Parkinson's Disease (PD)
Conditions
Keywords
deep brain stimulation, adaptive therapy, closed-loop therapy, local field potentials, subhtalamic nucleus, parkinson's disease
Brief summary
This multi-center pilot study compares conventional DBS (cDBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) in Parkinson's disease patients using the Medtronic Percept™ system. The aim of the study is to identify which patients benefit most from aDBS, and to explore patient and LFP signal characteristics as well as stimulation parameters as potential predictors of treatment preference and efficacy. The study utilizes a blinded, randomized N-of-1 trial design, where each patient tests the following: * Optimized cDBS settings (O-cDBS); * Optimized aDBS settings (O-aDBS) Each setting is evaluated for a minimum of 2 and maximum of 7 days at home in a randomized order (patient blinded). The main study outcome consists of the patient's final preference among the two DBS programs: O-cDBS, or O-aDBS. Secondary outcomes focus on differences between O-cDBS and O-aDBS regarding the following parameters (among others): * Quality of life (PDQ-39); * Patient satisfaction (5-point Likert Scale); * (Non)-motor fluctuations (MDS-UPDRS-III + MDS-NMS-Q); * Time spent in "ON"/"OFF" motor phases (symptom diary + MDS-UPDRS IV); * Time spent experiencing dyskinesia (symptom diary + MDS-UPDRS IV); * Time spent with the most bothersome symptom (symptom diary + MDSUPDRS IV); * Stimulation parameters; * Local field potentials. The study also incorporates real-world home-based assessments using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to capture motor and non-motor symptom fluctuations in daily life and identify differences among the three settings.
Detailed description
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is an established treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), particularly for those experiencing motor fluctuations that do not respond adequately to medication. Optimal clinical outcomes depend on precise programming of stimulation parameters to effectively reduce motor symptoms, while avoiding side effects by minimizing stimulation of adjacent brain structures. During surgery, an electrode with eight contact points (1-3-3-1 design) is permanently implanted. At the Haga Teaching Hospital, Maastricht UMC+, and Amsterdam UMC, the Medtronic Percept™ PC/RC system is commonly used for PD patients. This system provides not only stimulation but also the ability to record brain signals in the form of local field potentials (LFPs). This recording functionality can offer valuable insights for clinicians to fine-tune DBS parameters. For instance, elevated beta activity (13-35 Hz) in LFPs has been shown to correlate with the severity of symptoms such as rigidity and bradykinesia in PD patients. In January 2025, a software update was introduced for the Percept™ system, enabling more advanced LFP measurements. This update allows the system to deliver adaptive DBS (aDBS), in which brain signals are used in real-time to continuously and automatically adjust stimulation amplitude. Although aDBS is a promising advancement, comprehensive research comparing its benefits and drawbacks to conventional DBS (cDBS) is still lacking. The only major study, ADAPT-PD, found that aDBS and cDBS result in similar durations of time spent in the "ON" phase, but it did not clarify which subgroup of patients benefits most from aDBS. Interestingly, many participants in the ADAPT-PD study expressed a desire to switch from cDBS to aDBS after the trial, though the factors influencing these preferences remain unclear. This highlights the need for detailed investigation into the relative advantages of aDBS and for whom the current form of aDBS provides the greatest benefit. This study targets PD patients who have undergone cDBS for at least six months but are not experiencing optimal results due to persistent motor symptoms or stimulation-induced side effects that are insufficiently addressed by standard cDBS. Within this pilot study, using a combined N-of-1 trial design, outcomes of the patient's optimized conventional DBS (O-cDBS) will be objectively compared with those of optimized adaptive DBS (O-aDBS). In an N-of-1 trial, an individual patient undergoes different test and placebo treatments in a randomized order. By conducting multiple N-of-1 trials across several patients, reliable and objective outcomes can be gathered both at the individual and population levels. In this study, each patient will test two stimulation programs (O-cDBS, and O-aDBS) in a blinded and randomized sequence, each for seven days. The final outcome will be the patient's preferred program, with the patient's personal choice taking priority. To better understand the impact of switching from cDBS to aDBS-and to include effects on patient quality of life-this study will analyze not only motor symptoms but also cognitive and behavioral effects in daily life. This will be assessed through structured questionnaires, including a symptom diary and questions via the Experience Sampling Method (ESM). ESM is a validated, CE-certified digital diary method where patients provide feedback on the patient's symptoms at semi-random times, helping to reduce recall bias. By objectively analyzing the pros and cons of switching from cDBS to aDBS in these specific patient groups, this study aims to support neurologists in the clinical use of this new technology. Furthermore, the findings may contribute to more effective use of the system and ultimately to improved DBS treatment and quality of life for patients with Parkinson's disease.
Interventions
Treatment for a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 7 days with a previously optimized version of the patient's original conventional DBS (O-cDBS) settings.
Treatment for a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 7 days with previously optimized adaptive DBS (O-aDBS) settings.
Sponsors
Study design
Masking description
Patients are not masked for the group they are in, but they are blinded for the order in which they receive treatment with three different deep brain stimulation settings.
Intervention model description
An N-of-1 trial design in which each patient tests optimized conventional DBS, and optimized adaptive DBS for seven days each, in a blinded and randomized sequence.
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Patients with Parkinson's disease with bilateral DBS in the STN * DBS surgery with implantation of the Percept™ PC/RC system performed at least 6 months ago * Symptoms such as dysarthria, freezing, or ON-OFF fluctuations that are insufficiently controlled * A usable LFP signal is present on at least one side
Exclusion criteria
* Patients for whom switching to aDBS, operating the remote control independently, or making regular visits to the DBS center is deemed clinically unsafe or unreliable by the treating physician - for example, due to active or unstable cognitive or psychiatric conditions. * High impedance, defective DBS electrodes, or insufficient LFP signal quality, or bilateral stimulation primarily on the most ventral or dorsal contact points, preventing proper functioning of aDBS. * Patients who have objected to the use of their electronic health record data for medical scientific research.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Patient preference of DBS settings | after the two week trial phase of the study | The patient's choice for one of the two program options (O-cDBS, or O-aDBS) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of life per DBS settings | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days) | The 39 item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) score for O-cDBS and O-aDBS (score between 0 (good quality) and 100 (bad quality)) |
| General Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings | Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days) | Custom general prompt daily (non-)motor fluctuations questionnaire via Experience Sampling Method (ESM), with a score ranging from 0 (good) to 270 (poor) |
| Patient satisfaction per DBS settings | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days) | 5-point Likert scale score for patient satisfaction with O-cDBS and O-aDBS (1=very dissatisfied; 2= dissatisfied; 3=neutral; 4=satisfied; 5=very satisfied) |
| Time spent in ON/OFF per DBS settings according to symptom diary | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days) | Percentage of time spent in OFF during time awake for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to symptom diary (0% (good) to 100% (poor)). |
| Time spent with dyskinesia per DBS setting according to symptom diary | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days) | Percentage of time awake spent with dyskinesia for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to symptom diary (0% (good), 100% (poor)). |
| Time spent with most bothersome symptom per DBS setting according to symptom diary | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days) | Percentage of time awake spent with most bothersome symptom for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to symptom diary. (0% (good), 100% (poor)) |
| Total score for motor fluctuations for cDBS optimization | Reported at baseline and after optimizing c-DBS | Motor score according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS-III) for cDBS and O-cDBS with the score ranging from 0 (good) to 132 (poor) |
| Levodopa equivalent daily dose per DBS setting | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days) | According to latest levodopa equivalent daily dose scheme, determined for O-cDBS and O-aDBS |
| Time spent in ON/OFF per DBS settings | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days) | Percentage of time spent in OFF during time awake for cDBS, O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part IV (MDS-UPDRS-IV) O-cDBS and O-aDBS (0% (good) to 100% (poor)). |
| Time spent with dyskinesia per DBS setting | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days) | Percentage of time awake spent with dyskinesia for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part IV (MDS-UPDRS-IV) (0% (good), 100% (poor)) |
| Time spent with most bothersome symptom per DBS setting | Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days) | Percentage of time awake spent with most bothersome symptom for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part IV (MDS-UPDRS-IV) in case of symptom being either "Motor fluctuations", "Dyskinesia", "OFF- dystonia", (0% (good), 100% (poor)). |
| Total score for non-motor fluctuations per DBS setting | Reported at baseline and after optimizing each intervention | Non-motor score according to Movement Disorder Society - Non-Motor Symptom Questionnaire (MDS-NMS-Q) for cDBS, O-cDBS and O-aDBS, with scores ranging from 0 (good) to 208 (poor)). |
| Morning Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings | Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days) | Custom morning prompt daily (non-)motor fluctuations questionnaire via Experience Sampling Method (ESM), with a score ranging from 0 (good) to 35 (poor) |
| Evening Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings | Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days) | Custom evening prompt daily (non-)motor fluctuations questionnaire via Experience Sampling Method (ESM), with a score ranging from 0 (good) to 76 (poor) |
Countries
Netherlands
Contacts
HagaZiekenhuis