MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411786112 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1687

Ambroxol as a Treatment for Parkinson Disease Dementia

2025· article· en· W4411786112 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina R. A. Silveira, Kristy Coleman, Kathy Borron, Rommel G. Tirona, C. Anthony Rupar, Guangyong Zou, Robert A. Hegele, Cheryl L. Wellington, Sophie Stukas, Elizabeth Finger, Robert Bartha, Sarah A. Morrow, Jennie Wells, Michael Borrie, Don J. Mahuran, Penny A. MacDonald, Mary E. Jenkins, Mandar Jog, George K. Dresser, Susan H. Fox, Richard Camicioli, Brian G. Feagan, Daniel A. Mendonça, Michael Mayich, Manas Sharma, Sachin Pandey, Stephen Pasternak

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt Joseph's Health CareParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineDementiaGlucocerebrosidasePlaceboClinical Global ImpressionAdverse effectInternal medicineAmbroxolClinical trialDiseaseAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Carrying a variation in the gene for β-glucocerebrosidase is a major risk factor for Parkinson disease dementia (PDD), and raising β-glucocerebrosidase levels lowers α-synuclein in cell and animals. Ambroxol is a chaperone for β-glucocerebrosidase, which increases the levels of β-glucocerebrosidase. Objective: To examine the safety and tolerability of ambroxol in PDD, test the efficacy of ambroxol in improving or slowing the progression of cognitive deficits, and acquire pharmacological data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a 52-week, phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2015 to June 2023. The study took place at a single center and was referral based. Included were patients with PDD who were older than 50 years, had Parkinson disease for at least 1 year before cognitive impairment, had mild to moderate dementia, were taking stable medications, and had a study partner. Interventions: Ambroxol low dose (525 mg per day), high dose (1050 mg per day), or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and tolerability outcomes were adverse events. Primary efficacy outcomes were the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale, version 13 (ADAS-Cog-13) and Clinician's Global Impression of Change (CGIC). Results: A total of 75 patients were screened, and 55 were randomized. Thirty-one individuals received ambroxol, with 8 patients (mean [SD] age, 78.8 [3.4] years, all male) in the low-dose group and 22 patients (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [7.6]; 19 male [86.4%]) in the high-dose group. One patient was excluded from the high-dose group due to a diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy. A total of 24 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [6.3] years; 19 male [79.2%]) were included in the placebo group. Participants receiving ambroxol (23 of 193 adverse events [12%]) showed more gastrointestinal adverse events than those receiving placebo (9 of 172 adverse events [5%]). Statistical analyses compared ambroxol high dose vs placebo. There was no evidence to suggest differences between groups on primary or secondary outcomes. Mean (SD) ambroxol high-dose concentrations were 7.48μM (3.17μM; 95% CI, 6.08-8.87μM) in plasma and 0.73μM (0.07μM; 95% CI, 0.64-0.81μM) in cerebrospinal fluid at the end of titration. Mean (SD) β-glucocerebrosidase levels were higher at week 26 (ambroxol, 12.45 [1.97] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 11.54-13.36 nmol/h/mg); placebo, 8.50 [1.96] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 7.65-9.34 nmol/h/mg; P = .05) in the ambroxol group compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial reveal that ambroxol was safe, well-tolerated, and demonstrated target engagement. However, the effect of ambroxol on cognition was not confirmed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02914366.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207