Category: Self-tracking

  • Managing medication in PD – both complex and simple?

    Managing medication in PD – both complex and simple?

    Medication management is probably the absolutely most important part of my Parkinson’s disease (PD) selfcare since without my pills, my body would not function. During the day I take meds approximately every three hours to be able to move around, take care of myself and be able to work. When I wake up in the morning, I have not taken any meds for at least 7 hours and my movements are REALLY slow and stiff.

    My approach to PD is that I try to take my meds at the same times every day. I know that other persons with Parkinson’s (PwP) have other approaches and no-one really knows which approach is best, since there has been no research conducted (or at least not published) comparing different approaches (which is actually one of my main reasons for writing this post).

    When I occasionally make changes to my medication regime, I note down dates of the change and what I changed (for example types of meds added/taken away, changes in timings for intakes, and/or changes in combinations of meds for each intake). For example, a few months ago I noticed that I tended to get slightly dyskinetic (a side effect of PD meds, see here) around lunch so I decided to push my second dose of meds 30 minutes and started taking it at 10:00 am instead of 9:30 am. This changed resolved my dyskinesia. These notes are for myself, none of my neurologists have ever asked about changes I have made between visits, they have only shown an interest in my current regimen at the time of the visit. I can completely understand this, they have enough work to do as it is and don’t need more tasks to complete. Of course there is plenty that could be learned from systematically recording individual medication regimes for a large number of persons with Parkinson’s (PwP) including following up the effects of that regimen on an individual level but I have long since accepted that that is probably not the best use of healthcare resources.

    In my role as an academic researcher, I have applied for funding many times over the past decade to address different aspects of how to optimise PD meds on an individual level. Unfortunately my funding applications have not really succeeded despite the fact that this area is extremely under-researched. I think there are several reasons for this apparent disinterest in the field of medication optimisation in PD and I will mention the three at the top of my mind:

    1. Complexity

    PD is SUPER COMPLEX! We have heard this so many times but what does it actually mean? The complexity of PD is multi-layered and there is so much we currently don’t know. We don’t know how and why the condition starts on an individual level, we are not sure about what processes makes the condition progress, and we don’t know why some medications work well for some but do not work as well for others.

    On the level of individual neurologists, I think that many of the clinicians who have made it their profession to help us actually think that medication intakes are already optimized based on available guidelines and their clinical experience. Those guidelines are however based on group-level data, and do not often translate well to individual patients. There is a huge gap between what is measured in research trials (which subsequently forms the basis of guidelines) and what PwP experience in their daily lives.

    One aspect that is often overlooked is that taking medication is not as simple as just swallowing a pill at the right time. It requires remembering (which, ironically, can be difficult when you have a neurodegenerative disease), carrying medication with you at all times, for some PwP also planning around meals, and adjusting for unpredictable factors such as stress, sleep quality, and physical activity. Even something as basic as getting water to take a pill can be a challenge in certain situations. The effort required to consistently take PD medication is far greater than many neurologists or researchers realize.

    Another factor adding to the complexity is that we living with PD are not really interested in taking the pills, we actually have zero interest in the actual pill taking itself. The reason we take them is to get the effect the pills (hopefully) have on reducing our symptoms. But what does healthcare use to evaluate this process? They use medication adherence, meaning if we take our pills in the way our neurologists have prescribed. As far as I know, there are no standardized adherence scales available that take into account the complexity of finding your individual best timings for intakes of meds to achieve the optimal effect.

    And since this complexity doesn’t directly influence the work of neurologists and researchers, it’s not strange that they don’t see the need for research into how to best optimize PD meds.

    2. Money

    The reality is that the use (and non-use) of pharmaceuticals is (almost) entirely driven by money. And currently there is no money to be gained on a corporate level from helping the approximately 10 million PwP in the world getting a better effect from the many pills we take.

    The pharmaceutical industry mostly hinges on developing new drugs, not on optimizing the use of existing ones. This means that the funding available for research favor the discovery of new molecules over the fine-tuning of treatment regimens for individual patients.

    3. Simplicity

    As a person who has spent more time thinking about this A LOT over the past 10 – 15 years, probably more than is healthy…, I have come to the conclusion that the main problem with the issue of medication optimization in PD actually is simplicity. More precisely, the illusion of simplicity. Medication adherence and effectiveness in PD are mostly treated as simple, binary issues: “Did you take your medication? Yes or no?” But in reality, it’s much more complex. Timing, food intake, stress levels, sleep quality, and countless other factors can influence how well our meds works.

    Yet, our healthcare system is not set up to systematically track and adjust for these variables. Instead, PwP are mostly left to figure it out themselves, with trial and error as our primary tool.This means that many PwP, myself included, spend years fine-tuning our medication regimens without structured support. Some of us get lucky and find a pattern that works well; others struggle for years with inconsistent results.

    In conclusion

    For this area to develop, we need a better understanding of how PwP actually take their medication in daily life and not just how they are prescribed to take it. We need more research that focuses on the real-world challenges of medication adherence, from remembering doses to managing side effects and adjusting for the unpredictability of daily life with PD. We need a more nuanced discussion of what is working, what isn’t, and why. Until then, PwP will continue doing what we have always done: adapting, experimenting, and trying to make the best of an imperfect system.

    It’s ironic that while Parkinson’s medication is one of the most researched aspects of the disease, the actual experience of taking it—the daily struggles, the trial and error, the constant balancing act—is still largely unstudied. The truth is, many PwP are experts in managing their own meds out of necessity, yet our knowledge remains anecdotal and undervalued in clinical settings. If we truly want to improve Parkinson’s care, we need to start acknowledging the experiential expertise of us who live with it every single day.

    And no, there is nothing simple about managing PD meds – it’s complex all the way!

  • Patient self-experimentation makes the headlines!

    Patient self-experimentation makes the headlines!

    What is self-experimentation?

    Sanctorio sitting in the balance that he made to calculate his net weight change over time after the intake and excretion of foodstuffs and fluids.

    Self-experimentation is a type of single-subject research where the researcher and the research subject are one and the same. This is a practice with ancient traditions and prominent examples exist throughout history. Some of the more well-known include: The Italian physician Sanctorius of Padua (1561-1636) who is considered the father of experimental physiology, largely as a result of him for thirty years using a ”weighing chair” to weigh himself, everything he ate and drank, as well as the urine and faeces he excreted. This led to him formulating new theories about our metabolism, some of which are still valid today. Another example is the German physician and researcher Werner Forssmann (1904-1979) who in 1929 performed the world’s first heart catheterisation, on himself. A more recent example is the Australian physician Barry Marshall who in 1984 infected himself with Helicobacter pylori, thereby proving that stomach ulcers are the result of a bacterial infection. Both Forssmann and Marshall were rewarded with Nobel prizes for their discoveries. 

    What happened the other day?

    And just the other day, self-experimentation made the headlines of Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The article is titled “This scientist treated her own cancer with viruses she grew in the lab” and is definitely worth reading. It is about the Croatian virologist Beata Halassy who, after getting her second recurrence of breast cancer, combined her virology training with self-experimentation and administered oncolytic virotherapy to herself. Her oncologists agreed to monitor her and they are also coauthors to the scientific article in the journal Vaccines describing the study. The study was rejected by more than a dozen journals before being published by Vaccines and Halassy says that the reason for the rejections was ethical concerns. There are certainly plenty of interesting ethical challenges here and I would like to focus on a specific section in the Nature article, where law and medicine researcher Jacob Sherkow comments:

    The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow. People with cancer can be particularly susceptible to trying unproven treatments. Yet, he notes, it’s also important to ensure that the knowledge that comes from self-experimentation isn’t lost. The paper emphasizes that self-medicating with cancer-fighting viruses “should not be the first approach” in the case of a cancer diagnosis.

    “I think it ultimately does fall within the line of being ethical, but it isn’t a slam-dunk case,” says Sherkow, adding that he would have liked to see a commentary fleshing out the ethics perspective, published alongside the case report.

    These are relevant and important points and I would like to share my thoughts on this. 

    What are my experiences of ethical issues relating to self-experimentation?

    I have some personal experience from self-experimentation myself, although of a much less invasive nature. In one study I used an observational design to better understand how the effects from my medications vary over the day. I take a lot of pills to reduce my Parkinson’s symptoms. The pills have to be taken several times every day and the medication effect waxes and wanes as the substances in the pills are being taken up and metabolised in my body. This study is published in a scientific journal: “Precision Medicine in Parkinson’s Disease – Exploring Patient-Initiated Self-Tracking”.

    I have also used self-experimentation in an interventional study to investigate the effects of nicotine administered via an e-cigarette on levodopa-induced dyskinesia (a troublesome side effect of Parkinson’s medication). This study is also published in a scientific journal: “Patient-driven N-of-1 in Parkinson’s disease: Lessons learned from a placebo-controlled study of the effect of nicotine on dyskinesia”

    In 2018, my application to defend my PhD thesis at Karolinska Institutet was rejected, see a small excerpt from the decision of the Dissertation Committee here:

    ”[…] The primary focus of this process has been the issue of ethical approval and the conclusion is that The Ethical Review Act does not make exceptions for research on persons who themselves are scientifically involved in the study. […]”

    The full post is available here

    Subsequently, I went on to successfully defend my PhD thesis at Radboud University in the Netherlands, which you can read about here:

    As part of the process of transferring my PhD work from Karolinska Institutet to Radboud University, together with my main supervisor, professor Bas Bloem, my co-supervisors assistant professor Maria Hägglund and Martijn de Groot, and professor of biomedical ethics Annelien Bredenoord, I wrote a commentary on ethical issues in relation to my thesis work: “Ethical Aspects of Personal Science for Persons with Parkinson’s Disease: What Happens When Self-Tracking Goes from Selfcare to Publication?”.  

    What are my thoughts on what Halassy did?

    From a patient perspective, I completely understand why Halassy did what she did. She found herself faced with a personal health challenge with huge implications. For her it was literally a matter of life or death. At the same time, she had access to knowledge and resources that she could use to potentially address her problem, and hopefully survive. Of course she felt she had to do what she could with what she had at her disposal! In this case, my guess would be that there are few people in the world more suited than Halassy to make a genuinely informed decision about this specific treatment and the risks involved. And, in fairness, that was also what Sherkow said in the Nature article: the problem was not that Halassy had used self-experimentation. 

    Sherkow went on to say that the actual problem was that she had published her results, because “her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar”. Let me unpack that statement a bit: Is it reasonable to think that others with breast cancer would reject conventional treatment based on the publication of this study? I genuinely don’t think that is a likely scenario, for several reasons. First and foremost, very few patients have the knowledge needed and access to a virology lab. So why and how could the publication result in others rejecting conventional treatment? And if they did reject conventional treatment, for whatever reason, surely that is their prerogative? 

    To me, Sherkow’s statement seems to be an example of epistemic injustice in action, and in this case testimonial injustice, which according to the Wikipedia entry means “unfairness related to trusting someone’s word. An injustice of this kind can occur when someone is ignored, or not believed, because of their sex, sexuality, gender presentation, race, disability, or, broadly, because of their identity.” Before we ”become patients”, we have been able to live an independent life with responsibilities, obligations, and human rights. Why would we suddenly become unable to make our own decisions, just because we have been diagnosed with a life-altering medical condition, for example cancer?

    In contrast, I would like to ask: Would it have been ethical by Halassy and her coauthors NOT to have published what they learned from this?

  • WPC2023: “To track or not to track”

    WPC2023: “To track or not to track”

    In July I was in Barcelona to attend the 6th World Parkinson Congress or WPC. As expected, it was a few very intense days with many impressions and interactions. One of my commitments was to speak in a morning plenary session. It was the start of day 2 of the conference and there were people sitting on most of the 1 750 chairs in the room. I was proud and honoured to be part of the impressive lineup.

    Linda and I preparing for our session.

    The main title of the session was “Tracking Disease Progression in Parkinson’s: Why and How?” and it was chaired by neurologist and movement disorder specialist Cecilia Peralta from Argentina together with Linda K Olson who is a physician and person with Parkinson’s, as well as a triple amputee. You can read more about Linda on her website here, and in her captivating memoire “Gone: A Memoir of Love, Body, and Taking Back My Life”. Trust me, you do want to read more about her!

    The full lineup and program of the WPC morning plenary “Tracking Disease Progression in Parkinson’s: Why and How?”

    The first speaker was professor Bas Bloem from Radboud University in the Netherlands who did an excellent job outlining why we should track PD. Equally excellent were the presentations by professor David Standaert and professor Thilo van Eimeren covering blood and tissue-based tests and imaging to track PD.

    A recording of my talk, with the title “To track or not to track” can be found below. It is filmed with a mobile phone so the audio is not perfect. I recommend turning on the captions (in English).

  • How I became a researcher in personal science

    How I became a researcher in personal science

    I was recently asked a question that I hadn’t been asked before:

    How to become a researcher in personal science?
    Can you describe your process
    from idea to completed doctor’s degree
    in personal science?

    I replied by making a list of some of the blog posts that I have written during my journey. I started in early 2010 and I got my PhD degree in March 2022. In those 12 years I have learnt a lot, and many of my learnings were things I didn’t know that I didn’t know. Below are the 20 blog posts I have chosen to represent that journey.

    Enjoy and let me know your thoughts in the comments!

    Link number 1, from February of 2010:

    Link number 2, from December 2010:

    Link number 3, from April 2011:

    Link number 4, from April 2011:

    Link number 5, from September 2012:

    Link number 6, from October 2012:

    First time I wrote about my image with 8 765 blue dots and 1 red:

    Link number 7, from October 2013:

    Link number 8, from May 2014:

    Link number 9, from October 2014:

    Link number 10, from October 2015:

    Link number 11, from January 2016:

    Link number 12, from March 2016:

    Link number 13, from August 2016:

    Link number 14, from August 2017:

    Link number 15, from September 2018:

    Link number 16, from January 2019:

    Link number 17, from July 2019:

    Link number 18, from July 2020:

    Link number 19, from November 2020:

    Link number 20, from March 2022:

  • My 5 top learnings from tracking my Parkinson for over a decade

    I have more than a decade of experience from tracking my Parkinson’s disease (PD) and I want to share my 5 most important learnings. Hopefully this can contribute to the increasing interest in tracking for PD by adding a bit of nuance to the, often very data- /research- /doctor-centric discussions. Do let me know what you think by commenting on this post!

    (more…)
  • On this day 10 years ago…

    On this day 10 years ago…

    On this day 10 years ago, March 28th 2012, I was registered as a PhD student at Karolinska Institutet. My research plan, which was going to guide my work over the following years, was titled “Personal observations as a tool for improvements in chronic disease“. Reading through that plan today, on the 10 year anniversary, I am genuinely surprised at how close to that plan I have stayed over all this time (see excerpts below).

    Background section from my original research plan from March 2012
    Overall purpose from my original research plan from March 2012

    Today I am also thinking back to last Friday, March 25th 2022, when I successfully defended my PhD thesis at Radboud Universiteit in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. My thesis is titled “Personal science in Parkinson’s disease: a patient-led research study“, and it can be downloaded here: My PhD thesis is now available! The defence ceremony was live-streamed and I will post a recording of it soon.

    Last Friday gave me memories for life and I am still processing everything that happened. I am eternally grateful to all the amazing people that have been part of my PhD journey during this decade and a very special thank you goes to my wonderful supervisors: Bas Bloem, Maria Hägglund, and Martijn de Groot! And to Eli Pollard, who captured the event below as a Live Photo (which I was able to turn into a video). Eli, Per is forever envious of you for taking the best photo of that day! 🙂

  • Personal science day 25 March 2022

    PhD thesis defence

    I will defend my thesis on Friday 25 March 2022 at 10:30 am CET at the aula of the Radboud University, Nijmegen. Members of the Doctoral Examination Board are: Jan Kremer, Effy Vayena, Tamar Sharon, Marina Noordegraaf, Sabine Oertelt and Teus van Laar. You can follow the livestream << online here >>.
    You can download my thesis << here >>.

    Personal science symposium

    Later the same day, 3-5 pm CET, there will be an online symposium dedicated to the emerging field of personal knowledge creation. Speakers will include Bas Bloem, Jakob Eg Larsen, Thomas Blomseth Christiansen, Gary Wolf, and myself. The program will be a mix of keynotes, show&tells, Q&A, and a very special announcement… You do not want to miss it! << Sign up here >>

    What is personal science?

    Quoting the Wikipedia entry on the topic: personal science is “using science to solve your own problems“. In my PhD thesis, I define it as “the practice of exploring personally consequential questions by conducting self-directed N-of-1 studies using a structured empirical approach“. This is very much an emerging field and I am sure that the definition will be developed further as we keep working. More importantly, I am really looking forward to seeing the practice of personal science being developed further including concrete examples of how people use it!