 12 September 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03740165) enrolled 1,367 people across three treatment groups. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three chemotherapy combinations: carboplatin and paclitaxel alone (454 people), carboplatin and paclitaxel plus pembrolizumab (458 people), or carboplatin and paclitaxel plus both pembrolizumab and olaparib (455 people). The trial was primarily measuring "progression-free survival" — that is, how long participants went without their disease visibly worsening or without dying. This was tracked both across all participants and within a subgroup whose tumours tested positive for a particular protein marker called PD-L1 (specifically, those with a score of 10 or higher on a scale called the Combined Positive Score). The reported data shows the following progression-free survival figures, expressed as median months (meaning half of participants in each group reached that point without disease worsening): across all participants, the carboplatin/paclitaxel/pembrolizumab/olaparib group recorded 22.2 months, the carboplatin/paclitaxel/pembrolizumab group recorded 15.2 months, and the carboplatin/paclitaxel-only group recorded 14.6 months. Among the PD-L1 positive subgroup, the figures were 23.9, 17.3, and 15.2 months respectively. A separate review by an independent panel (used as a check on those findings) reported somewhat different numbers — 30.1, 19.0, and 20.8 months across all participants, and 42.0, 20.3, and 22.1 months in the PD-L1 positive subgroup. For the secondary outcome of overall survival — how long participants lived from the time they joined the trial — the reported data shows the following median figures across all participants: 47.7 months for the four-drug group, 44.2 months for the three-drug group, and 47.1 months for the two-drug group. In the PD-L1 positive subgroup, the figures were 50.2, 56.4, and 51.6 months respectively. The trial data notes that no participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, with all participants listed under "not completed," which may reflect how trial completion was defined by the study team rather than indicating anything about individual outcomes. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04746846 · results posted 22 August 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04746846) involved 12 participants who all completed the study. There was only one group: people who received vibration therapy. The trial was measuring "freezing of gait" — a symptom of Parkinson's disease where a person suddenly feels unable to move their feet while walking. Researchers counted how many of these freezing episodes occurred and how long each one lasted, comparing results when participants were and were not receiving vibration. The reported data shows that the number of freezing episodes across the different walking tasks ranged from approximately 3.63 to 5.17 episodes. For the duration of freezing episodes, the reported figures ranged from around 34.6 to 52.1 minutes across the different conditions measured. It is worth noting that the data as submitted lists multiple measurements for each outcome but does not clearly label which figures correspond to "with vibration" versus "without vibration," so a straightforward before-and-after comparison cannot be described from the available data alone. The reported data does not include additional detail that would allow a plain description of any calculated difference between the vibration and no-vibration conditions — only the raw figures above were provided in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03765918 · results posted 20 August 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03765918) enrolled 363 people in the pembrolizumab-plus-standard-care group and 351 people in the standard-care-only group — a total of 714 participants. The trial was looking at treatments for a type of head and neck cancer, and was measuring how well tumours responded to treatment before surgery. Specifically, it tracked two things after surgeons removed the tumour: whether very little cancer remained (called a "major pathological response," or mPR — meaning 10% or less of the removed tissue still contained active cancer cells), and whether no cancer cells at all remained (called a "pathological complete response," or pCR). The reported data shows that, across all participants, 9.4% of those who received pembrolizumab plus standard care had a major pathological response, compared with 0.0% in the standard-care-only group. For the complete disappearance of cancer cells, the figures were 3.0% in the pembrolizumab-plus-standard-care group versus 0.0% in the standard-care-only group. The trial also looked at a subgroup of participants whose tumours had higher levels of a protein called PD-L1 (a marker measured on cancer cells). Among those with a PD-L1 score of 10 or above, the reported major pathological response rate was 13.7% (pembrolizumab group) versus 0.0% (standard care), and the complete response rate was 4.3% versus 0.0%. In participants with a PD-L1 score of 1 or above, the figures were 9.8% versus 0.0% for major pathological response, and 3.2% versus 0.0% for complete response. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04201093 · results posted 28 July 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04201093) enrolled 529 people with Parkinson's disease across three groups: 175 received a placebo (dummy treatment), 177 received a 5 mg dose of tavapadon, and 177 received a 15 mg dose of tavapadon. The trial's main goal was to measure changes in a widely used Parkinson's rating scale called the MDS-UPDRS, which scores motor symptoms and how they affect daily life — a lower (more negative) change from the starting score indicates improvement, while a higher (more positive) change indicates worsening. By the end of the study, 148 people in the placebo group, 134 in the 5 mg group, and 118 in the 15 mg group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — a combined score of motor function in daily life and physical examination (Parts II and III of the scale, which can range from 0 to 184) — the placebo group's score changed by +1.8 points from their starting point (a slight worsening), while the tavapadon 5 mg group's score changed by −9.7 points and the tavapadon 15 mg group's score changed by −10.2 points (both showing reductions from their starting scores). For one of the secondary measures — a self-reported question asking participants how much their overall condition had changed — 18 participants in the placebo group, 60 in the 5 mg group, and 52 in the 15 mg group reported feeling "much improved" or "very much improved." The reported data also shows changes across other parts of the rating scale at various time points throughout the study, with the tavapadon groups generally recording more negative (lower) scores than the placebo group over time. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04799418 · results posted 3 July 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04799418) involved people living with Parkinson's disease and was an open-label extension study — meaning all participants received the active treatment after a previous randomised controlled trial where some had received a passive (inactive) version. A total of 148 people started the study (69 in the "passive-then-active" group and 79 in the "active-then-active" group), and 96 completed it. The trial was primarily measuring changes in non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease — things like sleep problems, mood, and other symptoms not directly related to movement — using a validated rating scale called the MDS-NMS, which runs from 0 to 832 (higher scores mean more symptom burden). The reported data shows that, on the primary measure (the MDS-NMS total score), participants who had previously received the passive treatment and then switched to the active treatment showed an average score change of −23.12 points (a decrease, meaning lower reported symptom burden), while those who had already been on the active treatment showed an average change of +3.28 points (a small increase in score). For the secondary measures, the reported data shows relatively small average score changes across the groups. On a motor activity daily living scale (MDS-UPDRS Part II, scored 0–52), changes were −0.03 and +0.60 respectively. On a clinician-rated motor examination scale (MDS-UPDRS Part III, scored 0–132), changes were +3.0 and −1.5. On a quality-of-life questionnaire (PDQ-39, scored 0–100), changes were −2.20 and +0.15. On a combined Parkinson's disease rating scale (Parts I, II and III combined, scored 0–236), changes were −1.0 and −1.5. A clinician global impression scale also recorded how many participants fell into each category from "very much worse" to "very much improved," with the largest numbers of participants in both groups falling in the middle categories. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT05421624 · results posted 31 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05421624) enrolled 44 people with Parkinson's disease — 22 in a group called "Amped-PD" and 22 in an "Active-Control" group. Most participants finished the trial: 21 in the Amped-PD group and 20 in the Active-Control group. The trial was measuring two main things: how many minutes per day participants spent walking at a moderate pace (defined as taking more than 100 steps per minute), and how many total steps they took each day. Both were tracked using a research-grade activity monitor worn on the leg. The reported data shows several time-point measurements for moderate-intensity walking. At one time point, the Amped-PD group recorded an average of 9.45 minutes per day of moderate-intensity walking compared to 16.17 minutes for the Active-Control group. At a second time point, those figures were reported as 32.83 minutes for Amped-PD and 23.08 minutes for Active-Control. At a third time point, the reported figures were 30.30 minutes (Amped-PD) and 24.15 minutes (Active-Control), and at a fourth time point, 6.85 minutes (Amped-PD) and 13.22 minutes (Active-Control). For daily step counts, the reported data shows two time points: at one point, the Amped-PD group averaged 8,812 steps per day versus 10,311 for the Active-Control group; at another point, the Amped-PD group recorded 12,155 steps per day compared to 10,483 for the Active-Control group. The data as submitted does not include labels identifying exactly which time points these measurements correspond to, so a direct before-and-after comparison cannot be drawn from the figures alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05753449 · results posted 28 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05753449) looked at two different settings for deep brain stimulation (DBS) — a device implanted in the brain used for Parkinson's disease — in a very small group of participants. Specifically, the trial compared a standard DBS setting against an experimental "burst-type" setting, where the device delivers stimulation in short pulses rather than continuously. The main thing being measured was motor (movement) symptoms using a standard Parkinson's rating tool called the UPDRS-III, where scores range from 0 (no problems) to 108 (most severe), and a higher score means worse movement symptoms. All assessments were done while participants were off their Parkinson's medications. The reported data shows that only 2 participants were enrolled, and 1 of those did not complete all follow-up visits. Because of this very small number, the results relate to just one or two individuals rather than a broader group. At the first visit, UPDRS-III scores reported were 55.5 (described as a pre-treatment baseline reading), 20 (after one 30-minute treatment session), and 32 (after a second 30-minute treatment session). At the six-month follow-up, a score of 25 was reported following 30 minutes of burst-type stimulation, and at twelve months, a score of 26 was reported following the same type of stimulation. Data for the "Baseline Programming First" group was not reported for most time points, and no results were reported separately for the two groups at the later visits. It is important to note that with only 2 participants completing parts of this trial, the reported data is extremely limited, and no broad conclusions can be drawn from numbers this small. The trial appears to have been a very early-stage exploratory study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04428151 · results posted 25 May 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04428151) enrolled 374 people in total across three groups: 144 people received a combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab, 142 people received standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy, and 88 people received lenvatinib on its own. The trial was measuring how these treatments compared on several outcomes, including how long people lived overall, how long it took for their cancer to worsen or for them to die, how many people's tumours shrank, and how long those responses lasted. No participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, which the data does not explain further. The reported data shows the following numbers for the two groups that were directly compared (lenvatinib + pembrolizumab versus SOC chemotherapy) — no figures were reported for the lenvatinib monotherapy group in the outcome results. For overall survival — that is, how long on average from the start of treatment until death from any cause — the reported figures were 8.4 months for the lenvatinib + pembrolizumab group and 11.3 months for the SOC chemotherapy group. For how long it took before the cancer got worse or a person died (called progression-free survival), the reported figures were 3.0 months versus 2.8 months respectively. In terms of how many people had their tumour meaningfully shrink (the objective response rate), 13.9% of people in the lenvatinib + pembrolizumab group and 20.4% in the SOC chemotherapy group were reported to have responded. Among those whose tumours did shrink, the reported duration of that response was 4.1 months for lenvatinib + pembrolizumab and 5.9 months for SOC chemotherapy. The data for the two secondary outcomes relating to side effects (unwanted medical events and stopping treatment because of them) was not reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03179436 · results posted 8 April 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03179436) enrolled a total of 415 participants across 12 different treatment groups. The trial was testing various doses and dosing schedules of an investigational drug called MK-1308 (also given in some groups as a combined formulation called MK-1308A), either alone or together with a second drug called pembrolizumab. The trial was designed to look at how participants responded to different doses and combinations, how the drugs moved through the body, and to track any unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment. The reported data shows that across the groups where it was measured, the percentage of participants who experienced a significant dose-limiting reaction — meaning a reaction serious enough that it may have required a change in dose — ranged from 0% to about 13%. In terms of adverse events (any unwanted medical occurrence during the study), the reported data shows that nearly all participants across every group experienced at least one such event. The number of participants who stopped treatment due to an adverse event ranged from 1 to 17 people depending on the group. For the two groups where tumour response was formally measured (Arms F and G), the reported data shows that approximately 4.9% of participants in Arm F and 2.5% in Arm G had their tumours shrink or disappear according to standard measurement criteria. The secondary outcome data also included measurements of how much of pembrolizumab was present in the blood over time, with figures varying across groups depending on the dose and schedule used. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04542499 · results posted 25 March 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04542499) enrolled 507 people with Parkinson's disease — 255 in the placebo group and 252 in the tavapadon group. The trial was measuring changes in how participants spent their time across the day, specifically how many hours they experienced what is called "on" time (periods when their Parkinson's symptoms were better controlled) without troublesome involuntary movements, and how many hours they spent in "off" time (periods when symptoms were poorly controlled). Participants tracked this themselves using a diary tool called the Hauser diary, recording their movement status every 30 minutes. By the end of the trial, 206 people in the placebo group and 159 in the tavapadon group had completed the study. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome, the placebo group recorded an average increase of about 0.6 hours of "on" time without troublesome involuntary movements from the start of the trial to the end, while the tavapadon group recorded an average increase of about 1.7 hours. For the secondary outcome measuring daily "off" time, the placebo group recorded an average reduction of approximately 0.9 hours, while the tavapadon group recorded an average reduction of approximately 1.9 hours. The reported data also shows results from a standard Parkinson's rating scale (called the MDS-UPDRS), which scores movement and daily living on a scale where lower numbers mean fewer difficulties. For the motor examination portion of that scale, the placebo group showed an average improvement of 4.6 points, while the tavapadon group showed an average improvement of 7.0 points from their starting scores. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04292223 · results posted 14 January 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04292223) enrolled 29 adults who were given pimavanserin 34 mg. The trial was a single-group study — meaning everyone received the same treatment, with no comparison group — and it ran for 16 weeks. The main thing being measured was how participants' day-to-day functioning changed over that time, using a questionnaire called the modified Functional Status Questionnaire (mFSQ), which scores overall functional ability on a scale from 0 to 100, where higher numbers mean better functioning. Several secondary measures were also tracked, including daily living activities, Parkinson's disease symptoms, and clinician and patient ratings of hallucinations and delusions. Of the 29 people who started, 24 completed the trial and 5 did not. The reported data shows that, on the primary measure (mFSQ), participants' scores changed by an average of 14.0 points from the start to week 16 (higher scores indicate better functioning, so a positive change suggests improvement in the reported numbers). On the secondary measures, a clinician-rated scale of daily living ability (Schwab & England) showed average changes of 3.4 (caregiver-reported) and 2.6 (patient-reported). A Parkinson's disease symptom scale (MDS-UPDRS) showed average changes of −0.63 on non-motor symptoms and −2.6 on motor symptoms (on this scale, lower scores indicate less impact, so negative changes suggest a reduction in reported burden). For hallucinations and delusions, a clinician's impression of improvement (CGI-I) averaged 1.9 out of 7 (where 1 means "very much improved"), the clinician severity rating (CGI-S) changed by an average of −1.5 (lower scores indicate less severity), and patients' own impression of improvement (PGI-I) averaged 2.0 out of 7. The reported data does not include a comparison group, so these numbers reflect changes within the one group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05586490 · results posted 14 January 2025

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05586490) looked at a research device being tested with people living with Parkinson's disease. The study was broken into three separate aims. Aim 1 involved 18 participants and focused on how easy and acceptable the device was to use in a lab setting. Aim 2 involved 8 participants (4 who had started in Aim 1 and 4 new participants) and looked at whether certain physical performance tests showed any change before and after using the device. Aim 3 tested the device in people's homes across three groups — one using the research device (7 participants started, 6 completed), one using an alternate device (7 started, 6 completed), and one with no device (7 started, 6 completed). The reported data shows that for Aim 1, participants scored an average of 7.28 out of 90 on a questionnaire measuring difficulties experienced while using the device (where a lower score means fewer difficulties reported). On a separate questionnaire about personal preference for using the device, the average score was 23.72 out of 30 (where higher means greater preference). On a standard usability scale (a 0–100 rating of how easy a product is to use), the average score reported was 83.19 out of 100. For Aim 2, the reported data shows the average time to complete a "stand up and walk" mobility test was 18.76 seconds before and 18.12 seconds after the intervention. For a standing balance test, participants held their balance for an average of 26.25 seconds before and 30 seconds after. For a stepping reaction-time test, the average response time was 1.887 seconds before and 1.874 seconds after. It is important to note that Aim 3 outcome measure data was not reported in the results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no numbers from the home-testing phase are available to describe. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03833427 · results posted 30 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03833427) tested a combination of two medicines — selumetinib and pembrolizumab — in 32 participants in total. Participants were divided into groups receiving different doses of selumetinib (50 mg, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 125 mg), each combined with pembrolizumab. The higher dose groups (150 mg, 200 mg, and above 200 mg) had no participants enrolled. The trial was primarily looking at whether the combination caused certain serious side effects — called dose-limiting toxicities — and tracking any unwanted health events (called adverse events) that participants experienced during the study. None of the participants completed the study; all discontinued at some point. The reported data shows that in the two lower-dose groups (50 mg and 75 mg), no participants experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, while 2 out of 11 participants in the 100 mg group and 3 out of 14 in the 125 mg group did. When it came to adverse events more broadly, every participant across all four groups reported at least one. Regarding stopping treatment early due to an adverse event, the reported figures were: 0 out of 4 in the 50 mg group, 1 out of 3 in the 75 mg group, 4 out of 11 in the 100 mg group, and 3 out of 14 in the 125 mg group. The trial also measured how much selumetinib was present in participants' blood at various points; the reported data shows these blood concentration figures varied across dose groups, but results for some measurements in certain groups were not reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05008224 · results posted 16 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05008224) enrolled 146 people with a form of lymphoma (a cancer of the lymph system). All 146 received at least one dose of pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy drug), 136 went on to receive a chemotherapy combination called AVD, and 17 received a different, more intensive chemotherapy called escBEACOPP. The trial was measuring how many participants achieved what is called a "complete response" — meaning scans showed no detectable signs of disease — after finishing the full treatment course. It also tracked how scan results changed at different points during treatment, and recorded any unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that participants experienced. The reported data shows that, based on an independent review panel assessing scans, 67.0% of participants were recorded as having a complete response by the end of the study treatment. When the treating doctors assessed the same scans themselves, the reported figure was 71.9%. The trial also measured how many participants had a negative PET scan (a type of imaging scan that detects disease activity) at two earlier points during treatment: after the pembrolizumab-only phase, 19.9% were reported as scan-negative; after pembrolizumab plus early chemotherapy, that figure rose to 70.5%. For how long the complete responses lasted, the data was not reported in the submitted results. Regarding adverse events (any unwanted medical occurrence during the study), the reported data shows 135 out of 146 participants experienced at least one adverse event during the pembrolizumab phases, 132 out of 136 during AVD chemotherapy, and all 17 participants during escBEACOPP chemotherapy. It is worth noting that the trial records show zero participants were marked as having formally "completed" the study, with all 146 listed as "not completed" — which may reflect how the trial's completion milestone was defined rather than meaning everyone dropped out, but this detail was not further explained in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03374254 · results posted 15 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03374254) enrolled a total of 116 people across nine treatment groups, testing different combinations of cancer medicines — pembrolizumab, binimetinib, and chemotherapy regimens known as mFOLFOX7 and FOLFIRI — in people with advanced colorectal cancer. The trial was split into parts, and none of the participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense, meaning all participants exited the study early for various reasons (which is common in trials of this type). The reported data shows that the main thing being measured in the first part of the trial was how often participants experienced what are called "dose-limiting toxicities" — that is, serious side effects serious enough to limit the dose of the medicines being tested, occurring within the first few weeks of treatment. The percentages reported varied across the groups: 16.7% in the pembrolizumab plus lower-dose binimetinib group (Cohort A, 30 mg), 0.0% in the pembrolizumab plus higher-dose binimetinib group (Cohort A, 45 mg), 0.0% in the pembrolizumab plus mFOLFOX7 group (Cohort B), 27.3% in the pembrolizumab plus mFOLFOX7 plus binimetinib group (Cohort C), 7.1% in the pembrolizumab plus FOLFIRI group (Cohort D), 33.3% in the pembrolizumab plus FOLFIRI plus lower-dose binimetinib group (Cohort E, 30 mg), and 45.5% in the pembrolizumab plus FOLFIRI plus higher-dose binimetinib group (Cohort E, 45 mg). The reported data also shows a secondary measure called the "objective response rate" — the percentage of people whose tumours shrank or disappeared according to scans. This was reported as 0.0% for Cohort A, 61.3% for Cohort B, 27.3% for Cohort C, 25.0% for Cohort D, and 20.0% for Cohort E. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03776136 · results posted 9 October 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03776136) enrolled 103 adults who all received a combination of two medicines — lenvatinib and pembrolizumab. All 103 participants were treated, and none were recorded as having "completed" the study, meaning the trial ended or participants left before a formal completion point was reached. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), and it also tracked how long before the disease got worse, how long participants survived overall, and how long any tumour shrinkage lasted. The reported data shows that 21.4% of participants had their tumours shrink or disappear according to pre-set criteria, as assessed by an independent review team. For the secondary measures, the reported median time before the disease progressed or participants died was 4.2 months (meaning half of participants reached this point before 4.2 months and half after). The reported median overall survival — the point by which half of participants had died from any cause — was 14.0 months. Among those whose tumours did respond, the reported median duration of that response was 8.5 months. Separately, 102 out of 103 participants experienced at least one adverse event (an untoward medical occurrence recorded during the study period); the data does not break down what those events were in this summary. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03976375 · results posted 22 August 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03976375) enrolled 422 people across three groups: 185 received a combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib, 189 received docetaxel, and 48 received lenvatinib on its own. The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall (called overall survival), how long they lived before their cancer grew or spread further (called progression-free survival), how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called objective response rate), and how long those responses lasted. The reported data shows that for overall survival, participants in the pembrolizumab-plus-lenvatinib group had a reported median of 11.3 months, compared with 12.0 months in the docetaxel group (a "median" is the midpoint — half the participants lived longer than this, half shorter). For progression-free survival — the time before the cancer grew or participants died — the reported median was 5.6 months in the combination group and 4.2 months in the docetaxel group. The reported data shows that 22.7% of participants in the combination group had their tumour shrink or disappear, compared with 14.3% in the docetaxel group and 12.5% in the lenvatinib-alone group. Among those whose tumours did respond, the reported median duration of that response was 6.9 months in the combination group and 6.8 months in the docetaxel group. No figures for the lenvatinib-alone group were reported for the overall survival, progression-free survival, or duration of response outcomes. The reported data also shows that 179 of 181 treated participants in the combination group, 174 of 177 in the docetaxel group, and 47 of 47 in the lenvatinib-alone group experienced at least one adverse event (an unexpected medical occurrence during the study). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05635461 · results posted 15 August 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05635461) enrolled 32 participants in total. It was a crossover study, meaning each person received all three treatments in a different order, with a 7-day "washout" break between each one. The three treatments were all the same dose (150 mg) of a drug called CVN424: a liquid suspension taken without food, a tablet taken without food, and a tablet taken with food. The trial was primarily measuring how the drug moved through the body — specifically, how much of it got into the bloodstream and how quickly — to compare the different forms and food conditions. The reported data shows the following for the main (primary) measurements. When looking at the total amount of drug absorbed into the blood over time (a measure called "area under the curve," or AUC — essentially a running total of drug levels), the liquid suspension taken without food recorded values of around 16,790–16,780 units, while the tablet taken without food recorded around 10,100 units. For the highest blood level reached (called Cmax, or peak concentration), the suspension recorded approximately 813 nanograms per millilitre, compared with around 231 nanograms per millilitre for the fasted tablet. The time taken to reach that peak was reported as roughly 2 hours for the suspension, 3.5 hours for the fasted tablet, and just over 4 hours for the tablet taken with food. In all three cases, the drug was detected in the bloodstream with no measurable delay after dosing. The reported data also shows a secondary (additional) measurement comparing the total drug absorbed for the tablet taken with food versus without food. The tablet taken with food recorded an AUC of approximately 16,340 units, compared with around 10,100 units for the tablet taken without food. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04152863 · results posted 6 August 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04152863) enrolled 85 people across three groups. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either gebasaxturev given into a vein (intravenously) combined with pembrolizumab, gebasaxturev injected directly into a tumour (intratumorally) combined with pembrolizumab, or pembrolizumab alone. The trial's main goal was to measure how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared — known as the "objective response rate" — as judged by an independent review team who did not know which treatment each person had received. No participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, meaning all were counted under "not completed," which may reflect how the trial's end-point was defined rather than participants dropping out. The reported data shows that, based on the independent review team's assessment, 46.4% of participants in the intravenous gebasaxturev plus pembrolizumab group, 39.3% in the intratumoral gebasaxturev plus pembrolizumab group, and 34.5% in the pembrolizumab-alone group had their tumours shrink or disappear. For "progression-free survival" — meaning how long, on average, participants went without their disease worsening or dying — the independent review reported 12.7 months, 7.3 months, and 8.6 months for the three groups respectively. When the treating doctors (rather than the independent team) assessed these same two measures, the response rates were 39.3%, 39.3%, and 41.4%, and the progression-free survival figures were 4.6, 6.5, and 15.4 months across the three groups. The reported data shows that "duration of response" — how long a response lasted in those whose tumours did shrink — was listed as not available for all three groups in both the independent and investigator assessments. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04889118 · results posted 9 July 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04889118) enrolled 131 people in total — 64 in one group who received pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and 67 in a second group who received pembrolizumab plus a placebo (an inactive substitute). The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants went without their cancer growing or spreading (called progression-free survival), and how long participants lived overall (called overall survival). It also tracked secondary measures, including how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, how long those responses lasted, and how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events). The reported data shows that, for the primary measures, participants in the pembrolizumab-plus-lenvatinib group went a median (middle value across the group) of 6.1 months before their disease progressed or they died, compared with 2.0 months in the pembrolizumab-plus-placebo group. For overall survival, the reported median figures were 19.9 months and 17.0 months respectively. For the secondary measures, about 26.6% of participants in the lenvatinib group and 16.4% in the placebo group had their tumours shrink or disappear. Among those who did respond, the lenvatinib group's responses lasted a reported median of 13.7 months; the equivalent figure for the placebo group was not reported in the data. Regarding adverse events, all 64 participants in the lenvatinib group and all 67 in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event. Ten participants in the lenvatinib group and three in the placebo group stopped their treatment because of an adverse event. It is worth noting that zero participants in both groups were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense, meaning all participants exited the trial before the defined completion point — the reason for this is not explained in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03972969 · results posted 21 June 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03972969) involved 162 participants who were divided into three groups: an in-person exercise group (51 people), a remote exercise group (58 people), and a control group (53 people) who did not take part in the exercise program. The trial was measuring the number of falls experienced by participants over a 3-month period (the main outcome) and a 6-month period (a secondary outcome). The vast majority of participants completed both follow-up periods, with numbers staying close to their starting totals throughout the trial. The reported data shows that over the first three months, the in-person exercise group recorded an average of 1.1 falls per person, the remote exercise group recorded an average of 1.6 falls per person, and the control group recorded an average of 9.7 falls per person. Over the full six months, the reported data shows the in-person exercise group averaged 2.08 falls per person, the remote exercise group averaged 3.02 falls per person, and the control group averaged 11.36 falls per person. These are the averages (that is, the typical number across the whole group) as submitted to the registry. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05309083 · results posted 14 June 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at whether a programme called Mindfulness Based Walking Therapy (MBWT) was practical and feasible to run — meaning it was testing whether enough people could be recruited, whether they would show up to sessions, stick with the programme, and practise at home. Nine people started the study and seven completed it, with two not finishing. The trial set specific targets (called benchmarks) for each of these practical measures to judge whether the programme could realistically be delivered. The reported data shows that 12 participants were recruited in total, which met the recruitment benchmark of 12. For attendance at sessions, the average across the programme was reported as approximately 79.8% of participants attending each session — just below the 80% benchmark the researchers had set. For retention (how many sessions each individual participant completed on average), the reported figure was approximately 78.3% of sessions attended, again just below the 80% target. The reported data also shows that participants practised mindfulness at home at an average of approximately 148% of the assigned home practice hours, which was well above the 70% benchmark set for home practice. It is worth noting that this was a small, early-stage study focused on whether the programme was practical to run, not on measuring health outcomes — so no health outcome data was reported. The reported data shows the numbers against the researchers' own benchmarks, but this trial was not designed to draw broader conclusions about the programme's effects on any condition. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04246476 · results posted 16 May 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 58 people in total — 29 with Parkinson's disease and 29 healthy individuals without the condition, who acted as a comparison group. All 58 participants completed the study with no dropouts. The trial was measuring how people walk (specifically their walking speed and how consistent their step lengths were) under different conditions, and also looking at brain activity while they moved. The conditions tested involved walking without any musical cue, walking while mentally singing a beat to themselves (self-cueing), and walking while listening to music (external cueing). The reported data shows that walking speed, measured in metres per second, was broadly similar across both groups in all conditions. For example, in one condition the Parkinson's group recorded an average of 1.12 metres per second compared to 1.17 for the healthy group, and figures across the other conditions ranged from roughly 1.04 to 1.22 for the Parkinson's group and 1.09 to 1.24 for the healthy group. For step-length consistency — how much each stride varied from the last — the reported numbers were also close between the two groups across all conditions, with values hovering around 0.013–0.015 for the Parkinson's group and 0.011–0.014 for the healthy group (lower numbers here mean less variability between steps). For brain activity, the data reports values called "beta weights," where a positive number means brain activity went up compared to rest and a negative number means it went down. The reported data shows that the healthy group tended to show higher positive brain activity values during the music and self-cueing conditions (for example, 0.246 versus 0.102 in the Parkinson's group for one measure), while both groups showed small negative values — meaning slightly reduced activity compared to rest — in some other conditions. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04334317 · results posted 14 May 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04334317) enrolled 64 people in total. The main group consisted of 54 people living with Parkinson's disease (PD), who were split into two sub-groups — one group received a placebo first and then the study drug TAK-071, and the other received TAK-071 first and then the placebo. A smaller "sentinel" group of 10 healthy participants was also included — 2 received a placebo and 8 received a 7.5 mg dose of TAK-071. The trial was primarily measuring two things: in the Parkinson's group, it looked at changes in walking rhythm (specifically how consistent each stride was in timing) during a 2-minute walk test, both with and without the added mental challenge of counting backwards; and in the healthy participants, it tracked how the drug moved through the body — for example, how quickly it was absorbed into the bloodstream and how long it stayed there. The reported data shows that, for the Parkinson's group, stride timing variability (a measure of how much each step's timing varied — lower numbers mean more consistent steps) changed only very slightly between the TAK-071 and placebo periods. Without the mental counting task, the average change in stride timing variability was about 0.055 seconds for placebo and 0.063 seconds for TAK-071. With the mental counting task added, it was about 0.085 seconds for placebo and 0.093 seconds for TAK-071. The reported data shows very small differences between the two conditions. For the healthy participants, the drug reached its peak level in the blood at around 1.5 hours after taking it, with a peak concentration of 186 nanograms per millilitre (a standard unit for measuring drug levels in blood). Not all participants who started the trial completed it — 8 people in the Parkinson's groups did not finish, while all healthy participants completed the study. The reported data does not include information on why participants left early. No other outcome figures beyond those described above were reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04489888 · results posted 9 May 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 101 participants, all of whom received a combination of three medicines: pembrolizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel. The trial was measuring how the tumours responded to this combination, how long any response lasted, how long participants lived without their disease getting worse, and how long they lived overall. The reported data shows that none of the 101 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study — all 101 were listed under "not completed," though the data does not explain the reasons for this in detail. The reported data shows that the primary thing being measured — called the Objective Response Rate — was 48.5%. This means that, according to independent reviewers, roughly 48 or 49 out of every 100 participants had their tumours shrink by a meaningful amount (either disappearing entirely or reducing in size by at least 30%) based on standardised imaging criteria. Among those participants whose tumours did respond in this way, the reported median duration of that response was 5.5 months (meaning half of those participants maintained their response for longer than this, and half for a shorter time). The reported median time before the disease progressed or a participant died — known as progression-free survival — was 5.6 months. The reported median overall survival (the point by which half of participants had died from any cause) was 13.1 months. Regarding unintended medical events during the trial, the reported data shows that 100% of participants experienced at least one adverse event (an unintended medical occurrence during the study), and 36.6% stopped taking the study treatment because of an adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04776148 · results posted 9 April 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04776148) enrolled 563 people in total — 282 in the group receiving a combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab, and 281 in the group receiving a standard-of-care treatment. The trial was set up to measure things like how long it took for participants' cancer to grow or worsen (called "progression-free survival"), how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared (called "objective response rate"), and how long those responses lasted. Results were analysed separately for a global group of participants and a smaller group of participants enrolled in China. The reported data shows the following for the global group: the median time before the cancer grew or a participant died was 3.8 months in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab group and 3.3 months in the standard-of-care group. In terms of tumour shrinkage or disappearance, 10.4% of participants in the combination group and 1.7% in the standard-of-care group met that measure. Among those whose tumours did respond, the reported median length of that response was 11.1 months in the combination group and 7.6 months in the standard-of-care group. For the China group, the reported median time before cancer grew or a participant died was 3.7 months (combination) versus 2.4 months (standard of care); tumour shrinkage or disappearance was reported in 7.5% versus 4.3% of participants; and the median duration of response was 4.4 months in the combination group, while the figure for the standard-of-care group was not reported in the data. No primary outcome measure data was included in the submitted results data provided, so those figures cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04725188 · results posted 2 April 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 255 people across three groups to compare two different treatment approaches against a control group. Eighty-seven participants were assigned to receive a combination of two investigational medicines (pembrolizumab/vibostolimab) together with a chemotherapy called docetaxel; 83 received the two investigational medicines alone; and 85 received a placebo together with docetaxel. The trial's main goal was to measure how long participants went without their cancer growing or spreading — a period known as "progression-free survival." Secondary goals included looking at how many participants' tumours shrank, how long those responses lasted, how long participants lived overall, and how many experienced unwanted medical events during the study. The reported data shows that, for the main measure of time without disease progression, the combination of the investigational medicines plus docetaxel group recorded a median (the midpoint value — half of participants above, half below) of 5.6 months, compared with 2.7 months for the investigational medicines alone group and 3.2 months for the placebo plus docetaxel group. For tumour shrinkage, the reported data shows that approximately 29.9% of participants in the combination-plus-chemotherapy group, 6.0% in the investigational medicines alone group, and 15.3% in the placebo plus chemotherapy group had their tumours shrink to a measurable degree. The median time those responses lasted was reported as 6.5 months for the combination-plus-chemotherapy group; this figure was not reported for the other two groups. For overall survival, the reported median was 10.2 months in the combination-plus-chemotherapy group, 7.5 months in the investigational medicines alone group, and 8.8 months in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Regarding unwanted medical events, the reported data shows that 85 out of 85 treated participants in the combination-plus-chemotherapy group, 76 out of 83 in the investigational medicines alone group, and 82 out of 83 in the placebo plus chemotherapy group experienced at least one adverse event during the study. Of those, 42 participants in the combination-plus-chemotherapy group, 12 in the investigational medicines alone group, and 24 in the placebo plus chemotherapy group stopped their treatment because of an adverse event. These numbers describe what was recorded and reported; they do not indicate whether any event was caused by the treatments. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02470780 · results posted 1 March 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02470780) was studying a drug called rifaximin in people with Parkinson's disease. The trial was looking at "off" time — the periods during the day when a person's levodopa medication stops working well and Parkinson's symptoms come back. The trial had two groups: one group received rifaximin and was followed up for three months, and another group first received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) and then switched to rifaximin, with a six-month follow-up. According to the reported data, only four people in total started and completed the trial — two in each group — which is a very small number. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — change in daily "off" time as measured by patient diary — showed a reduction in "off" hours across both groups at various time points. For the rifaximin-only group, the reported reductions in "off" time were 1.4 hours and 0.9 hours at different points. For the placebo-then-rifaximin group, reductions of 2.8 hours, 2.0 hours, 1.4 hours, and 2.2 hours were reported at various time points. A second way of measuring "off" time — using a wireless computer monitoring system — was not analysed at all; the reported data notes this was due to the very low number of participants and issues with data quality or compliance. It is worth noting that with only four participants, the trial was far smaller than originally intended, and the researchers themselves indicate the data is very limited. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT05012579 · results posted 13 February 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05012579) enrolled 40 people with Parkinson's disease who used a wrist-worn device that delivers a therapy called Transcutaneous Afferent Patterned Stimulation (TAPS) — a type of nerve stimulation applied through the skin. Thirty-seven of the 40 participants completed the trial, while three did not finish. The trial was a single-arm study, meaning everyone received the same treatment with no comparison group. It was measuring changes in tremor (shaking) using several different tools, including a motion sensor built into the device, a clinician rating scale, a patient self-rating scale for daily activities, and overall impressions of change from both doctors and patients. The reported data shows that, on average, participants experienced a 64% reduction in tremor power as measured by the device's built-in accelerometer (a sensor that detects movement). For the clinician rating scale — where 0 means no tremor and 4 means severe tremor — the reported average improvement was 0.6 points. On the daily activities scale — where 1 means no difficulty and 4 means unable to do the activity alone — the reported average improvement was 0.5 points. Separately, when doctors and patients were asked to give an overall impression of change on a 7-point scale (where scores below 4 indicate some level of improvement), the reported data shows that 80% of clinicians and 77% of patients rated their score below 4, indicating they felt some degree of improvement had occurred. It is worth noting that because there was no comparison group in this trial, the reported numbers reflect what was observed in participants using the device, without a direct comparison to a group receiving no treatment or a different treatment. The data was not reported in a way that allows conclusions about what would have happened without the device. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03647137 · results posted 5 January 2024

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 37 people with Parkinson's disease, divided into four groups based on whether they experienced "freezing of gait" (sudden episodes where a person feels their feet are stuck to the ground) and how their freezing was affected by Parkinson's medication. The groups were: those without freezing (13 people), those who froze only when off medication (7 people), those whose freezing was worse off medication (10 people), and those whose freezing was similar whether on or off medication (7 people). The trial used specialised brain scans called PET scans to measure levels of certain brain chemicals — dopamine (involved in movement), acetylcholine (involved in attention and movement control), and amyloid (a protein linked to some brain conditions) — across these groups. Of the 37 who started, 31 completed all the required scans. The reported data shows the following brain scan measurements across the four groups, expressed as a "distribution volume ratio" (DVR) — a number that reflects how much of the tracer the scanner detected in the brain's striatum (a key movement-related region). For the cholinergic (acetylcholine-related) scan, DVR values were 4.89 (no freezing), 5.01 (freezing only off medication), 4.30 (freezing worse off medication), and 4.06 (freezing similar on and off medication). For the dopamine-related scan, values were 1.93, 1.76, 1.59, and 1.76 respectively. For the amyloid scan, values were 1.08, 1.15, 1.12, and 1.02 respectively. Separately, 5 out of the participants with freezing of gait were classified as not responding differently to their Parkinson's medication. A secondary scan measuring serotonin-related activity returned DVR values of 1.74 (no freezing), 1.12 (freezing worse off medication), and 1.80 (freezing similar on and off medication); the result for the "freezing only off medication" group was not reported for this measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04003636 · results posted 22 December 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04003636) enrolled 1,069 people in total — 533 in the group receiving pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (Arm A) and 536 in the group receiving a placebo plus chemotherapy (Arm B). The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long they lived without their disease getting worse, how many showed a measurable reduction in their cancer, how long those reductions lasted, and how many participants experienced unwanted health events during the study. The reported data shows that, for overall survival (the time from joining the trial until death from any cause), the median figure — meaning the point at which half the group had died and half had not — was 12.7 months in Arm A and 10.9 months in Arm B. For progression-free survival (the time until the cancer grew or the person died, whichever came first), the reported medians were 6.5 months in Arm A and 5.6 months in Arm B. The proportion of participants whose cancer showed a meaningful shrinkage was reported as 28.7% in Arm A and 28.5% in Arm B. Among those who did show a response, the reported median duration of that response was 8.3 months in Arm A and 6.8 months in Arm B. The reported data also shows that 524 out of 529 treated participants in Arm A, and 532 out of 534 treated participants in Arm B, experienced at least one unwanted health event during the study. Additionally, 140 participants in Arm A and 125 participants in Arm B stopped taking their study treatment because of such an event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03834493 · results posted 20 December 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03834493) enrolled 1,244 people with prostate cancer — 621 in the group receiving pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide, and 623 in the group receiving a placebo plus enzalutamide. The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants lived overall (called "overall survival"), and how long it took before scans showed the cancer had visibly grown or spread (called "radiographic progression-free survival"). Several additional measures were also tracked, including PSA blood marker responses and tumour shrinkage rates. It is worth noting that no participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, meaning all had left the study before its scheduled end — for reasons such as death, stopping treatment, or other causes. The reported data shows that, for overall survival, participants in the pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide group had a median (middle value) of 24.7 months, compared with 27.3 months in the placebo plus enzalutamide group. For the time before scans showed cancer progression, the reported median was 10.4 months in the pembrolizumab group versus 9.0 months in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that the time until participants started a new cancer treatment was 13.2 months versus 12.6 months respectively. For PSA levels dropping by at least half (a commonly watched marker in prostate cancer), 49.0% of the pembrolizumab group and 45.1% of the placebo group met this measure. PSA falling to very low levels (below 0.2 ng/mL) was reported in 13.1% versus 12.6% of participants. Tumour shrinkage on scans was reported in 12.2% of the pembrolizumab group and 9.3% of the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04191096 · results posted 18 November 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04191096) enrolled 1,251 people with prostate cancer — 626 in a group receiving pembrolizumab combined with enzalutamide and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT, a hormone-lowering treatment), and 625 in a group receiving a placebo combined with enzalutamide and ADT. The trial was designed to measure two main things: how long participants went without their cancer visibly growing or spreading on scans (called radiographic progression-free survival), and how long participants lived overall (overall survival). It also tracked several secondary measures, including how long before participants needed a new cancer treatment, how long before certain bone-related complications occurred, how long before a specific blood marker called PSA showed signs of rising, and how long before soft tissue tumours visibly grew on scans. The reported data shows that for every single outcome measured — both primary outcomes and all secondary outcomes — the submitted results list the values as "NA" (not available or not reported). This means that no numerical results for any of these measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. It is also noted that zero participants in either group were recorded as having "completed" the study, with all participants listed under "not completed," though the reasons for this were not provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03898180 · results posted 31 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03898180) enrolled 251 people in the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib group and 254 people in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group — just over 500 participants in total. The trial was measuring two main things: how long people lived without their cancer growing (called progression-free survival), and how long people lived overall (called overall survival). It also looked at several secondary measures, including how many people's cancer shrank or disappeared, how long those responses lasted, how many people's cancer stayed stable or better, and how participants rated their own quality of life. The reported data shows that, for progression-free survival — the time until cancer grew or a person died — the median (meaning the midpoint figure for the group) was 4.5 months in the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib group and 4.0 months in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group. For overall survival, the reported median was 11.8 months in the lenvatinib combination group and 12.9 months in the placebo combination group. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 33.1% of participants in the lenvatinib group and 28.9% in the placebo group had their cancer shrink or disappear. The proportion of participants whose cancer shrank, disappeared, or stayed stable was 66.9% in the lenvatinib group and 56.2% in the placebo group. The duration of response — how long those improvements lasted — was not reported as a usable number for either group. On the quality-of-life questionnaire (scored from 0 to 100, where higher means better), the reported average change from the starting score was +0.73 in the lenvatinib group and +3.79 in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04220866 · results posted 27 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04220866) enrolled 18 people in total — 8 received a combination of ulevostinag and pembrolizumab, while 10 received pembrolizumab alone. The trial was measuring how tumours responded to these treatments in people with solid cancers, using standard imaging-based criteria (called RECIST 1.1) to track whether tumours shrank, stayed the same, or grew. Notably, none of the participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the conventional sense — all 18 are listed under "not completed," though the data does not explain the reasons for this in detail. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome being measured — the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank significantly (known as the objective response rate) — 50% of participants in the ulevostinag plus pembrolizumab group showed this level of tumour shrinkage, compared with 10% in the pembrolizumab-alone group. For a secondary measure looking at how long participants went without their disease getting worse (progression-free survival), the reported median time was 6.4 months in the combination group and 1.5 months in the pembrolizumab-alone group. For overall survival, the median was reported as 11.1 months for the pembrolizumab-alone group; a figure for the combination group was not reported in the data. The duration of response — how long tumour shrinkage lasted — was also not reported for either group. Regarding adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences during the study), all 8 participants in the combination group and all 10 in the pembrolizumab group experienced at least one adverse event. Three participants in the combination group and 2 in the pembrolizumab group stopped treatment due to an adverse event. It is important to keep in mind that this was a very small trial with only 18 participants, which means the reported numbers should be interpreted with great caution. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03781167 · results posted 23 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03781167) enrolled 244 people in total — 131 in a lower-dose group and 113 in a higher-dose group — who received a medication called ABBV-951. The trial was primarily measuring safety-related information: how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events), whether certain specific types of reactions occurred, how the skin reacted at the site where the medication was delivered under the skin, and whether certain blood measurements changed over time. The reported data shows that, across all 244 participants combined, 230 out of 244 experienced at least one adverse event of any kind during the study, and 63 out of 244 experienced a serious adverse event (meaning an event considered potentially life-threatening, requiring hospitalisation, or similarly significant). When looking at a pre-specified list of particular events of interest — such as reactions at the infusion site, hallucinations, falls, nerve problems, weight loss, or drowsiness — the reported data shows 86 out of 244 participants had an infusion site infection or reaction, 200 out of 244 had some form of infusion site reaction overall, 61 out of 244 experienced falls, and 74 out of 244 experienced somnolence (drowsiness). Regarding skin reactions at the delivery site, 25 out of 244 participants recorded a score at or above the threshold defined as a notable skin reaction. For blood measurements, the reported data shows small decreases from the start to the end of the study in haemoglobin levels, red blood cell counts, and the proportion of red blood cells in the blood across both dose groups, though specific figures were not reported for all individual time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04193527 · results posted 16 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 172 people across three groups: 75 people who had been diagnosed with a Parkinsonian syndrome (a condition involving movement difficulties related to the brain's dopamine system), 75 people diagnosed with essential tremor (a different type of tremor not related to dopamine), and 22 healthy volunteers. Almost all participants completed the trial — only one person from each of the first two groups did not finish. The trial was measuring how well a brain-imaging scan called DaTSCAN™ (using a substance called ioflupane injected before the scan) could correctly identify whether a person had a shortage of dopamine activity in a part of the brain called the striatum. Three independent readers assessed each scan image without knowing the participants' diagnoses. The reported data shows that, for the primary measures, the three independent readers each produced a "sensitivity" score — that is, how often the scan correctly identified people who did have the dopamine deficit among those diagnosed with Parkinsonian syndrome. The three readers' scores were 0.851, 0.865, and 0.919 (where 1.0 would mean a perfect match every time). For "specificity" — how often the scan correctly identified people who did *not* have the deficit, among those diagnosed with essential tremor — the three readers scored 0.933, 0.960, and 0.813. For a secondary measure, the reported data shows average uptake ratio numbers (a measure of dopamine activity in specific brain regions): the Parkinsonian syndrome group had lower average ratios (around 1.29–1.70 depending on brain region) compared with the essential tremor group (around 2.67–2.87) and healthy volunteers (around 2.93–3.06). Regarding reported adverse events (unexpected medical occurrences during the study), 12 people in the Parkinsonian syndrome group, 13 in the essential tremor group, and 8 healthy volunteers experienced at least one such event after receiving the scan substance. No serious adverse events were reported in any group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03635567 · results posted 12 October 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03635567) enrolled 617 people with cancer who were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 308 people received pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine) together with chemotherapy, and 309 people received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) together with chemotherapy. The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and how long participants survived overall. These measurements were looked at across all participants as well as in smaller sub-groups defined by a protein marker on their tumour cells called PD-L1, using scores of 1 or above (CPS ≥1) and 10 or above (CPS ≥10). The reported data shows the following figures for progression-free survival (the time until the disease worsened or death occurred): across all participants, the pembrolizumab-plus-chemotherapy group had a reported median (middle value) of 10.4 months, compared with 8.2 months in the placebo-plus-chemotherapy group. In the sub-group with a PD-L1 score of 1 or above, the figures were 10.5 months versus 8.2 months, and in the sub-group with a score of 10 or above, 10.4 months versus 8.1 months. The reported data shows the following figures for overall survival (time from the start of the trial until death from any cause): across all participants, the pembrolizumab-plus-chemotherapy group had a reported median of 26.4 months, compared with 16.8 months in the placebo-plus-chemotherapy group. In the PD-L1 score ≥1 sub-group, the figures were 28.6 months versus 16.5 months, and in the PD-L1 score ≥10 sub-group, 29.6 months versus 17.4 months. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02586623 · results posted 23 August 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02586623) involved a medicine called droxidopa and was testing it in people with orthostatic hypotension — a condition where blood pressure drops when standing up, causing dizziness and other symptoms. The trial had two stages. First, 453 people took an open-label phase (where everyone knew they were taking droxidopa) for up to 16 weeks. Of those, 253 completed that stage. Then, 253 participants moved into a double-blind phase (where neither the participants nor the doctors knew who was getting what) lasting up to 12 weeks: 127 were assigned to continue droxidopa and 126 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was how long it took before a participant's symptoms worsened enough to need a change in treatment — called "time to intervention." According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, the middle point (median) for this was 52 days for those on droxidopa and 42 days for those on placebo. For the secondary outcomes, 41 out of 126 participants in the droxidopa group and 40 out of 126 in the placebo group reached the point of needing intervention during the double-blind period. Symptom scores (measured on an 11-point scale for dizziness and related complaints) showed small changes across both groups over time, and the reported data shows these changes were similar in size between the droxidopa and placebo groups at most time points. Scores for overall quality of life related to standing and walking, as well as clinician ratings of illness severity, also showed small shifts in both groups across the study period, with the figures for the two groups appearing close to one another throughout. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT05940077 · results posted 14 August 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 20 adults in a single group called "Community-based Exercise." The study was measuring whether a community exercise programme was associated with changes in the number of falls participants experienced, as well as their balance, physical confidence, and ability to perform everyday movements. Nineteen of the 20 participants completed the study, and one did not finish. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — the number of falls participants reported during the study — the group recorded 16 falls at the start of the study and 7 falls after the exercise programme. For the secondary measures, a timed walking and turning test (where a lower time means better performance) recorded an average of 11.02 seconds at the start and 8.13 seconds afterwards. A balance assessment scored out of 56 (where higher is better) recorded an average of 40.47 at the start and 46.84 afterwards. A self-rated balance confidence scale scored out of 100 (where higher is better) recorded an average of 78.92 at the start and 86.05 afterwards. Finally, a test measuring how quickly participants could stand up and sit down five times recorded an average of 15.58 seconds at the start and 11.53 seconds afterwards, with lower times indicating better performance. It is worth noting that this trial had only one group, meaning all participants received the exercise programme and were compared to their own starting measurements — there was no separate comparison group who did not receive the programme. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03713593 · results posted 24 July 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03713593) enrolled 794 people with cancer, split into two groups: 395 received lenvatinib combined with pembrolizumab, and 399 received lenvatinib combined with a placebo (an inactive substance). The trial was primarily measuring two things: how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), and how long participants lived overall (called overall survival). A number of secondary measures were also tracked, including how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, how long any such response lasted, and how long it took for the disease to progress. The reported data shows that for progression-free survival — the time until the disease worsened or death — the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group had a median (midpoint result) of 8.2 months, compared with 8.1 months in the lenvatinib plus placebo group. For overall survival, the reported median was 21.2 months in the pembrolizumab combination group and 19.0 months in the placebo combination group. Regarding the secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared (the objective response rate) was reported as 26.1% in the pembrolizumab group and 17.5% in the placebo group. How long those responses lasted (duration of response) was reported as a median of 4.1 months versus 4.0 months respectively. The proportion of participants whose disease either responded or remained stable (disease control rate) was 81.3% versus 78.4%, and the time until disease progression was 8.3 months versus 8.2 months across the two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03751371 · results posted 18 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03751371) involved 45 people in total — 23 assigned to walking training with a device called the HWA (Hip Walking Assistive) device, and 22 receiving usual care. Of those, 20 people in each group completed the trial, with 3 people leaving the HWA group early and 2 leaving the usual care group early. The trial was measuring aspects of how people walk, including their walking speed, how far they could walk in six minutes, the length of their strides, and the timing of different phases of their steps. The reported data shows that for the main measure — walking speed — both groups recorded the same result at the end of the trial: 1.25 metres per second. For the six-minute walk test (how far someone can walk in six minutes), the HWA device group recorded an average of approximately 417 metres, while the usual care group recorded approximately 427 metres. The reported data shows stride length was around 129 centimetres in the HWA group and approximately 132 centimetres in the usual care group. For double support time (the brief period when both feet are on the ground at the same time during walking), the HWA group recorded 18.01 seconds and the usual care group recorded 16.77 seconds. Swing time — the portion of a step when each foot is off the ground — was reported as approximately 41.3 seconds (right leg) and 40.9 seconds (left leg) for the HWA group, compared to approximately 41.9 seconds (right leg) and 41.5 seconds (left leg) for the usual care group. It is worth noting that the reported data does not include information about whether any differences between the two groups were considered statistically meaningful (that is, whether they were large enough to be unlikely due to chance), so these numbers alone cannot tell us more than what was directly measured. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03834506 · results posted 18 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03834506) enrolled 1,030 people with prostate cancer — 515 in each group. One group received pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine) combined with docetaxel (a chemotherapy medicine), while the other group received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) combined with docetaxel. The trial was primarily measuring two things: how long participants lived overall (called "overall survival"), and how long it took before scans showed the cancer had grown or spread (called "radiographic progression-free survival"). The reported data shows that for overall survival, the median time — meaning the point at which half the participants in each group had died — was 19.6 months in the pembrolizumab plus docetaxel group and 19.0 months in the placebo plus docetaxel group. For scan-based progression-free survival, the reported median was 8.6 months in the pembrolizumab group and 8.3 months in the placebo group. Across the secondary measures, the results were also closely matched between the two groups: the percentage of participants whose PSA level (a prostate cancer marker in the blood) dropped by at least half was 44.5% versus 45.7%; the percentage whose tumours shrank on scans was 33.5% versus 35.3%; how long those responses lasted was about 6.3 months versus 6.2 months; and the time until participants started a new cancer treatment was 10.7 months versus 10.4 months. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03040999 · results posted 8 June 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03040999) enrolled 804 people with head and neck cancer — 402 in each group. One group received pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine) combined with chemoradiotherapy (a combination of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, often called CRT), while the other group received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) combined with the same chemoradiotherapy. The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, whether they experienced any unwanted medical events (called adverse events), and how their quality of life — including general health, swallowing, and speech — changed over time. The reported data shows that for overall survival, the figures were listed as "NA" (not available) for both groups at the time the results were submitted, meaning a final survival result was not reported in this data. Regarding unwanted medical events, 398 out of 398 treated participants in the pembrolizumab group and 397 out of 398 in the placebo group reported at least one adverse event. The reported data also shows that 163 people in the pembrolizumab group and 132 people in the placebo group stopped taking their study medicine due to an adverse event. For quality of life, scores were measured on a 0–100 scale; a change of 10 points or more is considered meaningful. The pembrolizumab group reported a change of +1.93 points in overall health status, compared with +6.17 points in the placebo group. For swallowing problems (where a higher score means more problems), both groups showed small improvements from their starting point: −3.86 points in the pembrolizumab group and −3.35 in the placebo group. For speech problems, the changes were −6.22 points in the pembrolizumab group and −4.93 in the placebo group — none of these quality-of-life changes reached the 10-point threshold considered meaningful. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03702816 · results posted 24 May 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 24 people in total, spread across four groups: 10 healthy controls, 7 people with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), 3 people with Alzheimer's Disease, and 4 people with Parkinson's Disease. All 24 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring brain inflammation across different regions of the brain using a brain-scanning technique (PET imaging) with a tracer called GE180, which attaches to areas of inflammation in the brain. The scan produces a score called an SUVR — essentially a number that reflects how much of the tracer was detected in a given brain region, where higher numbers suggest more inflammation. The trial also measured memory performance using standard cognitive tests. The reported data shows the following SUVR scores (brain inflammation markers) across the four groups for each brain region measured. In the frontal region of the brain, scores were 0.89 for controls, 0.94 for MCI, 0.89 for Alzheimer's Disease, and 0.89 for Parkinson's Disease. In the cingulate region (a structure involved in thinking and decision-making), scores were 1.00 for controls, 1.04 for MCI, 1.06 for Alzheimer's Disease, and 0.99 for Parkinson's Disease. In the parietal region, scores were 0.87 for controls, 0.92 for MCI, 0.88 for Alzheimer's Disease, and 0.86 for Parkinson's Disease. In the temporal region, scores were 0.91 for controls, 0.98 for MCI, 0.91 for Alzheimer's Disease, and 0.89 for Parkinson's Disease. For the whole brain overall, scores were 0.92 for controls, 0.97 for MCI, 0.94 for Alzheimer's Disease, and 0.91 for Parkinson's Disease. The reported data also shows memory composite scores for each group, expressed as a z-score (a way of comparing each group's result to the average of the whole sample, where 0 is the average, positive numbers are above average, and negative numbers are below average). Controls scored +0.37, the MCI group scored −0.68, the Alzheimer's Disease group scored −2.48, and the Parkinson's Disease group scored −0.40. The trial researchers noted that lower memory scores were expected to reflect poorer memory function. No other secondary outcome data was reported beyond what is described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03971617 · results posted 12 April 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03971617) looked at hydrogen-enriched water tablets compared to placebo (dummy) tablets in people with Parkinson's disease. The trial enrolled a very small number of participants — just 1 person in the hydrogen tablet group and 1 person in the placebo tablet group, making 2 participants in total. Both participants completed the study. The trial was measuring safety-related events (called "treatment-emergent adverse events" — meaning any unwanted health events that appeared during the study), as well as changes in motor symptoms, quality of life, cognitive function, and overall Parkinson's disease severity over 56 weeks. The reported data shows that zero adverse events were recorded in either group during the study period. For all of the secondary outcome measures — including the motor symptom scale (MDS-UPDRS Parts I–IV), the Parkinson's-specific quality of life questionnaire (PDQ-39), and the cognitive assessment (MoCA) — no numerical results were reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. This means it is not possible to describe what those measurements showed, as the data was simply not provided in the submitted results. It is worth noting that with only one participant per group, this trial was extremely small — far too small to draw any broad conclusions about how hydrogen tablets might affect Parkinson's disease. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03062358 · results posted 21 March 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03062358) enrolled 453 participants in total — 300 people received pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine) plus best supportive care (meaning standard symptom management), and 153 people received a placebo plus best supportive care. The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long they went without their disease getting worse, and how their tumours responded to treatment, as assessed by an independent review team using standard imaging criteria. The reported data shows that for overall survival — meaning how long participants lived from the time they were assigned to their group — the median (the midpoint figure, where half of participants lived longer and half lived shorter) was 14.6 months in the pembrolizumab group and 13.0 months in the placebo group. For progression-free survival — the time until the disease was recorded as getting worse or until death — the reported medians were 2.6 months and 2.3 months respectively. When looking at tumour response, 12.7% of participants in the pembrolizumab group had their tumours shrink meaningfully (meeting the study's definition of a response), compared with 1.3% in the placebo group. Among those whose tumours did respond, the reported median duration of that response was 23.9 months in the pembrolizumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that 52.7% of participants in the pembrolizumab group and 47.7% in the placebo group had their disease either respond or remain stable for at least five weeks. It is worth noting that the data shows zero participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in either group, which the reported data does not explain further. No data was reported for any participant completing the trial in the conventional sense. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03783078 · results posted 17 February 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 55 participants, all of whom received pembrolizumab 200 mg. The trial was measuring how a group of participants' tumours responded to the treatment, and tracking how long any response lasted, how long participants went without their disease getting worse, and how long participants lived overall. The reported data also shows that none of the 55 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense — all 55 were listed under "not completed," which may reflect how the study's completion criteria were defined rather than meaning everyone dropped out early. The reported data shows that the primary measure — the objective response rate (that is, the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount or disappeared entirely, as assessed by an independent review team) — was 49.1%. In other words, roughly 49 out of every 100 participants in this group were recorded as having their tumour shrink or disappear according to the study's measurement criteria. Among those participants who did show that kind of response, the reported median duration of that response was 39.8 months (median meaning half lasted longer than this, half shorter). The reported median time before the disease progressed or participants died was 9.3 months, and the reported median overall survival was 24.3 months. Regarding unwanted medical events (called adverse events), 52 out of 55 participants experienced at least one, and 18 out of 55 participants stopped taking the study treatment because of one. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03829657 · results posted 20 January 2023

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03829657) looked at a medicine called ampreloxetine in people with a condition called orthostatic hypotension — a drop in blood pressure when standing up that can cause dizziness, lightheadedness, or feeling faint. The trial ran in two main stages. In the first stage (up to 16 weeks), 203 participants received ampreloxetine in an open-label period (meaning everyone knew what they were taking). In the second stage (weeks 16 to 24), 128 of those participants were randomly assigned to either continue on ampreloxetine (64 people) or switch to a placebo — an inactive dummy treatment (64 people) — to see whether stopping the active medicine made a difference. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured in the second stage was "treatment failure" at week 6 — defined as a participant's dizziness/lightheadedness score worsening by at least 1 point on a symptom questionnaire, combined with their overall sense of how bad their condition felt also worsening by at least 1 point. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, the reported proportion of participants who met this "treatment failure" definition was 0.42 (roughly 42 in every 100) in the placebo group, compared with 0.30 (roughly 30 in every 100) in the ampreloxetine group. These figures are model-based estimates — that is, they were calculated using a statistical method rather than being a simple head count. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03391882 · results posted 16 December 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03391882) enrolled 113 participants across six groups, testing two forms of apomorphine — a under-the-skin injection (called SC apomorphine) and a dissolving film placed under the tongue (called APL-130277) — in people with Parkinson's disease. The trial used a "crossover" design, meaning participants received both treatments at different times so that each person's response to one could be compared directly with their response to the other. The main thing being measured was a change in a standard Parkinson's motor (movement) scoring system called the MDS-UPDRS Part III, which runs from 0 (normal) to 132 (most severe). Scores were taken before a dose and again 90 minutes after, following four weeks of treatment with each form of the medication. The reported data shows that, on the primary outcome, both groups saw a reduction in their motor scores 90 minutes after dosing: the SC injection group's average score dropped by approximately 13.78 points, and the under-the-tongue film group's average score dropped by approximately 13.55 points. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that around 18% of participants in the injection group and around 18% in the film group were confirmed by a clinician to be in a full "ON" state (meaning their movement symptoms had improved) both within 30 minutes and at 90 minutes after dosing. When participants themselves reported their "ON" status using the same timeframe, the figures were approximately 15% for the injection group and 19% for the film group. On a separate question asking participants to rate their overall impression of change in their "OFF" episodes after four weeks, approximately 77% of the injection group and 83% of the film group reported feeling at least "a little better." Finally, when asked which treatment they preferred after completing both, approximately 72% of participants reported a preference for the under-the-tongue film. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00660673 · results posted 2 December 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 262 people, all of whom received a treatment called Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (a gel form of a Parkinson's disease medication delivered directly into the small intestine through a tube). Of the 262 who started, 145 completed the trial and 117 did not finish. The trial was primarily focused on tracking and counting unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment, as well as a range of specific health concerns including device-related problems, sudden sleep episodes, impulsive behaviours, skin cancer (melanoma), nerve problems, and weight changes. The reported data shows that, out of 262 participants, 253 experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (meaning an unwanted medical occurrence that happened after starting the treatment). Of those, 219 were considered at least possibly related to the study drug, 159 were classed as moderate or severe, 152 were classified as serious (meaning they led to hospitalisation, were life-threatening, caused significant disability, or resulted in death), and 82 were severe. Turning to the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 244 participants experienced some form of device complication (such as problems with the pump or tube), and 177 participants had complications specifically related to the tube insertion procedure. Regarding sudden sleep attacks, 27 participants reported experiencing these episodes, though none reported a harmful outcome from them. Two participants were reported to have developed melanoma. For a broader category of special-interest adverse events, 162 participants had procedure- or device-related events, 53 had events related to nerve problems (polyneuropathy), 71 had respiratory tract concerns, 24 had weight loss events, and 7 had cardiovascular-related fatalities reported. It is important to note that this trial had only one treatment group — there was no comparison group receiving a different treatment or a placebo — so the reported numbers describe what was observed and recorded in this one group of participants only. The data does not include a comparison point, which means the numbers on their own cannot indicate whether outcomes were better or worse than any alternative. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04095793 · results posted 30 November 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04095793) enrolled 110 people who received a medication called ampreloxetine. The trial was set up to track what unwanted medical events — called treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) — occurred in participants after they started taking the study drug. These events cover any unexpected medical occurrence that happened from the first dose through to the end of the follow-up period, including notable changes in physical examinations, heart tracings (ECGs), blood tests, falls, and reports of suicidal thoughts or behaviour. The reported data shows that none of the 110 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study, meaning all 110 were listed under "not completed," though the data does not explain the reasons for this. The reported data shows that out of the 110 people who started the trial, 61 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov does not break down the specific types of events that occurred or how serious they were, so those details are not available here. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT04380142 · results posted 18 November 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04380142) enrolled 174 people with Parkinson's disease. All participants first went through a stabilisation period taking a standard oral Parkinson's medication (levodopa/carbidopa, or LD/CD), after which 145 people moved on to a 12-week double-blind treatment period — meaning neither the participants nor the research team knew who was receiving which treatment. In that second phase, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group (67 people) continued on oral LD/CD plus a dummy version of the investigational treatment (ABBV-951), and the other group (74 people) received ABBV-951 — a under-the-skin infusion form of levodopa/carbidopa — plus a dummy oral tablet. The trial's main focus was measuring changes in daily "on" time, meaning the hours during the day when a person's movement symptoms were reasonably well controlled and not severely disrupted by involuntary movements called dyskinesia. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — change in average daily "on" time without troublesome involuntary movements over 12 weeks — the oral LD/CD group showed an average increase of about 1 hour, while the ABBV-951 group showed an average increase of about 2.7 hours. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows the oral LD/CD group had an average reduction in daily "off" time (periods of poor mobility, tremor, or stiffness) of about 1 hour, compared to about 2.75 hours in the ABBV-951 group. On a standard questionnaire rating how Parkinson's affects daily movement activities (scored 0–52, higher meaning more difficulty), the oral LD/CD group reported an average decrease of about 1 point and the ABBV-951 group about 2.7 points. Regarding early morning "off" symptoms upon waking at week 12, about 63% of the oral LD/CD group reported being in an "off" state in the morning, compared to about 17% in the ABBV-951 group. The reported data also shows results for two further secondary measures. For "on" time with no involuntary movements at all, the oral LD/CD group averaged an increase of about 1.3 hours and the ABBV-951 group about 3.1 hours. On a sleep quality scale specific to Parkinson's disease (scored 0–60, higher meaning more sleep problems), the oral LD/CD group reported an average improvement (decrease) of about 2.5 points, while the ABBV-951 group reported an average improvement of about 7.9 points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT04046055 · results posted 10 November 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 7 participants, and all 7 completed the study. Each participant took part in all five conditions being compared: a sham (inactive/pretend) session, and four variations of a brain stimulation technique — applied to one side or both sides of the head, at two different electrical current strengths (2 milliamps and 4 milliamps). The trial was measuring things related to balance and walking, including how fast participants walked over 30 metres, how long it took them to stand up, walk a short distance, turn around, and sit back down (a standard mobility test), and how much their body's centre of pressure — roughly, where their weight is balanced — moved while they stood still on both a firm surface and a foam pad. The reported data shows the following average results across the five conditions. For walking speed over 30 metres, figures ranged from 5.63 to 5.86 metres per second across the different conditions. For the stand-up-and-walk test, completion times ranged from about 11.9 to 12.8 seconds. For balance while standing on a firm surface, the area of body sway (how much participants shifted their weight around) ranged from about 1.57 to 3.22 square centimetres across conditions, and on the foam surface it ranged from about 7.53 to 9.36 square centimetres. The secondary outcomes — which looked at body sway in individual directions (front-to-back and side-to-side) on the firm surface — showed ranges of roughly 2.25 to 2.90 centimetres front-to-back, and 1.1 to 2.1 centimetres side-to-side. It is worth noting that with only 7 participants, this was a very small study, and the reported data does not include any statistical analysis indicating whether differences between conditions were meaningful. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03631784 · results posted 2 November 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 216 people in total — 112 in one group and 104 in the other. All participants had cancer, and both groups received the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy given at the same time as radiation), but with different chemotherapy combinations: one group received paclitaxel and carboplatin, while the other received pemetrexed and cisplatin. The trial was measuring two main things: how often a serious lung inflammation called pneumonitis occurred, and how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared during treatment. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcomes, serious pneumonitis (graded as severe or worse) was recorded in 8.0% of participants in the paclitaxel/carboplatin group and 6.9% in the pemetrexed/cisplatin group. When it came to tumour response, 71.4% of participants in the first group and 75.5% in the second group were reported to have had their tumours shrink or disappear. For secondary outcomes, the reported median time before the disease progressed or participants died was 29.0 months in the first group and 45.3 months in the second. The reported median overall survival (time from enrolment until death from any cause) was 35.6 months in the first group and 56.7 months in the second. The trial also recorded that 108 of 112 participants in the first group and 101 of 102 treated participants in the second group experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence during the study). Of those, 48 participants in the first group and 26 in the second stopped their treatment due to an adverse event. No participants were recorded as having completed the study, which the data does not explain further. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03750552 · results posted 14 September 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03750552) looked at a medicine called ampreloxetine compared to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) in people with a condition called orthostatic hypotension — where blood pressure drops when a person stands up, causing symptoms like dizziness or feeling faint. A total of 98 people started in the ampreloxetine group and 97 in the placebo group, with 90 and 95 people respectively completing the trial. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was a change in a symptom score — specifically, how much dizziness, lightheadedness, or feeling faint improved or worsened after four weeks, rated on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst possible). A lower score after treatment means fewer symptoms. The ampreloxetine group's score dropped by an average of 1.69 points, while the placebo group's score dropped by an average of 1.45 points. For the broader symptom score covering all six questions, the ampreloxetine group dropped by 1.32 points on average compared to 1.05 for placebo. A separate score measuring how symptoms affected daily activities also showed a drop of 1.22 points in the ampreloxetine group versus 0.95 in the placebo group. When participants were asked overall whether they felt better, 49 out of 94 in the ampreloxetine group and 45 out of 90 in the placebo group reported feeling improved. The reported data also shows that 33 people in the ampreloxetine group and 22 people in the placebo group experienced at least one fall during the trial period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02968940 · results posted 29 June 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02968940) enrolled 6 participants, all of whom completed the study. Every participant received a combination of a drug called avelumab (a type of immunotherapy) and a form of targeted radiation treatment known as hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT), which delivers radiation in fewer but larger doses than standard radiotherapy. The trial was primarily measuring two things: whether certain serious side effects — called dose-limiting toxicities, meaning side effects severe enough to limit the dose of treatment — occurred, and how long participants went without their disease getting worse (known as progression-free survival). The reported data shows that zero dose-limiting toxicity events were recorded among the 6 participants during the monitoring period. The reported median progression-free survival — meaning the midpoint figure for how long participants went without their disease progressing — was 4.2 months, a figure that was the same whether measured at the 6-month or 12-month timepoint in the data. For the secondary outcomes, the reported median overall survival — that is, the midpoint figure for how long participants lived from the start of treatment — was 10.1 months. It is worth noting that with only 6 participants, this was a very small study, and the numbers above reflect only those 6 people's experiences as recorded and submitted by the trial sponsor. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03553836 · results posted 24 June 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03553836) enrolled 976 people with melanoma — 487 in the pembrolizumab group and 489 in the placebo group. The trial was measuring how long people went without their melanoma coming back or spreading (called "recurrence-free survival"), as well as tracking whether the cancer spread to distant parts of the body, how long people lived overall, and what unwanted medical events occurred during the study. The reported data shows that for the main measure — how long until melanoma returned or a person died — the results were listed as "NA" (not available) for both groups, meaning a final numerical figure was not reported in the submitted data. For the secondary measures looking at cancer spreading to distant sites and overall survival, no numerical results were reported in the submitted data for either group. The reported data does show that 461 out of 483 treated participants in the pembrolizumab group and 444 out of 486 in the placebo group experienced at least one unwanted medical event during the study. Additionally, 84 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 22 in the placebo group stopped their study treatment early because of an unwanted medical event. It is worth noting that none of the participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, and 45 people originally in the placebo group later switched over to receive pembrolizumab, compared to 1 person in the pembrolizumab group who was re-challenged. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03829332 · results posted 2 June 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03829332) enrolled 309 people in the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib group and 314 people in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group — a total of 623 participants. The trial was measuring two main things: how long people lived without their cancer growing (called progression-free survival), and how long people lived overall (called overall survival). It also looked at a number of secondary measures, including how many participants' tumours shrank, how many people experienced unwanted medical events, and how participants rated their own quality of life. The reported data shows that, for progression-free survival — the time until cancer grew or a person died, whichever came first — the figure was 6.6 months in the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib group and 4.2 months in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group. For overall survival, the reported figures were 14.1 months in the combination group and 16.4 months in the placebo group. On the secondary measure of tumour shrinkage (called objective response rate), 40.5% of participants in the lenvatinib group and 27.7% in the placebo group were reported to have had their tumour shrink meaningfully. Regarding unwanted medical events, 306 out of 309 participants in the lenvatinib group and 294 out of 312 in the placebo group reported at least one such event. Of those, 98 people in the lenvatinib group and 41 in the placebo group stopped their treatment because of such an event. For self-reported quality of life (scored on a scale of 0–100, where higher means better), the reported change from the starting point was −1.48 in the lenvatinib group and +2.42 in the placebo group, meaning the lenvatinib group reported a slight decline and the placebo group reported a slight improvement on average. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03713957 · results posted 9 May 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03713957) enrolled 53 people who received a treatment called GRF6021 and 26 people who received a placebo (an inactive substance used for comparison). The trial was designed to look at how often unwanted health events occurred, and also to measure changes in several areas of thinking, memory, movement, and daily functioning in people with Parkinson's disease. Of those who started, 35 in the GRF6021 group and 16 in the placebo group completed the study. The reported data shows that the primary thing being tracked — unwanted health events that appeared during treatment — occurred in 45 out of 53 participants in the GRF6021 group and 20 out of 26 in the placebo group. Serious unwanted health events were reported for 5 participants in the GRF6021 group and none in the placebo group. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows changes in thinking and memory scores from the start of the trial to the end. On the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (a 30-point thinking test where higher scores are better), the GRF6021 group's average score changed by +1.30 points and the placebo group's by +0.80 points. On a verbal fluency test, the GRF6021 group's average changed by +5.00 and the placebo group's by −1.59. On a computerised memory and attention battery, small changes were reported in both groups across several areas. On a Parkinson's-specific movement and daily living scale (where lower scores are better), the GRF6021 group's average total score changed by −8.89 and the placebo group's by −9.53. The reported data also shows results for daily living ability and other cognitive tests, though some of those results were reported as counts of participants in different categories rather than as a single summary number. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02563002 · results posted 16 March 2022

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02563002) enrolled 307 people — 153 in the pembrolizumab group and 154 in the standard of care group. The trial was measuring two main things: how long people lived without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival), and how long people lived overall (overall survival). It also looked at how many people's tumours shrank or disappeared, and tracked unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during the study. The reported data shows that, for the primary measures, people in the pembrolizumab group went a median of 16.5 months before their disease progressed or they passed away, compared with 8.2 months in the standard of care group. ("Median" here means half the people in each group reached that point before the time listed, and half after.) For overall survival, the median was not yet reached in the pembrolizumab group at the time of analysis — meaning not enough people in that group had passed away to calculate a midpoint — while the standard of care group had a reported median overall survival of 36.7 months. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 45.1% of participants in the pembrolizumab group had their tumour shrink or disappear, compared with 33.1% in the standard of care group. Regarding adverse events, 149 out of 153 people (pembrolizumab) and 142 out of 143 people (standard of care) experienced at least one adverse event during treatment. A total of 21 people in the pembrolizumab group and 20 in the standard of care group stopped their treatment because of an adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03857867 · results posted 21 December 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 7 people, all of whom used a tactile stimulation glove — a wearable device that delivers gentle vibrations to the fingers. Six participants completed the study, while one did not finish. The trial was measuring motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease, medication doses, and brain activity patterns before and after three months of using the glove. The reported data shows that on a standard Parkinson's motor symptom rating scale (where 0 means no symptoms and 132 means the most severe possible symptoms), the average score among participants was reported as 38.33 at the start of the study and 32.33 after three months. For daily medication dose, measured in milligrams per day, the reported average went from 711.50 mg/day at the start to 644.83 mg/day after three months. The trial also measured a type of brain activity called "high beta power" — a way of looking at electrical signals in the part of the brain involved in movement — using a brain scan technique called EEG. The reported average for this measure was 0.079 (as a proportion of total brain signal power) at the start, and 0.058 after three months. The reported data does not include any comparison figures or statistical analysis that would indicate how meaningful these changes might be. It is worth noting that with only 6 people completing the study, this was a very small trial, and the results reported here represent a limited snapshot. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03284424 · results posted 19 November 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03284424) looked at pembrolizumab in people with a type of skin cancer called cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). There were two groups: 105 people whose cancer had come back or spread to other parts of the body (recurrent or metastatic), and 54 people whose cancer could not be surgically removed (locally advanced). The trial's main goal was to measure the "objective response rate" — that is, the percentage of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount or disappeared entirely, as judged by independent reviewers looking at scans. The reported data shows that in the recurrent or metastatic group, 35.2% of participants had their tumours shrink enough to meet the trial's definition of a response, compared with 51.9% in the locally advanced group. When also counting people whose cancer stayed stable (neither shrinking nor growing significantly), the reported figures were 52.4% and 64.8% respectively — this is called the "disease control rate." The reported data shows that in the recurrent or metastatic group, the median time from first treatment to death from any cause (overall survival) was 23.8 months; this figure was not reported for the locally advanced group. The median time before the cancer grew or participants died (progression-free survival) was reported as 5.7 months for the recurrent/metastatic group and 14.4 months for the locally advanced group. Among those who did respond to treatment, the median length of that response was reported as 1.6 months and 2.7 months respectively. The reported data also shows that 102 out of 105 participants in the recurrent/metastatic group, and 51 out of 54 in the locally advanced group, experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted sign, symptom, or health change) during the study period — though the data does not break down the nature or severity of these events further in this summary. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03189719 · results posted 6 July 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03189719) enrolled 749 people with oesophageal (food pipe) cancer — 373 received the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab together with standard chemotherapy, and 376 received a placebo (a dummy treatment) together with standard chemotherapy. The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants lived overall (called "overall survival"), and how long it was before their cancer grew or spread further (called "progression-free survival"). Some results were also broken down by whether participants' tumours had a particular protein marker called PD-L1, measured using a scoring system — a score of 10 or above was considered "positive" for that marker. The reported data shows the following median survival figures — that is, the point in time by which half of the participants in each group had died. For all participants combined, the pembrolizumab group had a reported median overall survival of 12.4 months, compared with 9.8 months in the placebo group. Looking only at participants with a specific type of oesophageal cancer called squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), the figures were 12.6 months versus 9.8 months. Among those with ESCC whose tumours also had a PD-L1 score of 10 or above, the reported figures were 13.9 months versus 8.8 months. For the broader group of all participants with a PD-L1 score of 10 or above (regardless of cancer type), median overall survival was reported as 13.5 months versus 9.4 months. On the second main measure — how long before the cancer grew or spread — the reported median figures were 6.3 months versus 5.8 months for the ESCC group overall, and 7.5 months versus 5.5 months for those with ESCC and a PD-L1 score of 10 or above. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03773796 · results posted 2 March 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03773796) enrolled 22 people with Parkinson's disease who were given a medication called nabilone. The trial was primarily focused on measuring how well the medication was tolerated — in other words, tracking any unwanted effects (called adverse events), reasons why people stopped the trial early, and monitoring for specific concerns like thoughts of self-harm, hallucinations, and daytime sleepiness. Of the 22 people who started, 19 completed the trial and 3 did not finish. The reported data shows that across all participants, a total of 39 adverse events (unwanted effects of any kind) were recorded during the study period. One person stopped the trial because of an adverse event, and one other person stopped for a different reason unrelated to an adverse event. When it came to thoughts of self-harm, the reported data shows that no participants recorded any new concerns in this area. For hallucinations — measured using a standard Parkinson's rating scale where 0 means no problem and 4 means the worst — the reported data shows 1 participant had a change in their hallucination score, while 18 participants showed no change; figures for the remaining category were not clearly distinguished in the submitted data. For daytime sleepiness, also measured on that same scale, the reported data shows an average change of −0.05 points, meaning the group's scores were almost unchanged from the start of the trial to the end. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03521635 · results posted 16 February 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 49 people in each of two groups — one group took a sustained-release form of a medication called pramipexole, and the other took an immediate-release form of the same medication. Both forms are used in the management of Parkinson's disease. The trial was primarily measuring changes in sleep disturbances over 18 weeks, using a questionnaire called the Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS-2), which asks 15 questions about sleep problems and is scored from 0 (no disturbance) to 60 (maximum disturbance). By the end of the study, 45 people in the sustained-release group and 43 in the immediate-release group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, on average, both groups had lower (improved) PDSS-2 scores at 18 weeks compared to when they started. The sustained-release group's score dropped by an average of 13.7 points, and the immediate-release group's score dropped by an average of 14.4 points. The reported data also shows results from several secondary measures — additional questionnaires about night-time movement difficulties, sleep quality, and early morning stiffness. Across all of these questionnaires, both groups showed reductions (improvements) in their scores from the start of the trial to week 18, with the changes in both groups appearing broadly similar. For example, on the early morning stiffness question (scored 0–4), the sustained-release group's score fell by an average of 1.8 points and the immediate-release group's by 1.5 points. The reported data also shows what proportion of participants reached a PDSS-2 score below 18 (a pre-specified threshold used in the trial): 73.3% of the sustained-release group and 72.1% of the immediate-release group reached this level. For the early morning stiffness measure, 86.7% of the sustained-release group and 76.7% of the immediate-release group reported an improvement of at least one point on that scale. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03515824 · results posted 12 February 2021

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03515824) tested a medicine called MK-1697 in people with solid tumours (cancers forming lumps or masses). The trial was split into two parts: Part A, which tested three different dose levels of MK-1697 (20 mg, 65 mg, and 200 mg), and Part B, an expansion phase. In total, 22 people were enrolled across the three Part A dose groups (3 at 20 mg, 4 at 65 mg, and 15 at 200 mg). The reported data shows that no participants enrolled in Part B, and no participants in any group completed the study — all participants left before the study concluded. The reported data shows that one of the main things the trial tracked was whether participants experienced serious side effects during the first treatment cycle, known as "dose-limiting toxicities" (meaning side effects severe enough to limit how much medicine could be given). None of the participants in the 20 mg or 65 mg groups experienced these, while 2 out of 15 participants in the 200 mg group did. When looking at any type of adverse event (an unexpected medical occurrence during the trial, whether or not linked to the medicine), all 3 participants in the 20 mg group, all 4 in the 65 mg group, and 14 out of 15 in the 200 mg group experienced at least one. The number of participants who stopped taking the medicine due to an adverse event was 0 in the 20 mg group, 1 in the 65 mg group, and 3 in the 200 mg group. The trial also measured whether participants' tumours shrank — called the "objective response rate." The reported data shows that across all three dose groups, 0% of participants had their tumours shrink by the defined amount, under either of the two measurement methods used. The trial also tracked how the medicine moved through the body over time (measured in units called Day\*ng/mL); the reported figures increased with higher doses, but this technical measurement data was not reported in a way that lends itself to plain description beyond noting that higher dose groups showed higher values. Part B results were not reported, as no participants were enrolled in that phase. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03799614 · results posted 17 December 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 30 people with Parkinson's disease, split evenly into two groups of 15 — one receiving a lower dose of vibration and one receiving a higher dose. All 30 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring Parkinson's motor symptoms and tremor, using four different measurement tools: a standard clinician-rated Parkinson's motor scale (called the MDS-UPDRS Part III, scored 0–136 where lower is better), a tremor severity rating scale (scored 0–56 where lower is better), and two device-based measurements of tremor frequency (in hertz) and tremor size or movement (in millimetres). The reported data shows the following average scores across three time points — before, during, and after the vibration sessions. For the Parkinson's motor scale, the low-dose group recorded scores of 32.67, 33.67, and 32.67, while the high-dose group recorded 27.40, 27.33, and 28.60. For the tremor severity rating scale, the low-dose group scored 15.47, 15.87, and 14.53, and the high-dose group scored 13.87, 13.20, and 14.13. For tremor frequency (hertz), the low-dose group recorded 4.77, 4.79, and 3.36, while the high-dose group recorded 4.51, 3.99, and 4.64. For tremor amplitude (millimetres), the low-dose group recorded 0.71, 0.76, and 0.70, and the high-dose group recorded 0.43, 0.44, and 0.52. The reported data shows only the raw average scores at each time point; no additional statistical analysis results (such as whether any differences between time points or groups were considered meaningful) were included in the submitted data on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03194217 · results posted 24 November 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03194217) enrolled 244 people across four groups. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) or one of three doses of a drug called BEN-2001 (also referred to as Bavisant) — 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. To be eligible, participants had to score 13 or above on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), a standard questionnaire used to measure daytime sleepiness on a scale of 0 to 24, where higher scores mean greater sleepiness. The trial ran for six weeks and was primarily measuring whether daytime sleepiness scores changed over that period. The reported data shows the average change in ESS score from the start of the trial to the end of the six-week treatment period. A negative number means the group's average sleepiness score went down (i.e., participants reported feeling less sleepy on average). The placebo group's average score dropped by 4.34 points. For the BEN-2001 groups, the reported average drops were 4.64 points (0.5 mg dose), 3.46 points (1.0 mg dose), and 4.73 points (3.0 mg dose). No secondary outcome measure results were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available to report here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01518309 · results posted 23 November 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 39 people, all of whom received a medicine called pimavanserin. The trial was measuring how many participants experienced side effects that were considered to be related to the study drug — these are called "drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events," which simply means unwanted health events that appeared during the study and were thought to be linked to taking the medicine. The reported data shows that 17 out of the 39 participants (roughly 44%) experienced at least one side effect considered to be related to pimavanserin. The data also shows that none of the 39 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study, with all 39 listed under "not completed," though no further breakdown of the reason for this was reported in the data available. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results data, so additional detail on specific side effects or other findings was not reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03000569 · results posted 23 November 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03000569) tested an investigational medicine called SAGE-217 in people with Parkinson's disease who were already taking standard anti-Parkinson's medicines. The trial was split into two parts: Part A, where 15 participants took their usual anti-Parkinson's medicines for a few days and then switched to SAGE-217; and Part B, where 14 participants took both their usual medicines and SAGE-217 at the same time. In total, 29 people started the trial and 28 completed it. A key focus of the trial was tracking unwanted medical events (called adverse events) and monitoring blood test results while participants were on the study medicine. The reported data shows that during the Part A phase when participants were taking SAGE-217 (Days 4–7), all 15 participants (100%) experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event — meaning an unwanted medical occurrence that happened after the study drug was given. By comparison, during the earlier phase when participants were on anti-Parkinson's medicines only, 26.7% experienced such an event, and during the follow-up period after the study drug, 13.3% did. Of the adverse events recorded during the SAGE-217 phase in Part A, the reported data shows that 85.7% were graded as moderate (meaning they caused enough discomfort to interfere with normal activities) and 14.3% were graded as severe (meaning they were incapacitating). The trial also tracked changes in various blood cell counts over time; the reported figures show small numerical changes from starting levels across several blood measurements, though the clinical meaning of those numbers was not described in the submitted data. The reported data also includes several blood test measurements — such as counts of different blood cell types (basophils, eosinophils, and their proportions relative to total white blood cells) — tracked across multiple time points during Part A. The changes from starting levels were generally small in numerical terms, but the trial data as submitted does not include information from Part B's primary outcomes in this dataset, so those figures are not reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02989610 · results posted 19 November 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02989610) enrolled 234 participants, all of whom received a type of brain stimulation treatment for Parkinson's disease. The study compared two different ways of delivering that stimulation: an "omnidirectional" approach (where the signal spreads out equally in all directions) and a "directional" approach (where the signal is steered in a specific direction). Of the 234 people who started the trial, 184 completed it, and 50 did not finish. The trial was measuring something called the "therapeutic window" — that is, the range of stimulation strength that eases symptoms without causing unwanted side effects — to see whether one approach produced a wider window than the other. The reported data shows that 185 participants were included in the main analysis looking at whether directional stimulation produced a wider therapeutic window compared to a pre-set benchmark of 60%. The same group of 185 participants was also used for a related secondary analysis, which used a slightly different statistical benchmark. However, the actual percentage figures for how many participants had a wider therapeutic window under directional versus omnidirectional stimulation were not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those specific numbers cannot be described here. For a separate secondary measure, the trial tracked changes in a Parkinson's motor symptom rating scale (scored 0–108, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms). The reported data shows an average change of 25.1 points when participants were using the omnidirectional approach at 3 months, and 30.8 points when using the directional approach at 6 months — both measured while participants were on their regular Parkinson's medication. It is worth noting that because these two measurements were taken at different time points and under different conditions, a direct comparison between the two numbers requires careful interpretation by a medical professional. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT02202551 · results posted 16 September 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02202551) enrolled a total of 223 people with Parkinson's disease who also experienced involuntary movements (called dyskinesia) caused by their levodopa medication. Participants were divided into four groups — Group 1a (60 people), Group 1P (78 people), Group 2 (24 people), and Group 3 (61 people) — and all received a capsule called ADS-5102 (an extended-release form of amantadine) taken once daily at bedtime. The trial's main focus was on tracking unwanted events (called adverse events) and how many people stopped taking the study drug because of them. It also measured changes in two standard Parkinson's rating scales over time. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure — tracking adverse events and drug stoppages — the numbers of participants who experienced at least one adverse event were 57, 70, 23, and 55 across the four groups respectively. The numbers who stopped the study drug due to safety-related reasons were 16, 21, 6, and 17. For the secondary measures, the trial used a standard Parkinson's rating tool (the MDS-UPDRS, scored 0–176 for the combined parts, where lower scores are generally considered better). Starting scores for the combined Parts I–III ranged from roughly 42 to 53 across groups. The reported changes from the start to the end of the study ranged from a small increase of about 6 points to a decrease of about 5 points depending on the group. For Part IV of the same scale (which covers movement complications, scored 0–24), starting scores ranged from about 6.5 to 10.4, with reported changes ranging from a small decrease of 0.2 to a decrease of 4.0 points across groups. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not include comparison figures against a placebo or control group for all measures, so the reported numbers reflect what was observed within each group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03541356 · results posted 12 August 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03541356) involved 32 people in total, spread across five groups: a placebo group (8 people) and four groups receiving different doses or combinations of a nasal drug called INP103, which contains L-dopa — a medicine used in Parkinson's disease — either alone at three different doses (35 mg, 70 mg, or 140 mg) or combined with a second medicine called carbidopa (70 mg/7 mg). All 32 participants who started the trial completed it. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced side effects after a single dose, and secondarily tracking how much of the drug entered the bloodstream and any changes in motor (movement) symptoms, as measured by a standard Parkinson's rating scale called MDS-UPDRS Part III (where higher scores mean worse movement difficulties, on a scale of 0 to 132). The reported data shows that when it came to side effects, 5 out of 8 placebo participants, 5 out of 6 in the 35 mg group, 3 out of 6 in the 70 mg group, 4 out of 6 in the 140 mg group, and 5 out of 6 in the combination group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted symptom that appeared after taking the dose). For how much drug reached the bloodstream over two hours, the reported figures rose with higher doses — 240.71, 463.49, and 725.29 units (hours×ng/mL) for the 35 mg, 70 mg, and 140 mg groups respectively — while the combination group recorded 552.75 units. The peak level of drug in the blood followed a similar pattern, with higher doses generally linked to higher peak readings, and the time to reach that peak ranged from about 60 minutes for the lowest dose to about 92 minutes for the combination group. The reported data for the movement symptom scores showed changes from baseline across the groups over the two-hour observation period; for example, some groups showed reductions in their scores (meaning fewer movement difficulties recorded) at various time points, with the 140 mg group showing a reported average change of around −12.7 points at one time point and the placebo group showing changes such as −8.5 and −13.5 at other time points. For the time taken to reach a 30% improvement in movement scores, the reported figures were 45 minutes for the placebo group, 54 minutes for the 70 mg group, and 30 minutes for the 140 mg group; this figure was not reported for the 35 mg or combination groups. It is important to note that several other data points within the movement score outcome were not fully reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02228590 · results posted 30 July 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 20 people, all of whom received a treatment called APL-130277 — a strip placed under the tongue containing apomorphine, a medicine used in Parkinson's disease. Nineteen of the 20 participants completed the trial; one did not finish. The trial was measuring how the treatment affected what researchers called "OFF" episodes — periods when a person's Parkinson's symptoms are not well controlled — and whether participants moved to an "ON" state, meaning their symptoms were better controlled. The study also measured how quickly any change occurred, how long it lasted, and how the drug was absorbed into the bloodstream. The reported data shows that across the overall study, 78.9% of participants (roughly 15 out of 19 who completed the trial) were recorded as reaching a full "ON" state at least once after taking the treatment. The reported average time from taking the strip to reaching that "ON" state was around 24 minutes, and the average length of time participants stayed in that "ON" state was around 50 minutes. Results at individual time-points within visits varied, with the percentage of participants recorded as "ON" at specific check-ins ranging from about 31.6% to 78.9%. The reported data also shows that the drug was detected in the bloodstream, with the time to peak blood concentration varying across different doses and visits, generally falling somewhere between 35 and 60 minutes on average, though individual dose-level figures differed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03950674 · results posted 11 June 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03950674) enrolled 40 people in total — 25 received pembrolizumab combined with two chemotherapy drugs (pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug), followed by pembrolizumab and pemetrexed, while 15 received a placebo combined with the same chemotherapy drugs, followed by placebo and pemetrexed. The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants went without their cancer growing or spreading (called progression-free survival), and how long participants lived overall (called overall survival). No participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the trial in either group. The reported data shows that, for the main outcomes, participants in the pembrolizumab group went a reported median of 16.5 months before their cancer grew or they died, compared with 7.1 months in the placebo group. For overall survival — how long participants lived from the start of the trial — a median figure was not yet reached (reported as "NA," meaning not enough participants in that group had died at the time of analysis to calculate it) in the pembrolizumab group, while the placebo group had a reported median of 25.9 months. For the secondary outcomes, 56% of participants in the pembrolizumab group were reported to have had their tumour shrink or disappear, compared with 33.3% in the placebo group. Among those whose tumours did respond, the response lasted a reported median of 13.6 months in the pembrolizumab group and 9.7 months in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that all 25 participants in the pembrolizumab group and all 15 in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event (an unexpected medical occurrence during the trial). Nine participants in the pembrolizumab group and 3 in the placebo group stopped taking their study treatment due to an adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03933449 · results posted 26 February 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03933449) enrolled 123 people with oesophageal cancer — 62 assigned to receive pembrolizumab (an immunotherapy medicine) and 61 assigned to receive chemotherapy. The trial was measuring how long participants lived after joining the study (called "overall survival"), as well as how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared during treatment. Results were also looked at separately for two smaller groups: those whose cancer cells had high levels of a protein called PD-L1 (a marker measured by a score of 10 or above), and those whose cancer was a specific type called squamous cell carcinoma. Notably, none of the participants were recorded as having completed the study in the usual sense — all participants had either passed away or left the study by the time results were recorded, which is common in trials involving advanced cancer. The reported data shows that, across all participants, the median survival time — meaning the point at which half of participants in each group had died — was 8.4 months for the pembrolizumab group and 5.6 months for the chemotherapy group. In the subgroup with high PD-L1 scores, the reported median survival times were 12.0 months for pembrolizumab and 5.3 months for chemotherapy. The squamous cell carcinoma subgroup reported the same figures as the overall group: 8.4 months versus 5.6 months. For tumour response (the proportion of people whose tumours shrank or disappeared), the reported data shows 16.1% of all pembrolizumab participants had a response compared with 3.3% in the chemotherapy group. In the high PD-L1 subgroup, those figures were 24.0% versus 6.9%, and in the squamous cell carcinoma subgroup, 16.7% versus 3.4%. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03322540 · results posted 5 February 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 154 people in total — 77 in each group. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab combined with epacadostat, or pembrolizumab combined with a placebo (an inactive substitute). The trial was measuring how the two groups compared across several outcomes, including how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, how long participants lived without their disease getting worse, and how long any response to treatment lasted. The reported data shows that the main outcome — the proportion of participants whose tumours showed a confirmed complete or partial shrinkage (called the objective response rate) — was 32.5% in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat group and 39.0% in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group. For the secondary outcomes, the median time participants went without their disease worsening (progression-free survival) was reported as 6.7 months in the epacadostat group and 6.2 months in the placebo group. The median time that a response lasted (duration of response) was reported as 6.2 months in the epacadostat group, while this figure was not reported for the placebo group. Overall survival figures were not reported for either group at the time of data submission. The reported data also shows that 72 out of 75 participants in the epacadostat group and 72 out of 77 in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence recorded during the study period). Among those, 15 participants in the epacadostat group and 12 in the placebo group stopped taking their study treatment because of an adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03322566 · results posted 29 January 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03322566) enrolled 233 participants across three groups: 91 people received pembrolizumab + chemotherapy + epacadostat, 87 received pembrolizumab + chemotherapy + a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient), and 55 received pembrolizumab + epacadostat without chemotherapy. The main thing the trial was measuring was the proportion of participants whose tumours shrank or disappeared — called the "objective response rate" — comparing the epacadostat combination against the placebo combination. The reported data shows that 26.4% of participants in the epacadostat + chemotherapy + pembrolizumab group had their tumours shrink or disappear, compared with 44.8% in the placebo + chemotherapy + pembrolizumab group. For the secondary measures, the time participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival) was reported as 8.0 months in the epacadostat group and 8.2 months in the placebo group. Overall survival figures were not reported in the data submitted. How long responses lasted (duration of response) was not reported for the epacadostat group, while it was 7.0 months for the placebo group. Regarding adverse events (unwanted medical occurrences recorded during the study), 89 out of 91 participants in the epacadostat group and 82 out of 87 in the placebo group experienced at least one such event; 37 participants in the epacadostat group and 35 in the placebo group stopped taking the study drug due to adverse events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01399905 · results posted 9 January 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 14 people in total — seven in each of two groups. It was a crossover study, meaning participants tried both a lower daily dose of carbidopa (75 mg) and a higher daily dose (450 mg) at different points. Carbidopa is a medicine given alongside levodopa (a common Parkinson's treatment) to influence how levodopa is absorbed and used by the body. The trial was measuring finger-tapping speed — used as a way to track movement slowness — and levodopa levels in the blood, both over the course of a day of levodopa infusion. Twelve of the 14 participants completed the trial; one person in each group did not complete it, though the reason was not reported in the data provided. The reported data shows that finger-tapping speed (measured as a combined score of speed over time) was 141 on both days of the low-dose carbidopa period, and 145 on day one and 201 on day two of the high-dose carbidopa period. These numbers represent how much tapping speed increased above a morning baseline during and after a levodopa infusion — higher numbers indicate more tapping activity recorded over that time window. For levodopa blood levels, the reported data shows values of 5.38 and 5.23 (in micrograms per millilitre, multiplied by hours) on days one and two of the low-dose period, compared with 5.91 and 6.13 on days one and two of the high-dose period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT03362879 · results posted 6 January 2020

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 409 adults with advanced Parkinson's disease, and all 409 completed the study. The trial was looking at a treatment called levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) — a gel that is continuously delivered directly into the small intestine through a tube. The main thing the trial measured was how many participants were using LCIG on its own (without additional Parkinson's medications) over a 12-month period. It also tracked whether participants later needed to add other Parkinson's medicines, what dose of LCIG was being used, and how participants were managing day-to-day, including caregiver support and healthcare use. The reported data shows that, depending on which definition of "monotherapy" (using LCIG alone) was used, either 29.3% or 52.3% of participants were on LCIG without additional Parkinson's medications across the 12-month period. Regarding add-on medicines, 35.0% of participants started at least one additional Parkinson's medication during the 12 months, with the most common categories being levodopa-type medicines (23.8%) and anticholinergic medicines (16.9%), among others. The reported average total daily dose of the LCIG infusion at 12 months was 69.2 millilitres. On caregiver support, the reported data shows that of those who answered, 160 participants reported needing the same amount of caregiver help, 96 reported needing more help, 83 reported needing less help, and smaller numbers gave other responses. Separately, 71.4% of the treating doctors reported an overall preference for using LCIG as a stand-alone treatment, while 28.6% preferred using it alongside additional Parkinson's medicines. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03358472 · results posted 10 September 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 89 people in total across three groups: 35 received a combination of two drugs called pembrolizumab and epacadostat, 19 received pembrolizumab on its own, and 35 received a standard chemotherapy regimen known as EXTREME. The trial was measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared in response to each treatment — a figure called the "objective response rate" — as well as tracking how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events) and how many had to stop treatment because of them. The reported data shows that, looking at tumour shrinkage or disappearance, 31.4% of participants in the pembrolizumab-plus-epacadostat group met the response criteria, compared with 21.1% in the pembrolizumab-alone group and 34.3% in the EXTREME group. Regarding unwanted medical events, the reported data shows these were recorded in 34 out of 34 treated participants in the combination group, 17 out of 19 in the pembrolizumab-alone group, and 34 out of 34 in the EXTREME group. When it came to stopping treatment because of such events, 3 participants did so in the combination group, 2 in the pembrolizumab-alone group, and 7 in the EXTREME group. It is worth noting that this trial was not designed to statistically compare the groups against one another, so these figures are descriptive only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03260894 · results posted 10 September 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03260894) enrolled 129 people in total — 64 received a combination of two investigational medicines (pembrolizumab and epacadostat) and 65 received one of two standard medicines already used for their condition (sunitinib or pazopanib). The trial was primarily measuring the proportion of participants whose tumours showed a measurable reduction — either a complete response (tumour no longer detectable) or a partial response (tumour noticeably smaller) — according to a standard set of imaging criteria. The reported data shows that in the pembrolizumab + epacadostat group, approximately 1.6% of participants had a complete response and 29.7% had a partial response, giving a combined response rate of 31.3%. In the standard-of-care group, the reported data shows 0.0% had a complete response and 29.2% had a partial response, for a combined rate of 29.2%. Regarding the secondary measures, the reported data shows that all 64 participants in the combination group and all 63 participants in the standard-of-care group who received treatment experienced at least one adverse event (an untoward or unwanted medical occurrence during the study, which may or may not have been related to the treatment). Of those, 8 participants in the combination group and 6 in the standard-of-care group stopped taking their study medicine due to an adverse event. It is also worth noting that only 18 out of 64 participants (28%) completed the study in the combination group, compared with 46 out of 65 (71%) in the standard-of-care group; however, the reasons for not completing were not detailed in the data reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03361865 · results posted 29 August 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 93 participants in total — 44 in the group receiving pembrolizumab combined with epacadostat, and 49 in the group receiving pembrolizumab combined with a placebo (an inactive substitute). The trial was measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), and also tracking how many participants experienced unwanted medical events (called "adverse events") or had to stop treatment because of them. The reported data shows that in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat group, 31.8% of participants had their tumour shrink or disappear to a measurable degree. In the pembrolizumab plus placebo group, that figure was 24.5%. Regarding unwanted medical events, the reported data shows that 43 out of 43 treated participants in the combination group experienced at least one such event, compared with 47 out of 49 in the placebo group. Of those, 11 participants in the combination group and 15 in the placebo group stopped taking their study treatment because of an unwanted medical event. It is worth noting that these numbers describe what was observed in this particular group of trial participants under specific study conditions, and they do not tell us on their own whether one treatment is better or worse than the other. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page
NCT03374488 · results posted 28 August 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 84 people in total — 42 in each group. One group received a combination of two medicines, pembrolizumab and epacadostat, while the other group received pembrolizumab along with a placebo (an inactive substitute). The trial was measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), as well as tracking unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that participants experienced during the study. The reported data shows that, when looking at tumour response, 21.4% of participants in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat group had their tumours shrink or disappear by a defined amount, compared with 9.5% in the pembrolizumab plus placebo group. Regarding adverse events — that is, any unwanted medical occurrences during the study — all 42 participants in the combination medicine group and 39 out of 41 participants in the placebo group experienced at least one such event. The reported data also shows that 4 participants in the combination group and 6 participants in the placebo group stopped taking their study treatment due to an adverse event. It is worth noting that this was a relatively small trial of 84 people, and the results as submitted reflect what was observed in this specific group of participants only. No conclusions about broader use should be drawn from these numbers alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00550238 · results posted 24 June 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 459 people, all of whom received the study drug pimavanserin. The trial was designed as a safety monitoring study, meaning its main focus was tracking unwanted or unexpected health events (called adverse events) that participants experienced while taking the drug, and whether those events appeared to be linked to the drug itself. The reported data shows that none of the 459 participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the conventional sense — all 459 were listed under "not completed," though the data does not explain the reason for this. The reported data shows that the primary outcome being measured was the number of participants who experienced adverse events that the treating doctor considered possibly, probably, or highly probably related to the study drug. Out of the 459 people who started the trial, 180 participants were reported as having experienced at least one such drug-related adverse event. No further breakdown of the types or severity of those events was included in the structured results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. No secondary outcome measures were reported in the data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT03099161 · results posted 5 June 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03099161) looked at a drug called preladenant, either on its own or combined with another drug called pembrolizumab, in people with cancer. There were three groups: one group received a lower dose of preladenant (25 mg twice a day), one received a higher dose (50 mg twice a day), and one received the lower dose of preladenant together with pembrolizumab. In total, 10 people started the trial — 3 in the first group, 4 in the second, and 3 in the third. No participants completed the study in any group. The trial was primarily measuring whether the doses caused serious side effects (called dose-limiting toxicities) and tracking any unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment. A secondary measure looked at how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared. The reported data shows that no participants in any of the three groups experienced a dose-limiting toxicity — that is, none of the predefined serious side effect thresholds were met. However, every single participant who started the trial experienced at least one adverse event: all 3 in the low-dose group, all 4 in the higher-dose group, and all 3 in the combination group. Regarding people who stopped treatment because of an adverse event, the reported data shows 0 in each of the preladenant-only groups, but 2 out of 3 participants in the combination group (preladenant plus pembrolizumab) discontinued for this reason. For the secondary outcome measuring tumour response, the reported data shows that 0% of participants in every group had their tumour shrink or disappear according to the standard measurement criteria used. It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 10 participants across all groups, and no participants completed the study, so these numbers reflect a very limited dataset. The data was not reported for a number of other potential outcomes. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01789047 · results posted 16 April 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 42 people with Parkinson's disease — 21 in a group that received a medication called topiramate, and 21 in a group that received a placebo (a sugar pill with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring involuntary movements known as dyskinesia, which can occur as a side effect of Parkinson's disease treatment. Seventeen people in each group completed the study, with four in each group not finishing for reasons not detailed here. The main thing being measured was a score on the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale (UDysRS) — a tool that combines a patient's own report, a rater's observations, and objective assessments to give a picture of how much these involuntary movements affect daily life. Scores on this scale range from 0 to 108, where a higher number means more severe impact. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study, the topiramate group had an average score of 4.00, while the placebo group had an average score of 1.67. The trial also planned to look at several other measures — including a global impression of change score, a broader Parkinson's disease rating scale, and a disease staging tool — however, no numerical results for those additional measures were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02153645 · results posted 2 April 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 87 people with Parkinson's disease who experience involuntary movements (called dyskinesia). Participants were split into three groups: 30 people received a 240 mg dose of amantadine hydrochloride extended-release tablets, 29 received a 320 mg dose, and 28 received a placebo (a dummy tablet with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring changes in dyskinesia symptoms over roughly 14 weeks, using a scoring questionnaire called the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale, where a score of 0 means no problems and 130 means the worst possible score. Not everyone finished the trial — 17, 19, and 18 people completed it in each group respectively. The reported data shows that, at the start of the trial, the average dyskinesia scores were 46.2 (240 mg group), 39.2 (320 mg group), and 38.7 (placebo group). By day 98, those scores had changed to 27.5, 26.4, and 28.7 respectively — meaning the reported change from start to finish was a decrease of 18.8 points in the 240 mg group, 13.3 points in the 320 mg group, and 9.6 points in the placebo group. For the secondary outcome — the number of waking hours per day that participants reported good mobility without troublesome involuntary movements — the reported change from the start of the trial to day 98 was an increase of 0.8 hours in the 240 mg group, a decrease of 0.5 hours in the 320 mg group, and an increase of 0.1 hours in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01532986 · results posted 8 March 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 328 people with Parkinson's disease — 166 in a "usual care" group and 162 in an "intervention" group. Of those, 143 and 138 people respectively completed the study. The trial was measuring how closely doctors and care teams followed a set of 18 recommended care steps for Parkinson's disease (called quality measures), as well as tracking several aspects of participants' day-to-day lives over 18 months, including their general wellbeing, ability to speak and swallow, social support, confidence in managing their own health, and satisfaction with their healthcare. The reported data shows that for the main (primary) measure — how often the 18 recommended care steps were followed — the usual care group scored 0.77 out of a possible 1.0, while the intervention group scored 0.58 out of 1.0 (where 1.0 represents following all recommended steps). For the secondary measures tracked across baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months, the reported data shows broadly similar scores between the two groups over time. General wellbeing scores (Health Utilities Index, where 1.0 is best) ranged from around 0.40–0.48 in both groups. Speech and swallowing difficulties (where 0 is best and 16 is worst) were in the range of 4.4–5.4 across both groups. Social support scores (1–5 scale), confidence scores (10–40 scale), and healthcare satisfaction scores (0–100 scale) also appeared similar between the two groups at each time point, with no large differences visible in the raw numbers as reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01156714 · results posted 5 March 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at three different types of training for older adults: treadmill (walking) training alone, memory training alone, and a combination of both. A total of 59 people started the trial — 20 in the treadmill group, 19 in the memory training group, and 20 in the combined group. However, not everyone finished: 11, 15, and 17 people completed each group respectively, meaning a notable number of participants — particularly in the treadmill-only group — did not complete the programme. The trial measured how well participants could walk and talk at the same time (called "dual tasking"), how they performed on thinking and attention tests, and how quickly they could carry out everyday tasks like finding a phone number or locating items while shopping. The reported data shows the following numbers before and after the training period. For walking speed during the dual task (higher is better), the treadmill group went from about 131 to 135 cm per second, the memory group from about 117 to 127 cm per second, and the combined group from about 165 to 175 cm per second. For stride timing (lower is better), all three groups showed small decreases. On a thinking-speed test (correct responses per minute, higher is better), scores in all three groups were reported to be higher after training — the treadmill group went from about 89 to 106, the memory group from about 93 to 103, and the combined group from about 101 to 120. On a colour-word attention test (higher is better), scores in all groups were reported to be similar before and after. For the everyday shopping task (lower time is better), the treadmill group went from about 7.3 to 3.5 seconds, the memory group from about 6.0 to 4.7 seconds, and the combined group from about 3.2 to 2.4 seconds. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02289729 · results posted 30 January 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02289729) enrolled 59 people with Parkinson's disease, and 53 of them completed the study. The trial was measuring quality of life using a questionnaire called the PDQ-39, which asks participants 39 questions across eight areas of daily life — such as getting around, doing everyday tasks, emotional wellbeing, feeling stigmatised, social support, thinking and memory, communication, and physical discomfort. Each area is scored on a scale from 0 to 100, where a lower score means a person reported fewer problems and a better sense of wellbeing. The main focus was on how scores changed from the start of the trial to the six-month mark. The reported data shows that across all participants, the overall PDQ-39 score changed by minus 12.81 points over six months — meaning scores were lower (that is, participants reported fewer problems) at six months compared to the start. Looking at the individual areas: the "getting around" (mobility) score changed by minus 16.92 points; everyday tasks (activities of daily living) changed by minus 18.43 points; emotional wellbeing changed by minus 13.06 points; feeling stigmatised changed by minus 6.85 points; and social support changed by minus 2.08 points. A negative number in each case means the score went down from baseline, reflecting that participants reported fewer difficulties in those areas at six months. The reported data does not include figures for the remaining domains (thinking and memory, communication, and bodily discomfort), so those results cannot be described here. It is important to note that this trial had no comparison group, meaning there was no group of participants who did not receive the intervention to compare these numbers against. This means the reported changes in scores cannot on their own tell us what caused them. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02847650 · results posted 15 January 2019

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02847650) enrolled 57 people with Parkinson's disease — 29 received the investigational drug PF-06649751 and 28 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in motor symptoms — things like tremor, stiffness, and movement difficulties — using a standard Parkinson's rating scale called the MDS-UPDRS Part III. This scale runs from 0 to 132, where a higher number means more severe motor symptoms, and a lower number (or a drop from the starting score) indicates fewer motor symptoms. By the end of the study, 25 participants in the treatment group and 22 in the placebo group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, at week 15, the PF-06649751 group's motor score had dropped by an average of 9.0 points from their starting score, while the placebo group's score had dropped by an average of 4.3 points. The reported data also shows that, among the secondary outcomes, 25 out of 29 participants in the treatment group and 18 out of 28 in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event (an unexpected medical occurrence during the study). One participant in the treatment group experienced a serious adverse event (a more significant medical event, such as one requiring hospitalisation), compared to none in the placebo group. Regarding laboratory test results, 19 participants in each group showed at least one abnormal result. The reported data shows that no participants in either group met the pre-set alert thresholds for blood pressure, heart rate, or heart rhythm (ECG) concerns. One participant in the treatment group showed new signs of suicidal thoughts during the study, compared to none in the placebo group; no participants in either group showed worsening suicidality. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01754129 · results posted 10 August 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 148 people with Parkinson's disease. Of those, 145 attended the first visit, and 115 completed the full two-year follow-up, with 33 people not completing the study. The trial was observational — meaning it watched and measured participants over time rather than testing a new treatment — and it tracked several aspects of living with Parkinson's disease, including how much of the waking day participants spent in "off" periods (times when Parkinson's symptoms are not well controlled by their medication), movement complications, daily activities, mood, quality of life, sleep, and walking/falls. The reported data shows that the primary measure — how much of the waking day participants spent in "off" periods, rated on a 0–4 scale — showed an average change of −0.97 at Year 1 and −1.04 at Year 2 from where participants started. On this scale, a negative number means the score moved in the direction of less "off" time. For the secondary measures, the broader motor complications score (rated 0–20) showed average changes of −3.33 at Year 1 and −3.08 at Year 2. Scores covering thinking and daily activities showed average changes ranging from around −0.21 to −3.79 depending on the specific measure and time point. The quality-of-life questionnaire (rated 0–156) showed average changes of −2.70 at Year 1 and −0.09 at Year 2. Sleep scores showed average changes of −1.19 and −0.95, and the walking and falls questionnaire showed average changes of −1.70 and −0.81, all in the negative (lower-score) direction. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02549573 · results posted 12 January 2018

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02549573) involved 13 people with Parkinson's disease. Participants were split into two groups: six people received Apokyn (apomorphine) injections before their physical therapy sessions, and seven people had Apokyn withheld before physical therapy. The trial was measuring whether timing of this medication around physical therapy made a difference across several areas, including balance confidence, movement and motor function, physical performance, walking ability, and thinking and memory. The reported data shows the following changes from the start of the trial to its end. For the primary measure — balance confidence (rated on a scale of 0 to 100%, where a higher number means more confidence) — the group that received Apokyn before therapy showed a reported change of +3.1%, while the group that did not receive Apokyn before therapy showed a reported change of +15.2%. For the motor function score (where a negative number means improvement), the Apokyn-before-therapy group reported a change of −4.2 points and the withheld group reported −0.8 points. On a physical performance test (scored 0–28, higher is better), the changes were +3.8 and +5.8 points respectively. A timed walking test (where a negative number means faster/better) showed −4.0 seconds for the Apokyn group and +0.1 seconds for the withheld group. A six-minute walk test showed increases of 238.7 feet and 315.3 feet respectively. A cognitive (thinking) assessment (scored 0–30, higher is better) showed changes of +0.3 and −0.3 points for each group. It is worth noting that three participants in the withheld group did not complete the study, and no reason for this was provided in the reported data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT02256436 · results posted 31 August 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02256436) enrolled 542 people in total — 272 in the control group and 270 in the pembrolizumab group. The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants went without their cancer growing or spreading (called "progression-free survival"), and how long participants lived overall ("overall survival"). These were measured across all participants, as well as within two smaller sub-groups defined by a protein marker on their tumours called PD-L1 — one group whose tumours tested positive for this marker, and another whose tumours showed especially high levels of it. The reported data shows the following figures, expressed as median times (meaning half the participants in each group reached that point sooner, and half took longer). For all participants, the median time without disease progression was reported as 3.3 months in the control group and 2.1 months in the pembrolizumab group; median overall survival was 7.4 months in the control group and 10.3 months in the pembrolizumab group. For participants whose tumours tested positive for the PD-L1 marker, the reported median progression-free survival was 3.2 months (control) and 2.1 months (pembrolizumab), while median overall survival was 6.9 months (control) and 11.3 months (pembrolizumab). For participants with especially high PD-L1 levels, median progression-free survival was reported as 3.1 months (control) and 2.1 months (pembrolizumab), and median overall survival was 5.2 months (control) and 8.0 months (pembrolizumab). No participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study in the data submitted. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02255097 · results posted 6 July 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 172 people, all of whom received the drug pembrolizumab. The trial was measuring how often tumours shrank or disappeared (called the "objective response rate"), and it also tracked unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that participants experienced while on the study drug. The trial looked at response rates across all participants, as well as in specific subgroups — those whose tumours showed high levels of a protein called PD-L1 (a marker measured in tumour tissue), those with any detectable PD-L1, and those whose tumours tested positive for the human papillomavirus (HPV). The reported data shows that across all 172 participants, 16.4% had their tumour shrink or disappear by a meaningful amount. In the subgroup whose tumours showed the highest levels of PD-L1 (a score of 50% or more), the reported response rate was 27.3%. For those with any level of PD-L1 positivity (a score of 1% or more), the reported figure was 18.2%. In participants whose tumours were HPV-positive, the reported response rate was 14.1%. Regarding adverse events, the reported data shows that 166 out of 171 treated participants experienced at least one unwanted medical event during the initial course of treatment, and 24 participants stopped taking the study drug because of an adverse event. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00282152 · results posted 30 May 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a small feasibility trial involving 30 people with Parkinson's disease — 15 in each group. One group received optimal drug therapy (ODT) alone, while the other received deep brain stimulation (DBS) in addition to optimal drug therapy. The trial was primarily looking at whether the DBS group showed signs of worsening motor (movement-related) symptoms more quickly than the drug-only group, as measured by a standard Parkinson's rating scale called the UPDRS. It also tracked changes in medication dosage and several aspects of daily life and wellbeing. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of time until movement symptoms worsened by a set amount on the rating scale, the drug-only group reached that point at around 15 months on average, while the DBS-plus-drug group reached it at around 14.1 months. For medication dosage, the drug-only group's dose increased by an average of 214.5 mg (in standardised units), compared to 97.7 mg in the DBS-plus-drug group. On the secondary measures — which looked at changes in thinking and mood, daily activities, movement, and treatment-related complications (all scored on scales where higher numbers mean greater difficulty) — the reported changes were relatively small across both groups. For example, the movement score (excluding stiffness) changed by 3.4 points in the drug-only group and 0.1 points in the DBS-plus-drug group, and treatment complication scores changed by 1.9 and 0.3 points respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00869791 · results posted 31 March 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 27 people in total — 14 in one group and 13 in the other. It was a "crossover" trial, meaning every participant tried both treatments in turn: one group took IPX066 (an extended-release form of carbidopa-levodopa, a Parkinson's medicine) first, then switched to the standard immediate-release version (IR CD-LD), while the other group did it in the reverse order, with a one-week washout break in between. The main thing the trial was measuring was how the two medicines moved through the body — specifically how high the drug levels in the blood rose, how quickly they peaked, and how much of the drug was absorbed over the dosing period. Some secondary measures looked at movement ability using a finger-tapping test and a standard Parkinson's motor score. The reported data shows that for the key blood-level measurements, IPX066 produced higher figures across the board compared to IR CD-LD. For the active ingredient levodopa, the peak blood concentration (the highest level recorded) was reported as approximately 3,000 ng/mL for IPX066 versus about 2,356 ng/mL for IR CD-LD after a single dose, and roughly 3,807 ng/mL versus 2,762 ng/mL after multiple doses. The total amount of drug absorbed over the dosing window was also reported as higher with IPX066. For the secondary movement measures on Day 1, the finger-tapping test suggested participants were in an "on" state (defined as a 20% improvement from their pre-dose level) for an average of 4.74 hours with IPX066 compared to 2.98 hours with IR CD-LD. The motor score (where lower is better, on a scale of 0–108) averaged 21.6 for IPX066 and 25.5 for IR CD-LD. For the investigator-assessed "off" time (periods of poor movement control), the reported figures were 1.90 hours for IPX066 and 4.44 hours for IR CD-LD. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01736176 · results posted 8 February 2017

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 39 people with Parkinson's disease, all of whom received a treatment called Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) — a gel form of a Parkinson's medication delivered directly into the small intestine through a surgically placed tube. The trial was primarily measuring changes in non-motor symptoms (things like sleep problems, mood, memory, digestion, and pain) using a questionnaire called the Non-Motor Symptom Scale (NMSS), which scores symptoms from 0 to 360, where a lower score means fewer or less severe symptoms. Of the 39 people who started, 38 received the treatment and 28 completed the full study. The reported data shows that, on average, participants' NMSS total scores decreased by 17.6 points from the start of the study to week 12, and by 11.8 points from the start to week 60 (about one year). On this scale, a decrease means the group's reported symptoms were lower than at the beginning. The reported data also shows that, over the course of the study, varying numbers of participants used different types of healthcare services — for example, 13 participants called a doctor and 11 visited a gastroenterologist, surgeon, or similar specialist in the first four weeks. Regarding unwanted health events during the study, 37 out of 38 participants who received the treatment experienced at least one adverse event (an unintended health problem noted during the study) over the full study period, and 8 participants experienced what were classified as serious adverse events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01653132 · results posted 14 December 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 10 participants in total, split into two groups of five. It used a "crossover" design, meaning each participant received both the active treatment — a botulinum toxin injection called incobotulinumtoxinA — and a placebo (an inactive injection) at different times, with a one-to-two month washout period in between. The trial was measuring whether the injections changed the amount of saliva produced and whether they affected a drooling severity score, in people who experience problematic drooling. Nine participants completed all stages of the trial; one person did not complete the first stage of treatment. The reported data shows that saliva weight was measured before and approximately one month after each injection. In the placebo period, the average change in saliva weight was a reduction of 0.07 grams (about 7% less than the starting amount). In the incobotulinumtoxinA period, the average change was a reduction of 0.68 grams (about 67% less than the starting amount). For the secondary outcomes, a drooling rating scale (scored from 2 to 9, where higher numbers mean more severe drooling) was also used. The reported data shows an average score reduction of 1 point in the incobotulinumtoxinA period, compared to a reduction of 0.67 points in the placebo period. When looking at the number of participants who showed a meaningful improvement (defined as at least a 2-point drop on the drooling scale), 2 out of the participants met this threshold during the incobotulinumtoxinA period compared to 1 during the placebo period. For saliva volume specifically, 3 participants had a reduction of 20% or more during the incobotulinumtoxinA period, compared to 2 participants during the placebo period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01215227 · results posted 12 December 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01215227) enrolled 839 participants across six treatment groups. People were assigned to one of three doses of a drug called preladenant (2 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg) or to rasagiline (1 mg), with some participants coming directly from a related earlier study. The trial was primarily measuring a range of monitoring checks — including blood pressure readings, liver enzyme levels in the blood, thoughts of self-harm, and daytime sleepiness scores — rather than testing whether a treatment reduced disease symptoms. The reported data shows the following across the six groups. For very high systolic blood pressure (the "top" number in a reading, at or above 180 mmHg), between 0% and 1.4% of participants in each group recorded such a reading at any point. For very high diastolic blood pressure (the "bottom" number, at or above 105 mmHg), the reported figures ranged from about 4.2% to 8.3% across groups. For two liver enzyme measures — ALT and AST — the percentage of participants whose levels were notably raised (at least three times the normal upper limit, with at least a 10% rise from their starting level) ranged from 0% to about 1.9% for ALT, and 0% to about 2.8% for AST. Regarding thoughts of self-harm as measured by a structured interview tool, between 0% and 5.6% of participants across groups reported at least one such thought or behaviour during the study. Finally, a daytime sleepiness questionnaire showed an increase in scores (meaning greater reported sleepiness) ranging from about 8.3% to 24% across the groups over the course of the study. Completion rates were roughly 44–47% across all groups, with more than half of participants in each group not completing the study; the data does not report specific reasons broken down by group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01747655 · results posted 13 October 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved people with Parkinson's disease and compared two approaches: a gel medication called Duodopa (delivered directly into the small intestine through a tube) and a standard-of-care treatment. A total of 64 people started in the Duodopa group and a smaller number received standard care. The trial tracked participants across several stages, including a temporary tube phase and a longer-term phase using a surgically placed tube (called a PEG-J tube). The main thing being measured was how much participants' ability to carry out daily activities changed over 12 months, using a standard Parkinson's rating scale called the UPDRS Part II, where a higher score means more difficulty with daily tasks. The reported data shows that, on the UPDRS daily activities score, the Duodopa group had an average change of −2.1 points from their starting score to 12 months (meaning their scores went down, indicating less difficulty), while the standard-of-care group had an average change of +1.4 points (meaning their scores went up slightly). When the same score was measured at 3 and 6 months, the reported data shows the Duodopa group had average changes of −4.4 and −3.4 points respectively, compared to +0.9 and −1.5 points in the standard-of-care group. The reported data also shows that about 90.6% of Duodopa participants who completed the temporary tube phase went on to continue with the longer-term surgically placed tube. For some measures related to movement complications, both groups showed small decreases in scores across the 12-month period, with the specific numbers varying by time point and question asked. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00070941 · results posted 13 July 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00070941) enrolled 29 people across three groups: 12 received a supplement called SAM-e, 11 received a medication called escitalopram, and 6 received a placebo (an inactive treatment). The trial was measuring changes in depression symptoms using a standard questionnaire called the Hamilton Depression Scale, where higher scores indicate more severe depression symptoms and lower scores indicate fewer symptoms. Notably, the number of participants who completed the trial was very small — only 2, 3, and 2 people finished in each group respectively, meaning the large majority did not complete the study. The reported data shows that at the start of the trial, the average Hamilton Depression Scale scores were 17 for the SAM-e group, 17.5 for the escitalopram group, and 20.7 for the placebo group — all falling roughly in the moderate-to-severe range on the scale. By the end of the trial, the reported average scores had shifted to 11.4 for the SAM-e group, 5.3 for the escitalopram group, and 16.2 for the placebo group. The scale used in this trial runs from 0 to 29, with scores of 8–13 considered mild and 0–7 considered no depression. No additional outcome measures or statistical comparison data were reported in the submitted results. It is important to note that because so few participants completed this trial, the numbers above are based on very small groups and should be interpreted with considerable caution. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01520987 · results posted 20 June 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 105 healthy adult volunteers in total — 51 Caucasian participants and 54 Japanese participants. Each group was divided into smaller sub-groups that received one of three doses of a study drug called BIA 9-1067 (5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg), or a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was not testing whether the drug treated a disease; instead, it was measuring how the drug moves through the body — specifically, how much of it gets into the bloodstream and how quickly — and whether those patterns differ between Caucasian and Japanese participants. All but two participants (one from each ethnic background, both in the 5 mg and 25 mg groups respectively) completed the study. The reported data shows two key measurements taken after the first dose (Day 1) and again after the last dose on Day 10. The first measurement was the peak level of the drug detected in the blood (called Cmax, or maximum concentration). On Day 1, peak blood levels were reported as 182, 794, and 1,540 ng/mL for Caucasian participants on the 5 mg, 25 mg, and 50 mg doses respectively, and 176, 797, and 1,736 ng/mL for Japanese participants on the same doses. On Day 10, the reported peak levels were 226, 774, and 1,550 ng/mL for Caucasian participants, and 276, 959, and 1,785 ng/mL for Japanese participants. The second measurement tracked the overall exposure to the drug over time (called AUC — essentially the total amount of drug the body was exposed to). The reported data shows that overall exposure also increased with higher doses in both groups, with Day 1 total-exposure figures ranging from 267 to 3,727 ng·h/mL in Caucasian participants and 319 to 4,438 ng·h/mL in Japanese participants, and Day 10 figures ranging from 349 to 3,999 ng·h/mL and 441 to 4,464 ng·h/mL respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01227681 · results posted 4 April 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01227681) looked at a treatment called G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in people with Parkinson's disease. The trial originally planned to include three groups — a standard-dose G-CSF group, a low-dose G-CSF group, and a placebo (inactive treatment) group — but the reported data shows that only 4 participants were enrolled, and all 4 were in the standard-dose G-CSF group. No participants appear to have been enrolled in the low-dose or placebo groups. The main thing being measured was motor function — that is, how well participants could control their movements — using a standard Parkinson's disease rating tool called the UPDRS Part III. This scale runs from 0 to 108, where a higher number means greater difficulty with movement. The reported data shows two scores for the G-CSF group: a score of 23 and a score of 22. These appear to represent measurements taken at the start of the trial and again one year later, though the data as submitted does not separately label which figure is which time point. No outcome data was reported for the low-dose or placebo groups, as no participants were enrolled in those arms. It is worth noting that with only 4 participants recorded across the entire trial, the numbers reported here are very limited. The reported data does not include information on any secondary outcomes, and no conclusions about whether the treatment performed better or worse than a comparison group can be drawn from what was submitted. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01877538 · results posted 23 March 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 7 participants who all completed the study with no dropouts. The trial used a special type of brain and body scan called a PET scan, involving a radioactive tracer form of donepezil (written as \[11C\]Donepezil). The study was measuring how this tracer spread through and was taken up by seven internal organs — including the salivary glands, heart, liver, stomach, intestines, and kidneys — at a starting (baseline) point. The reported data shows two sets of measurements were taken across those seven organs. The first set, called "Distribution Volume" (a measure of how much of the tracer spread into the tissue compared to the blood), showed values ranging from 18.0 mL up to 189.8 mL across the different organs. The second set, called "Standard Uptake Value" or SUV (a ratio comparing how much tracer concentrated in each organ relative to the dose given and the person's body weight), showed values ranging from 2.3 up to 19.1 across the seven organs. The reported data does not break down which specific number belongs to which organ, nor does it report any follow-up or comparison measurements beyond this baseline point. It is worth noting that the trial included a very small number of participants (7 people), and the data as submitted does not include any comparison group or treatment comparison — it appears to be a measurement study only. No outcome data beyond these baseline figures was reported in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT02419313 · results posted 14 March 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 33 people in total across two groups. It used a "crossover" design, meaning each person received both the active treatment — an injection called incobotulinumtoxin A (brand name Xeomin) — and a placebo (a saltwater injection with no active ingredient) at different points, so the two could be compared within the same individuals. The trial was measuring whether the injections reduced tremor in people with Parkinson's disease, using a standard tremor rating scale (scored 0–4, where 0 means no tremor and 4 means severe tremor), as well as asking participants to rate how much their condition had changed overall. The reported data shows that for the main (primary) outcome — the number of people whose tremor score improved by 2 or more points on the rating scale at 4 weeks — 8 out of the participants recorded that level of improvement after receiving incobotulinumtoxin A, compared with 0 out of the participants after receiving the placebo. For one of the secondary outcomes, participants were asked to rate their overall change on a 7-point scale; 10 participants scored 6 or higher (indicating they felt "better with a definite, worthwhile improvement") after receiving incobotulinumtoxin A, compared with 0 after placebo. A second secondary outcome again counted participants with a 2-point or greater improvement on the tremor scale at a later timepoint, with the reported result again being 8 for the active treatment group and 0 for the placebo group. The reported data does not include individual scores, averages, or information on side effects in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01119131 · results posted 7 March 2016

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01119131) enrolled 68 people with Parkinson's disease across three groups: 10 people in an open-label vitamin D group (meaning everyone knew they were receiving vitamin D), 28 people in a blinded vitamin D group, and 30 people in a placebo group. By the end of the 16-week study, 8, 27, and 24 people respectively completed the trial. The trial was measuring whether vitamin D supplementation had any effect on balance, strength, walking, thinking, and quality of life in people with Parkinson's disease. The reported data shows the following changes from the start of the trial to 16 weeks later. For standing balance under stable conditions (scored 0–100, higher is better), the open-label vitamin D group's average score went down by 3.25 points, while the blinded vitamin D group's average went up by 2.05 points, and the placebo group's average went up by 1.78 points. For balance under more challenging moving-surface conditions, the open-label group went down by 1.56 points, the blinded vitamin D group went up by 2.27 points, and the placebo group went down by 1.89 points. For the timed walking and turning test, the time taken to complete a turn changed by +0.32 seconds (open-label vitamin D), +0.09 seconds (blinded vitamin D), and −0.07 seconds (placebo) — where a longer time is considered a marker of more rigidity. For leg strength, the reported change in total work output was +83.07 foot-pounds (open-label vitamin D), +6.89 foot-pounds (blinded vitamin D), and +35.19 foot-pounds (placebo). For the thinking/executive function test, change scores were +8.00 seconds (open-label vitamin D), +12.13 seconds (blinded vitamin D), and −17.33 seconds (placebo), where a negative number indicates improvement. For quality of life (scored 0–100, lower is better), changes were −0.16 (open-label vitamin D), −0.02 (blinded vitamin D), and −0.14 (placebo), where a negative number indicates improvement. The reported data shows that all three groups experienced some degree of change across all measures over the 16 weeks, and the numbers varied between groups and between outcomes. No statistical comparison data (such as whether differences between groups were considered meaningful) was included in the results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further conclusions can be drawn from these figures alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01798927 · results posted 3 August 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01798927) involved fitting participants with an ankle foot orthosis — a brace worn on the lower leg and foot — and measuring how it related to changes in the way they walked. Four people began the study, three completed it, and one did not finish. The trial looked mainly at step length (how far each step covers), and also at muscle activity in the legs and how far participants could walk in six minutes. The reported data shows that, on average, step length increased by 6.7 centimetres from the first to the final measurement. For the secondary outcome, which tracked muscle activity using surface sensors placed on key leg muscles (the quads, the front shin muscle, and the calf), the reported data shows that zero out of the participants showed a measurable change in that muscle activity. For the additional walking test — where participants walked at their own comfortable pace for six minutes — the reported data shows an average change of 0.2 metres (roughly 20 centimetres) in distance covered between the first and final test. It is worth noting that only three people completed this study, which is a very small number, and the results as reported should be understood in that context. No conclusions about broader groups of people can be drawn from such a small study based on these numbers alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01052831 · results posted 22 June 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 people with Parkinson's disease who also had what are called impulse control disorders — difficulties controlling urges around behaviours such as gambling, eating, shopping, or sexual activity. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either naltrexone (26 people) or a placebo, meaning a dummy pill with no active ingredient (24 people). The trial measured how much participants improved overall, as rated by a clinician, and also tracked the severity of their impulse-related symptoms using a specific questionnaire. The reported data shows that, for the main measure — the proportion of people rated by a clinician as "much improved" or "very much improved" — around 54% of those in the naltrexone group met this threshold, compared with around 33% in the placebo group. For the secondary measure, a symptom-severity questionnaire called the QUIP-RS (where a higher score means more severe symptoms and a reduction in score suggests fewer symptoms), the reported data shows the naltrexone group had an average reduction of about 14.9 points from their starting score, while the placebo group had an average reduction of about 7.6 points. Both groups showed some reduction, but the numbers differed between the two groups. It is worth noting that 4 people in the naltrexone group and 1 person in the placebo group did not complete the study; the reasons for this were not detailed in the structured data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00998660 · results posted 6 March 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 100 people who were receiving a specific rechargeable deep brain stimulation device called the Activa RC. Of those, 93 were successfully implanted with the device, and 87 completed the full three-month follow-up period. The trial was primarily measuring how often a particular problem occurred — specifically, how frequently the device's battery ran flat in a way that was related to how the user was handling it, and that then required a health professional or their support staff to step in and help. The reported data shows that over the three months after the device was switched on, the measured rate of these user-related battery depletion events — where the battery ran down due to user behaviour and needed a health professional's involvement — was recorded as zero events per 100 subject-months. A "subject-month" is simply a way of counting up the total amount of time all participants were monitored (for example, 10 people followed for one month each equals 10 subject-months). In plain terms, the reported data shows that no events of this specific type were recorded during the follow-up period covered by this trial. No other outcome measures were included in the results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00335153 · results posted 16 January 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 354 people with Parkinson's disease who were given a gel form of a medication called Levodopa-Carbidopa, delivered directly into the small intestine through a tube. The trial ran in two stages: first, a short test phase using a tube passed through the nose (called the NJ test period), and then a longer-term phase where a more permanent tube was surgically inserted through the abdomen (called the PEG-J period). The trial was primarily measuring the number of participants who experienced unwanted medical events, problems with the delivery device, and any notable changes in blood tests or vital signs such as blood pressure. The reported data shows that during the overall study, 323 out of 354 participants experienced at least one unwanted medical event (known as an adverse event), and 111 participants experienced a serious adverse event — meaning one that was considered potentially life-threatening, required hospitalisation, or caused significant disability. There were 27 reported deaths during the study period. Regarding device-related complications, during the initial nose-tube test phase, 90 participants reported some form of device problem. During the longer surgical tube phase, 282 participants reported at least one device-related complication. The reported data also shows various numbers of participants had notable changes in blood test results and vital signs across different categories, though most individual counts were relatively small. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01568034 · results posted 12 January 2015

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01568034) enrolled 10 people in total, divided into four treatment sequence groups (2, 2, 3, and 3 participants respectively). Nine of the 10 participants completed the study — one person in the first group did not finish. The trial was a crossover study, meaning each participant took more than one treatment over time: three different doses of an investigational medicine called BIA 9-1067 (25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg) as well as a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The study was measuring how the medicine and certain other substances moved through the bloodstream after dosing — specifically, how high the concentration reached in the blood and how quickly that peak was reached. The reported data shows the primary outcomes were the peak level of substances in the blood (called Cmax, measured in nanograms per millilitre, or ng/mL) and the time it took to reach that peak (Tmax, measured in hours), both recorded on Day 3. For one of the substances being tracked in the blood, the reported peak concentrations on Day 3 were approximately 2,103 ng/mL for the placebo group, 2,112 ng/mL for the 25 mg dose group, 2,366 ng/mL for the 50 mg dose group, and 2,657 ng/mL for the 100 mg dose group. For a second substance tracked, the reported peak concentrations were roughly 3,996, 4,193, 4,284, and 4,085 ng/mL across the placebo, 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg groups respectively. For a third substance, no data was reported for the placebo group, while the 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg groups recorded peaks of 320, 590, and 816 ng/mL. The reported median time to reach peak levels ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 hours depending on the substance and dose group. The reported data also shows a secondary outcome — the total amount of each substance in the blood over the first six hours after dosing (a measure of overall exposure). These figures followed a broadly similar pattern across groups, with the values not reported for the placebo group for the third substance measured. Given the very small number of participants, the figures represent only this particular group of 10 individuals as reported to the registry. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01556165 · results posted 23 December 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 130 people with Parkinson's disease — 65 in a placebo group and 65 in a group receiving a medicine called rasagiline. The trial ran for 26 weeks and was mainly measuring changes in a scoring system called the UPDRS (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale). This scale covers thinking and mood, daily living activities, and movement, with a combined total score ranging from 0 (no disability) to 176 (complete dependence). A lower score, or a bigger drop in score over time, indicates fewer difficulties on the scale. By the end of the study, 53 people in the placebo group and 58 in the rasagiline group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, on average, the total UPDRS score changed by −0.18 points in the placebo group and −3.18 points in the rasagiline group from the start of the trial to week 26 (a negative number means the score went down). For the individual sections of the scale, the reported data shows the following average changes: for the thinking and mood section (Part I), the placebo group changed by +0.08 points and the rasagiline group by −0.54 points; for daily living activities (Part II), placebo changed by +0.25 points and rasagiline by −0.43 points; and for movement (Part III), placebo changed by −0.52 points and rasagiline by −2.23 points. Two additional outcomes — relating to whether and when participants started taking another Parkinson's medication called levodopa — were not analysed, because only one participant (in the placebo group) ended up needing it during the trial period, which fell below the threshold set out in the trial's pre-planned rules. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01744496 · results posted 2 December 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medication called rotigotine (delivered as a patch) compared to a placebo (an inactive patch) in people with Parkinson's disease who were experiencing pain. A total of 68 people started the trial — 33 in the placebo group and 35 in the rotigotine group. The main thing the trial was measuring was whether participants' average daily pain score changed over the course of the study, using an 11-point scale where 0 meant no pain and 10 meant the worst pain imaginable. The reported data shows that, on average, pain scores fell by 2.2 points in the placebo group and 2.8 points in the rotigotine group from the start of the trial to the end — with lower scores meaning less pain reported. For a secondary measure looking at how many people had a meaningful drop in pain (a reduction of 2 or more points on that same scale), the reported data shows 46.7% of the placebo group and 60% of the rotigotine group reached that threshold. The trial also measured quality of life using a Parkinson's-specific questionnaire (scored 0–100, lower meaning better), where scores changed by −3.77 in the placebo group and −12.40 in the rotigotine group. For depression and anxiety (each scored 0–21, lower meaning better), reported changes were small and broadly similar between groups. A combined score of everyday functioning and movement ability (lower meaning better) changed by −5.1 in the placebo group and −8.3 in the rotigotine group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01536015 · results posted 1 August 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01536015) enrolled 25 people with Parkinson's disease — 12 in the placebo group and 13 in the rotigotine (a patch-based medication) group. The trial was measuring how rotigotine compared to a dummy treatment (placebo) over a seven-week period. Researchers were particularly interested in changes to "off" time — the periods during the day when a person's Parkinson's symptoms are less controlled — as well as changes in motor (movement) symptoms, gut function, fatigue, and overall quality of life. Of the 25 who started, only 7 completed the trial (4 on placebo, 3 on rotigotine), meaning a large number of participants — 8 in the placebo group and 10 in the rotigotine group — did not finish. The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for any of the outcome measures — including the primary measure of daily "off" time, or any of the secondary measures covering movement scores, gut symptoms, fatigue, or quality of life questionnaires. In other words, while the trial did run and record how many people participated and how many completed it, the actual measurement figures were not reported in the structured results data available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Because no outcome numbers were provided, it is not possible to describe what the trial found about any of the measures it set out to look at. The very low completion rate — fewer than a third of participants finished the trial — and the absence of reported results figures are worth noting, but what that means in a broader context is not something this summary can address. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00633880 · results posted 20 May 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 181 people who first went through an open-label phase where everyone received the study drug, droxidopa, to find a suitable dose. Of those 181, 101 moved on to the second phase, where they were randomly assigned — without knowing which they received — to either continue droxidopa (50 people) or switch to a placebo, meaning a dummy treatment with no active ingredient (51 people). The trial was measuring symptoms of orthostatic hypotension, a condition where blood pressure drops when a person stands up, causing dizziness and other problems. Because participants had already been on the active drug, this "withdrawal" design was intended to see what happened to symptoms when some people stopped receiving it. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was self-rated dizziness, lightheadedness, or feeling faint, scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst possible). A positive number means symptoms got worse compared to where they were at the start of the randomised phase. The droxidopa group reported a change of +1.3 points, while the placebo group reported a change of +1.9 points. For the secondary measures — fatigue, weakness, vision problems, and trouble concentrating — the reported changes were also generally small positive numbers in both groups, with the placebo group tending to show slightly larger increases. For example, fatigue changed by +0.7 in the droxidopa group versus +1.5 in the placebo group, and weakness changed by +0.3 versus +1.2. A combined overall symptom and daily activity score showed a change of +0.11 for droxidopa and +1.22 for placebo. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01176240 · results posted 20 May 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial was run in two back-to-back parts, called Study 306A and Study 306B. In 306A, 24 people were assigned to droxidopa and 27 to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). In 306B, 89 people were assigned to droxidopa and 85 to placebo. Both parts looked at symptoms of orthostatic hypotension — a condition where blood pressure drops when a person stands up, causing dizziness, lightheadedness, weakness, and difficulty with everyday activities. The trial used questionnaires where participants rated their symptoms on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher numbers meaning more severe symptoms. The reported data shows the following for Study 306A: the overall symptom questionnaire score (called the OHQ, which combines ratings of symptoms and daily activity difficulties) fell by 2.2 points in the droxidopa group and by 2.1 points in the placebo group — both measured from their starting scores, where a lower number means fewer reported symptoms. A separate, after-the-fact count of falls over the 8-week treatment period recorded 79 falls in the droxidopa group and 192 falls in the placebo group, though the trial's sponsors note this was not one of the pre-planned main measurements. For Study 306B, the main thing measured was one specific symptom — dizziness, lightheadedness, or feeling faint — rated on the same 0–10 scale. The reported data shows that score dropped by 2.3 points in the droxidopa group and 1.3 points in the placebo group after one week. At two weeks the drops were 1.9 (droxidopa) and 1.6 (placebo), and at four weeks they were 2.0 (droxidopa) and 1.5 (placebo). The trial also measured standing blood pressure: after one week, the droxidopa group's lowest recorded standing blood pressure rose by an average of 6.4 mmHg, compared with 0.7 mmHg in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01174004 · results posted 26 March 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 199 people in total — 94 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) and 105 received pimavanserin at a dose of 40 mg. The trial was designed to measure two things in people with Parkinson's disease: first, whether pimavanserin reduced the severity or frequency of hallucinations and delusions (seeing or believing things that aren't there); and second, whether it affected movement and day-to-day physical functioning. Most participants finished the study — 87 in the placebo group and 89 in the pimavanserin group. The reported data shows that both groups showed a reduction in hallucination and delusion scores by Day 43, using a rating scale called the SAPS-PD (where a lower score means fewer or less severe symptoms, and the scale runs from 0 to 45). The placebo group's score went down by an average of 2.73 points, while the pimavanserin group's score went down by an average of 5.79 points — a reported difference of 3.06 points between the two groups. For the secondary outcome measuring movement and daily physical activities (using a scale called the UPDRS, running from 0 to 160), the placebo group's score went down by an average of 1.69 points and the pimavanserin group's score went down by an average of 1.40 points — a reported difference of 0.29 points between the two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT01168596 · results posted 10 January 2014

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 30 people with Parkinson's disease — 16 in the rasagiline group and 14 in the sugar pill (placebo) group. Of those, 13 from each group completed the study. The trial was looking at fatigue in people with Parkinson's disease, using several questionnaires and a simple physical test to measure how fatigue affected participants' daily lives, thinking, and movement. The reported data shows the following scores at the end of the study. On the main measure — the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, where higher scores mean more fatigue on a scale of 0 to 105 — the rasagiline group scored 12.92 and the sugar pill group scored 12.69. For a secondary fatigue questionnaire (Fatigue Severity Scale, scale 9–63), the rasagiline group scored 12.38 and the sugar pill group scored 2.25. On another fatigue measure (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, scale 1–100), the rasagiline group scored 2.62 compared to 6.83 for the sugar pill group. A Parkinson's-specific quality of life questionnaire (PDQ-39, scale 0–195) showed scores of 7.54 for rasagiline and 5.67 for the sugar pill group. The reported data also shows results from two additional tests. A thinking and attention test (PASAT) produced scores of −11.31 for the rasagiline group and −10.31 for the sugar pill group — negative numbers here reflect changes in performance over time, though the context for interpreting these figures was not fully detailed in the submitted data. A finger-tapping test recorded 0.46 taps per 60 seconds for the rasagiline group and −0.23 for the sugar pill group, representing changes from baseline. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01268891 · results posted 3 December 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01268891) enrolled 132 people with Parkinson's disease — 66 in a placebo group and 66 in a group receiving Azilect® (rasagiline). Of those, 58 people in each group completed the study, with 8 in each group not finishing. The trial was primarily measuring changes in daily "OFF time" — the periods during the day when a person's Parkinson's symptoms are less controlled — using a self-completed diary. Participants recorded how they felt across 30-minute blocks throughout the day. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome, the placebo group's average daily OFF time fell by 1.24 hours from their starting point, while the Azilect® group's average daily OFF time fell by 1.59 hours. For the secondary outcomes, an overall impression of clinical condition (rated on a 7-point scale where 1 means "very much improved" and 7 means "very much worse") was reported as 3.35 for the placebo group and 3.05 for the Azilect® group. On a scale measuring ability to carry out daily activities during OFF periods (where a higher number means more difficulty), the placebo group's score increased slightly by 0.13 points from baseline, while the Azilect® group's score decreased by 0.57 points. On a scale measuring motor (movement) function during ON periods (when symptoms are better controlled), the placebo group's score decreased by 1.52 points and the Azilect® group's score decreased by 2.87 points — in both cases, a lower score indicates less difficulty. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00986245 · results posted 9 September 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 82 people with Parkinson's disease (41 in each group). It tested two different dosing schedules for a medication called ropinirole PR — taking it once a day versus twice a day. The trial used a "crossover" design, meaning each participant tried both schedules one after the other, so that at the end they could say which they preferred. A total of 61 participants completed both parts of the trial. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was which dosing schedule participants preferred. Of the 61 people who completed both periods and reported a preference, 31 said they preferred the twice-daily schedule, 17 said they preferred the once-daily schedule, and 13 reported no preference. The trial also measured motor symptoms using a standard Parkinson's rating scale (where higher scores mean more severe movement difficulties, out of a possible 108). The reported average score was 17.5 for the once-daily schedule and 17.1 for the twice-daily schedule. A separate measure of overall disease severity also scored the same average of 2.1 out of 5 for both schedules. The reported data also shows results from sleep-related questions, each scored on a scale of 0 to 10 where higher numbers indicate worse symptoms. For overall sleep quality, the average score was 2.9 (once-daily) and 3.2 (twice-daily). For nighttime "off" symptoms — periods when the medication feels less active — scores were 2.9 and 3.1 respectively. For early morning "off" symptoms, scores were 2.5 (once-daily) and 2.9 (twice-daily). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00857532 · results posted 11 March 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 31 people with Parkinson's disease, and all 31 completed the study. The trial was measuring the amount of a protein called amyloid — which can build up in the brain — using a special brain scan with a tracer called florbetapir. Researchers also looked at whether the amount of amyloid detected by the scan was related to thinking and memory test scores, as well as to certain markers found in spinal fluid. The 31 participants were divided into three groups based on their thinking and memory test results: those with normal thinking, those with mild thinking difficulties, and those with moderate to severe thinking difficulties. The reported data shows that amyloid levels in the brain, measured as a ratio called SUVR (where a score above 1 means more amyloid detected in the brain compared to a reference region), were different across the three groups. The group with normal thinking had a reported score of 0.990, the group with mild difficulties scored 1.051, and the group with moderate to severe difficulties scored 1.146. The reported data also shows a correlation (that is, a statistical relationship) between the brain scan scores and overall thinking test results of −0.413, meaning that as the scan detected more amyloid, thinking test scores tended to be lower. Correlations for the five thinking test sub-sections ranged from −0.332 to −0.169. For the spinal fluid markers, the reported correlations with the scan scores were −0.4387, −0.1248, and −0.0525 for the three markers measured. The clinical meaning of these correlation figures was not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT01191944 · results posted 24 January 2013

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 234 people in the pramipexole extended-release (ER) group and 239 in the pramipexole immediate-release (IR) group — 473 participants in total. Both forms of pramipexole are medications used in Parkinson's disease. The trial was comparing the two forms against each other over 18 weeks, with the main thing being measured being a standard Parkinson's rating scale (called UPDRS Parts II+III) that combines scores for everyday activities and movement — a lower score means fewer difficulties, with the full scale running from 0 (no problems) to 160 (worst possible). The reported data shows that, on average, scores on this main rating scale fell (improved) by about 13.8 points in the ER group and 13.0 points in the IR group over the 18 weeks. For secondary measures, the reported data shows that the percentage of waking hours participants spent in an "off" period — meaning a time when Parkinson's symptoms felt worse and movement was more difficult — fell by roughly 7.0 percentage points in the ER group and 7.4 percentage points in the IR group. The actual time spent in these "off" periods also fell by around 1.0 hour per day in the ER group and 1.1 hours per day in the IR group. When looking at "on" time — periods when participants felt relatively free of symptoms — the reported data shows the percentage of waking hours spent "on" without involuntary movements (dyskinesia) increased by about 7.0 percentage points in the ER group and 4.3 percentage points in the IR group. The percentage of "on" time with mild, non-troublesome involuntary movements changed by −0.2 percentage points in the ER group and +3.3 percentage points in the IR group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00955032 · results posted 20 February 2012

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 24 people in total — 16 received a brain stimulation treatment called rTMS (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, where magnetic pulses are directed at the brain) and 8 received a "sham" treatment (a dummy version designed to look and feel like the real thing, used as a comparison). All 24 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring changes in apathy (a feeling of low motivation or interest) and depression symptoms, using four different questionnaires filled out before and after treatment. The reported data shows the following score changes on the main measure, the Apathy Evaluation Scale (where higher scores mean more apathy symptoms, and 14 or above suggests clinically significant apathy): the rTMS group started with an average score of 19.6 and finished at 17.9, while the sham group started at 18.8 and finished at 16.8. On a second apathy questionnaire (the Lille Apathy Rating Scale, where more positive numbers indicate more apathy), the rTMS group went from −15.6 to −20.1, and the sham group went from −18.9 to −22.1. For depression symptoms, one questionnaire (Beck Depression Inventory) showed both groups moving from around 17–18 before treatment down to 11.8 after treatment. A second depression questionnaire (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) showed the rTMS group going from 12.5 to 7.9, and the sham group from 11.9 to 8.5. The reported data shows score changes in both groups across all four questionnaires, though no further statistical analysis details (such as whether any differences between groups were considered meaningful by researchers) were included in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00912808 · results posted 15 August 2011

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 23 people in total, split into two groups. It used a "crossover" design, meaning everyone tried both treatments — a drug called donepezil and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) — in different orders, with a three-week break in between. The trial was measuring how often participants fell, and how often they had "near falls" (moments where they almost fell but caught themselves, such as grabbing a handrail or table). Participants kept track of these events themselves by filling in daily postcards sent back to the researchers each week. By the end of the trial, 17 people had completed both treatment periods. The reported data shows that during the donepezil period, participants reported an average of 0.13 falls per day, compared with 0.25 falls per day during the placebo period. For near falls, the reported data shows an average of 2.50 near falls per day during the donepezil period, compared with 2.04 near falls per day during the placebo period. These are the raw numbers as submitted; the trial report does not appear to include additional statistical details in the data provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00862537 · results posted 8 July 2011

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00862537) involved 18 people who all received something called "Active Resonator Device Therapy." The trial was looking at how this device might relate to quality of life in people with Parkinson's disease, measured over about 11 months. Of the 18 people who started, 11 completed the trial and 7 did not finish. The main thing being measured was a questionnaire called the PDQ-39, which asks 39 questions across areas like movement, daily activities, emotional wellbeing, social support, and communication. Each person gets a score between 0 and 100, where 0 means the condition has no impact on daily life and 100 means it has a severe impact. The reported data shows that the average change in this score from the start of the trial to the 11-month mark was 4.96 points. The data does not specify in which direction this change occurred (that is, whether scores went up or down on average), so that detail was not available in the reported results. It is worth noting that this was a small trial with only one group — meaning there was no separate comparison group of people who did not receive the device — which limits what can be drawn from the numbers alone. The reported results reflect only what was measured in this particular group of 18 participants. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00753636 · results posted 1 July 2011

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 31 people with Parkinson's disease (PD) who were given the drug isradipine — a medicine that can be prescribed at different dose levels (5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, or 20 mg daily). The main thing the trial was measuring was how many participants were able to stay on the drug and complete the study, which researchers used as a measure of tolerability (meaning how well the drug was physically manageable for participants). Secondary measurements looked at how many people reached the highest dose of 20 mg, how many tolerated each dose level, and whether there were any changes in a standard Parkinson's motor symptom score called the UPDRS Part III (a scale from 0 to 108, where higher numbers mean greater difficulty with movement). The reported data shows that 25 out of the 31 participants completed the study, while 6 did not finish. Of the 25 who completed, 16 were reported to have reached and tolerated the highest dose of 20 mg daily; 5 reached 15 mg as their maximum tolerated dose; 6 reached 10 mg; and 4 reached 5 mg. The reported data also shows a breakdown by whether participants were already taking blood pressure medication at the start: among those who were, 2 tolerated 20 mg, 3 tolerated 15 mg, 1 tolerated 10 mg, and 0 tolerated 5 mg; among those who were not on blood pressure medication, 14 tolerated 20 mg, 2 tolerated 15 mg, 5 tolerated 10 mg, and 4 tolerated 5 mg. For the motor symptom score (UPDRS Part III), the reported data shows an average score of 7.61 at the start of the study (week 0) and 7.08 at the final visit (week 12); however, no further statistical detail about this comparison was reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00321854 · results posted 26 January 2010

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00321854) looked at a medication called pramipexole in people with Parkinson's disease. A total of 535 people took part — 261 in the "Early Pramipexole" group (who started the medication straight away) and 274 in the "Delayed Pramipexole" group (who started it later). Of those, 198 and 192 people respectively completed the study. The trial used a standard Parkinson's disease rating tool called the UPDRS (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale), which scores symptoms from 0 (no disability) to 176 (worst disability). The main thing being measured was how much each person's score changed from the beginning of the trial to month 15. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome measure — change in UPDRS total score at 15 months as assessed by an independent (blinded) rater — the Early Pramipexole group's score changed by +0.3 points on average, while the Delayed Pramipexole group's score changed by +0.7 points. Both figures represent very small movements on a 176-point scale. For the secondary outcomes, at earlier time points (months 3, 6, and 9), the investigator-rated scores showed larger differences between the two groups mid-study — for example, at month 6 the Early group's score had shifted by −1.8 points (a slight improvement from baseline) while the Delayed group's had shifted by +2.6 points — but by month 15 those differences had largely narrowed, with scores of +0.6 and +0.5 respectively. The reported data also shows a similar pattern for the combined activities-of-daily-living and motor-skills portion of the scale (UPDRS Parts II+III) at month 15, where the Early group changed by +0.6 points and the Delayed group by +0.7 points. It is worth noting that these are average changes across all participants in each group, and individual results would have varied. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
NCT00505687 · results posted 12 January 2010

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 186 people, all of whom received a treatment called rotigotine as part of an open-label extension study (meaning everyone knew they were receiving the treatment, and this was a continuation following an earlier study). Of the 186 who started, 91 completed the study and 95 did not finish. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced any adverse event — that is, any unwanted medical occurrence that happened while they were taking the study treatment, regardless of whether it was thought to be related to it. The reported data shows that out of 186 participants, 170 experienced at least one adverse event during the study. In terms of secondary outcomes — additional things the trial was tracking — 48 participants withdrew from the trial specifically because of an adverse event. The trial also tracked daytime sleepiness using a standard questionnaire called the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, where scores range from 0 to 24 and a higher number indicates greater daytime sleepiness. The reported data shows mean (average) scores across different time points during the extension of 9.3, 10.0, 10.3, and 10.1. The specific time points these scores correspond to were not clearly detailed in the data as reported. It is worth noting that because this was a single-group study with no comparison group, the reported numbers describe what was observed in rotigotine-treated participants only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
NCT00501969 · results posted 12 January 2010

According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 395 people, all of whom received a treatment called rotigotine as part of an open-label extension study — meaning everyone knew they were receiving the treatment. Of the 395 who started, 189 completed the study and 206 did not finish. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants experienced any unwanted medical event (called an "adverse event") while taking rotigotine. It also tracked how many people left the study because of such events, and measured daytime sleepiness using a standard questionnaire called the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (a self-rated tool where scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores meaning greater daytime sleepiness). The reported data shows that out of 395 participants, 357 experienced at least one adverse event at some point during the study. It is important to note that adverse events in clinical trials are recorded as any unwanted medical occurrence, and do not necessarily mean the event was caused by the treatment. The reported data also shows that 76 participants withdrew from the trial due to an adverse event. Regarding the daytime sleepiness questionnaire, the reported data shows average scores at different points during the study of 7.4, 7.8, 8.0, and 8.3 — though the specific time points these scores correspond to were not clearly detailed in the submitted data. No comparison group (such as a placebo group) was included in this extension study, so these numbers reflect only the rotigotine group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

See the full Parkinson's Disease page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.