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.
Comments
Harvard Medical School
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 IsacsonMake a Comment
To make a comment you must login or register.