Neurostimulation for Parkinson's disease with early motor complications. - AlzForum Alzheimer Research Paper of the Week


	Current Papers
	ARF Recommends
	Milestone Papers
	Search All Papers
	Search Comments


	Research News
	Drug News
	Conference News


	AD Hypotheses
		AlzSWAN
		Current Hypotheses
		Hypothesis Factory
	Forums
		Live Discussions
		Virtual Conferences
		Interviews
	Enabling Technologies
		Workshops
		Research Tools
	Compendia
		AlzGene
		AlzRisk
		Antibodies
		Biomarkers
		Mutations
		Protocols
		Research Models
		Video Gallery
	Resources
		Bulletin Boards
		Conference Calendar
		Grants
		Jobs


	Overview
	Diagnosis/Genetics
	Research
	News
	Profiles
	Clinics


	Companies
	Tutorial
	Drugs in Clinical Trials


	About Alzheimer's
		FAQs
	Diagnosis
		Clinical Guidelines
		Tests
		Brain Banks
	Treatment
		Drugs and Therapies
	Caregiving
		Patient Care
		Support Directory
		AD Experiences


	Member Directory
	Researcher Profiles
	Institutes and Labs


	Mission
	ARF Team
	ARF Awards
	Advisory Board
	Sponsors
	Partnerships
	Fan Mail
	Support Us

Home: Papers of the Week

Annotation

	Schuepbach WM, Rau J, Knudsen K, Volkmann J, Krack P, Timmermann L, Hälbig TD, Hesekamp H, Navarro SM, Meier N, Falk D, Mehdorn M, Paschen S, Maarouf M, Barbe MT, Fink GR, Kupsch A, Gruber D, Schneider GH, Seigneuret E, Kistner A, Chaynes P, Ory-Magne F, Brefel Courbon C, Vesper J, Schnitzler A, Wojtecki L, Houeto JL, Bataille B, Maltête D, Damier P, Raoul S, Sixel-Doering F, Hellwig D, Gharabaghi A, Krüger R, Pinsker MO, Amtage F, Régis JM, Witjas T, Thobois S, Mertens P, Kloss M, Hartmann A, Oertel WH, Post B, Speelman H, Agid Y, Schade-Brittinger C, Deuschl G, EARLYSTIM Study Group. Neurostimulation for Parkinson's disease with early motor complications. N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 14;368(7):610-22. PubMed Abstract

	Comments on Paper and Primary News

	Primary News: Brain Electrodes Help Early PD, But Still Risky and Costly Comment by: Ole Isacson, ARF Advisor
	Submitted 15 February 2013 \| Permalink	Posted 15 February 2013
	I think the trial is too short (two years) to address the most important caveat: the loss of DBS efficacy over time. Hence, the trial is not well conceived, in my opinion. Another issue is that the actual rationale for DBS use—as the authors themselves state in the introduction—is to deal with serious dyskinetic side effects that develop with extended use of pharmacological therapies. Given that DBS is not a restorative treatment—such as replacing or restoring the original neurons—this effort may drive up the use of this technology to new patient groups who are less likely to benefit from this treatment over a decade than they might from pharmacological or other therapies. And DBS brings significant risks for complications. The use of DBS, and the risks associated with the implantation and the non-physiological electrical stimulation on diverse neural brain circuitries are not known. View all comments by Ole Isacson

Submit a Comment on this Paper

Cast your vote and/or make a comment on this paper.

If you already are a member, please login.
Not sure if you are a member? Search our member database.

*First Name
*Last Name
Country or Territory:
*Login Email Address
*Password	Minimum of 8 characters
*Confirm Password
Stay signed in?

I recommend this paper

Comment:

(If coauthors exist for this comment, please enter their names and email addresses at the end of the comment.)

References:

*Enter the verification code you see in the picture below: