4.7 Article

Point source concentration of GDNF may explain failure of phase II clinical trial

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 202, Issue 2, Pages 497-505

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.07.015

Keywords

GDNF; putamen; nonhuman primates; clinical trial; drug delivery; tissue levels

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Significant differences have been reported in results from three clinical trials evaluating intraputamenal infusion of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. To determine if problems in drug bioavailability could have contributed to the discrepancies between studies, we have analyzed the distribution of intraputamenally infused GDNF in the rhesus monkey brain using the delivery system and infusion protocol followed in a phase 2 clinical trial that failed to achieve its primary endpoint. I-125-GDNF was unilaterally infused into the putamen of three adult rhesus monkeys for 7 days. Three age- and sex-matched animals received vehicle infusions following identical procedures. GDNF levels in the brain, peripheral organs, blood and CSF were quantified and mapped by GDNF immunocytochemistry, GDNF ELISAs and I-125 measurements. Infused GDNF was found to be unevenly concentrated around the catheter, with tissue levels dropping exponentially with increasing distance from the point source of the single opening in the catheter tip. The volume of distribution of GDNF around the catheter, as determined by immunocytochemistry, varied over four-fold between animals ranging from 87 to 369 min(3). The concentration of GDNF around the catheter tip and limited diffusion into surrounding brain parenchyma support the hypothesis that drug bioavailability was limited to a small portion (2-9%) of the human putamen in the clinical trial using this catheter and infusion protocol. (C) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available