Parkinson's Disease (PD)CTRL-PDNCT07105280
Closed-Loop Therapeutic Refinement Using Local Field Potentials in Parkinson's Disease
A study testing Optimized conventional DBS and Optimized adaptive DBS in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD), run by HagaZiekenhuis at 2 sites in Netherlands.
Trial summary
This multi-center pilot study compares conventional DBS (cDBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) in Parkinson's disease patients using the Medtronic Percept™ system. The aim of the study is to identify which patients benefit most from aDBS, and to explore patient and LFP signal characteristics as well as stimulation parameters… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Parkinson's Disease (PD)
- What is being tested?
- Optimized conventional DBS and Optimized adaptive DBS
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesNetherlands
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2026to 1 Oct 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with Parkinson's disease with bilateral DBS in the STN
- DBS surgery with implantation of the Percept™ PC/RC system performed at least 6 months ago
- Symptoms such as dysarthria, freezing, or ON-OFF fluctuations that are insufficiently controlled
- A usable LFP signal is present on at least one side
Who cannot join
- Patients for whom switching to aDBS, operating the remote control independently, or making regular visits to the DBS center is deemed clinically unsafe or unreliable by the treating physician - for example, due to active or unstable cognitive or psychiatric conditions.
- High impedance, defective DBS electrodes, or insufficient LFP signal quality, or bilateral stimulation primarily on the most ventral or dorsal contact points, preventing proper functioning of aDBS.
- Patients who have objected to the use of their electronic health record data for medical scientific research.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Netherlands2 sites
Amsterdam UMC
Amsterdam, 1105AZ
Martijn Beudel, MD, PhD, +31 (0)20 732 7497, m.beudel@amsterdamumc.nl
Martijn Beudel, MD, PhD
Maastricht UMC+
Maastricht, 6229HX
Mark LF Janssen, MD, PhD, +31 (0)43 387 7272, mlf.janssen@mumc.nl
Mark LF Janssen, MD, PhD
About this study
This multi-center pilot study compares conventional DBS (cDBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) in Parkinson's disease patients using the Medtronic Percept™ system.
The aim of the study is to identify which patients benefit most from aDBS, and to explore patient and LFP signal characteristics as well as stimulation parameters as potential predictors of treatment preference and efficacy. The study utilizes a blinded, randomized N-of-1 trial design, where each patient tests the following:
Read more
- Optimized cDBS settings (O-cDBS);
- Optimized aDBS settings (O-aDBS) Each setting is evaluated for a minimum of 2 and maximum of 7 days at home in a randomized order (patient blinded).
The main study outcome consists of the patient's final preference among the two DBS programs: O-cDBS, or O-aDBS. Secondary outcomes focus on differences between O-cDBS and O-aDBS regarding the following parameters (among others):
- Quality of life (PDQ-39);
- Patient satisfaction (5-point Likert Scale);
- (Non)-motor fluctuations (MDS-UPDRS-III + MDS-NMS-Q);
- Time spent in "ON"/"OFF" motor phases (symptom diary + MDS-UPDRS IV);
- Time spent experiencing dyskinesia (symptom diary + MDS-UPDRS IV);
- Time spent with the most bothersome symptom (symptom diary + MDSUPDRS IV);
- Stimulation parameters;
- Local field potentials.
The study also incorporates real-world home-based assessments using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to capture motor and non-motor symptom fluctuations in daily life and identify differences among the three settings.
Read the detailed description
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is an established treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), particularly for those experiencing motor fluctuations that do not respond adequately to medication. Optimal clinical outcomes depend on precise programming of stimulation parameters to effectively reduce motor symptoms, while avoiding side effects by minimizing stimulation of adjacent brain structures. During surgery, an electrode with eight contact points (1-3-3-1 design) is permanently implanted.
At the Haga Teaching Hospital, Maastricht UMC+, and Amsterdam UMC, the Medtronic Percept™ PC/RC system is commonly used for PD patients. This system provides not only stimulation but also the ability to record brain signals in the form of local field potentials (LFPs). This recording functionality can offer valuable insights for clinicians to fine-tune DBS parameters. For instance, elevated beta activity (13-35 Hz) in LFPs has been shown to correlate with the severity of symptoms such as rigidity and bradykinesia in PD patients.
In January 2025, a software update was introduced for the Percept™ system, enabling more advanced LFP measurements. This update allows the system to deliver adaptive DBS (aDBS), in which brain signals are used in real-time to continuously and automatically adjust stimulation amplitude. Although aDBS is a promising advancement, comprehensive research comparing its benefits and drawbacks to conventional DBS (cDBS) is still lacking. The only major study, ADAPT-PD, found that aDBS and cDBS result in similar durations of time spent in the "ON" phase, but it did not clarify which subgroup of patients benefits most from aDBS. Interestingly, many participants in the ADAPT-PD study expressed a desire to switch from cDBS to aDBS after the trial, though the factors influencing these preferences remain unclear. This highlights the need for detailed investigation into the relative advantages of aDBS and for whom the current form of aDBS provides the greatest benefit.
This study targets PD patients who have undergone cDBS for at least six months but are not experiencing optimal results due to persistent motor symptoms or stimulation-induced side effects that are insufficiently addressed by standard cDBS. Within this pilot study, using a combined N-of-1 trial design, outcomes of the patient's optimized conventional DBS (O-cDBS) will be objectively compared with those of optimized adaptive DBS (O-aDBS).
In an N-of-1 trial, an individual patient undergoes different test and placebo treatments in a randomized order. By conducting multiple N-of-1 trials across several patients, reliable and objective outcomes can be gathered both at the individual and population levels. In this study, each patient will test two stimulation programs (O-cDBS, and O-aDBS) in a blinded and randomized sequence, each for seven days. The final outcome will be the patient's preferred program, with the patient's personal choice taking priority. To better understand the impact of switching from cDBS to aDBS-and to include effects on patient quality of life-this study will analyze not only motor symptoms but also cognitive and behavioral effects in daily life. This will be assessed through structured questionnaires, including a symptom diary and questions via the Experience Sampling Method (ESM). ESM is a validated, CE-certified digital diary method where patients provide feedback on the patient's symptoms at semi-random times, helping to reduce recall bias. By objectively analyzing the pros and cons of switching from cDBS to aDBS in these specific patient groups, this study aims to support neurologists in the clinical use of this new technology. Furthermore, the findings may contribute to more effective use of the system and ultimately to improved DBS treatment and quality of life for patients with Parkinson's disease.
- Conditions
- Parkinson's Disease (PD)
- Being tested
- Optimized conventional DBS, Optimized adaptive DBS
- Keywords
- deep brain stimulation, adaptive therapy, closed-loop therapy, local field potentials, subhtalamic nucleus, parkinson's disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Optimized conventional DBSDevice
Treatment for a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 7 days with a previously optimized version of the patient's original conventional DBS (O-cDBS) settings.
Optimized adaptive DBSDevice
Treatment for a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 7 days with previously optimized adaptive DBS (O-aDBS) settings.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| N-of-1 study arm | Experimental | Main study arm where each participant tests optimized conventional DBS, and optimized adaptive DBS for seven days each, in a blinded and randomized sequence Receives: Device: Optimized conventional DBS; Device: Optimized adaptive DBS |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient preference of DBS settings
The patient's choice for one of the two program options (O-cDBS, or O-aDBS)
Measured: after the two week trial phase of the study
Secondary outcomes (14)
Quality of life per DBS settings
The 39 item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) score for O-cDBS and O-aDBS (score between 0 (good quality) and 100 (bad quality))
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
General Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings
Custom general prompt daily (non-)motor fluctuations questionnaire via Experience Sampling Method (ESM), with a score ranging from 0 (good) to 270 (poor)
Measured: Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days)
Patient satisfaction per DBS settings
5-point Likert scale score for patient satisfaction with O-cDBS and O-aDBS (1=very dissatisfied; 2= dissatisfied; 3=neutral; 4=satisfied; 5=very satisfied)
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent in ON/OFF per DBS settings according to symptom diary
Percentage of time spent in OFF during time awake for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to symptom diary (0% (good) to 100% (poor)).
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent with dyskinesia per DBS setting according to symptom diary
Percentage of time awake spent with dyskinesia for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to symptom diary (0% (good), 100% (poor)).
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days)
Time spent with most bothersome symptom per DBS setting according to symptom diary
Percentage of time awake spent with most bothersome symptom for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to symptom diary. (0% (good), 100% (poor))
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days)
Total score for motor fluctuations for cDBS optimization
Motor score according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS-III) for cDBS and O-cDBS with the score ranging from 0 (good) to 132 (poor)
Measured: Reported at baseline and after optimizing c-DBS
Levodopa equivalent daily dose per DBS setting
According to latest levodopa equivalent daily dose scheme, determined for O-cDBS and O-aDBS
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent in ON/OFF per DBS settings
Percentage of time spent in OFF during time awake for cDBS, O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part IV (MDS-UPDRS-IV) O-cDBS and O-aDBS (0% (good) to 100% (poor)).
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days)
Time spent with dyskinesia per DBS setting
Percentage of time awake spent with dyskinesia for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part IV (MDS-UPDRS-IV) (0% (good), 100% (poor))
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent with most bothersome symptom per DBS setting
Percentage of time awake spent with most bothersome symptom for O-cDBS and O-aDBS according to Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part IV (MDS-UPDRS-IV) in case of symptom being either "Motor fluctuations", "Dyskinesia", "OFF- dystonia", (0% (good), 100% (poor)).
Measured: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Total score for non-motor fluctuations per DBS setting
Non-motor score according to Movement Disorder Society - Non-Motor Symptom Questionnaire (MDS-NMS-Q) for cDBS, O-cDBS and O-aDBS, with scores ranging from 0 (good) to 208 (poor)).
Measured: Reported at baseline and after optimizing each intervention
Morning Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings
Custom morning prompt daily (non-)motor fluctuations questionnaire via Experience Sampling Method (ESM), with a score ranging from 0 (good) to 35 (poor)
Measured: Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days)
Evening Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings
Custom evening prompt daily (non-)motor fluctuations questionnaire via Experience Sampling Method (ESM), with a score ranging from 0 (good) to 76 (poor)
Measured: Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Aug 2025
- Study start1 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Parkinson's Disease (PD)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Model description
- An N-of-1 trial design in which each patient tests optimized conventional DBS, and optimized adaptive DBS for seven days each, in a blinded and randomized sequence.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- HagaZiekenhuis
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC), Location Academic Medical Center (AMC)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Maria Fiorella Contarino, HagaZiekenhuis
- Investigators
- Maria Fiorella Contarino, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, HagaZiekenhuis
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07105280
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CTRL-PD study
- Acronym
- CTRL-PD
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 21 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 10 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: Personal data security issues
Publications
Bronte-Stewart H, Beudel M, Ostrem J, Little S, Almeida L, Zamora AR, et al. Chronic Adaptive DBS Provides Similar "On" Time with Trend of Improvement Compared to Continuous DBS in Parkinson's Disease and 98% of Participants Chose to Remain on aDBS (S2.008). Neurology (internet). 2024 Apr 9;102(17_supplement_1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000204762
Nakajima A, Shimo Y, Fuse A, Tokugawa J, Hishii M, Iwamuro H, Umemura A, Hattori N. Case Report: Chronic Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Personalizing Therapy Based on Parkinsonian State. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 Aug 13;15:702961. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.702961. eCollection 2021.
PubMed 34483867
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Closed-Loop Therapeutic Refinement Using Local Field Potentials in Parkinson's Disease
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07105280
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CTRL-PD / CTRL-PD study
- Conditions
- Parkinson's Disease (PD)
- Keywords
- deep brain stimulation, adaptive therapy, closed-loop therapy, local field potentials, subhtalamic nucleus, parkinson's disease
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- HagaZiekenhuisUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC), Location Academic Medical Center (AMC)
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 5 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This multi-center pilot study compares conventional DBS (cDBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) in Parkinson's disease patients using the Medtronic Percept™ system.
The aim of the study is to identify which patients benefit most from aDBS, and to explore patient and LFP signal characteristics as well as stimulation parameters as potential predictors of treatment preference and efficacy. The study utilizes a blinded, randomized N-of-1 trial design, where each patient tests the following:
- Optimized cDBS settings (O-cDBS);
- Optimized aDBS settings (O-aDBS) Each setting is evaluated for a minimum of 2 and maximum of 7 days at home in a randomized order (patient blinded).
The main study outcome consists of the patient's final preference among the two DBS programs: O-cDBS, or O-aDBS. Secondary outcomes focus on differences between O-cDBS and O-aDBS regarding the following parameters (among others):
- Quality of life (PDQ-39);
- Patient satisfaction (5-point Likert Scale);
- (Non)-motor fluctuations (MDS-UPDRS-III + MDS-NMS-Q);
- Time spent in "ON"/"OFF" motor phases (symptom diary + MDS-UPDRS IV);
- Time spent experiencing dyskinesia (symptom diary + MDS-UPDRS IV);
- Time spent with the most bothersome symptom (symptom diary + MDSUPDRS IV);
- Stimulation parameters;
- Local field potentials.
The study also incorporates real-world home-based assessments using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to capture motor and non-motor symptom fluctuations in daily life and identify differences among the three settings.
Detailed description
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is an established treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), particularly for those experiencing motor fluctuations that do not respond adequately to medication. Optimal clinical outcomes depend on precise programming of stimulation parameters to effectively reduce motor symptoms, while avoiding side effects by minimizing stimulation of adjacent brain structures. During surgery, an electrode with eight contact points (1-3-3-1 design) is permanently implanted.
At the Haga Teaching Hospital, Maastricht UMC+, and Amsterdam UMC, the Medtronic Percept™ PC/RC system is commonly used for PD patients. This system provides not only stimulation but also the ability to record brain signals in the form of local field potentials (LFPs). This recording functionality can offer valuable insights for clinicians to fine-tune DBS parameters. For instance, elevated beta activity (13-35 Hz) in LFPs has been shown to correlate with the severity of symptoms such as rigidity and bradykinesia in PD patients.
In January 2025, a software update was introduced for the Percept™ system, enabling more advanced LFP measurements. This update allows the system to deliver adaptive DBS (aDBS), in which brain signals are used in real-time to continuously and automatically adjust stimulation amplitude. Although aDBS is a promising advancement, comprehensive research comparing its benefits and drawbacks to conventional DBS (cDBS) is still lacking. The only major study, ADAPT-PD, found that aDBS and cDBS result in similar durations of time spent in the "ON" phase, but it did not clarify which subgroup of patients benefits most from aDBS. Interestingly, many participants in the ADAPT-PD study expressed a desire to switch from cDBS to aDBS after the trial, though the factors influencing these preferences remain unclear. This highlights the need for detailed investigation into the relative advantages of aDBS and for whom the current form of aDBS provides the greatest benefit.
This study targets PD patients who have undergone cDBS for at least six months but are not experiencing optimal results due to persistent motor symptoms or stimulation-induced side effects that are insufficiently addressed by standard cDBS. Within this pilot study, using a combined N-of-1 trial design, outcomes of the patient's optimized conventional DBS (O-cDBS) will be objectively compared with those of optimized adaptive DBS (O-aDBS).
In an N-of-1 trial, an individual patient undergoes different test and placebo treatments in a randomized order. By conducting multiple N-of-1 trials across several patients, reliable and objective outcomes can be gathered both at the individual and population levels. In this study, each patient will test two stimulation programs (O-cDBS, and O-aDBS) in a blinded and randomized sequence, each for seven days. The final outcome will be the patient's preferred program, with the patient's personal choice taking priority. To better understand the impact of switching from cDBS to aDBS-and to include effects on patient quality of life-this study will analyze not only motor symptoms but also cognitive and behavioral effects in daily life. This will be assessed through structured questionnaires, including a symptom diary and questions via the Experience Sampling Method (ESM). ESM is a validated, CE-certified digital diary method where patients provide feedback on the patient's symptoms at semi-random times, helping to reduce recall bias. By objectively analyzing the pros and cons of switching from cDBS to aDBS in these specific patient groups, this study aims to support neurologists in the clinical use of this new technology. Furthermore, the findings may contribute to more effective use of the system and ultimately to improved DBS treatment and quality of life for patients with Parkinson's disease.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- An N-of-1 trial design in which each patient tests optimized conventional DBS, and optimized adaptive DBS for seven days each, in a blinded and randomized sequence.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| N-of-1 study arm | Experimental | Device: Optimized conventional DBS, Device: Optimized adaptive DBSMain study arm where each participant tests optimized conventional DBS, and optimized adaptive DBS for seven days each, in a blinded and randomized sequence |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients with Parkinson's disease with bilateral DBS in the STN
- DBS surgery with implantation of the Percept™ PC/RC system performed at least 6 months ago
- Symptoms such as dysarthria, freezing, or ON-OFF fluctuations that are insufficiently controlled
- A usable LFP signal is present on at least one side
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients for whom switching to aDBS, operating the remote control independently, or making regular visits to the DBS center is deemed clinically unsafe or unreliable by the treating physician - for example, due to active or unstable cognitive or psychiatric conditions.
- High impedance, defective DBS electrodes, or insufficient LFP signal quality, or bilateral stimulation primarily on the most ventral or dorsal contact points, preventing proper functioning of aDBS.
- Patients who have objected to the use of their electronic health record data for medical scientific research.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Optimized conventional DBSTreatment for a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 7 days with a previously optimized version of the patient's original conventional DBS (O-cDBS) settings. | Device | N-of-1 study arm |
| Optimized adaptive DBSTreatment for a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 7 days with previously optimized adaptive DBS (O-aDBS) settings. | Device | N-of-1 study arm |
Primary outcome
Patient preference of DBS settings
Time frame: after the two week trial phase of the study
The patient's choice for one of the two program options (O-cDBS, or O-aDBS)
14 secondary outcomes
Quality of life per DBS settings
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
General Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings
Time frame: Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days)
Patient satisfaction per DBS settings
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent in ON/OFF per DBS settings according to symptom diary
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent with dyskinesia per DBS setting according to symptom diary
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days)
Time spent with most bothersome symptom per DBS setting according to symptom diary
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days)
Total score for motor fluctuations for cDBS optimization
Time frame: Reported at baseline and after optimizing c-DBS
Levodopa equivalent daily dose per DBS setting
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent in ON/OFF per DBS settings
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and14 days)
Time spent with dyskinesia per DBS setting
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Time spent with most bothersome symptom per DBS setting
Time frame: Reported after each week with one of the DBS settings (at 7 days and 14 days)
Total score for non-motor fluctuations per DBS setting
Time frame: Reported at baseline and after optimizing each intervention
Morning Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings
Time frame: Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days)
Evening Prompt Experience Sampling Method score per DBS settings
Time frame: Reported average daily score within each week with one of the DBS settings (at 1-7 days and 8-14 days)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Sep 2026.
- BackgroundBronte-Stewart H, Beudel M, Ostrem J, Little S, Almeida L, Zamora AR, et al. Chronic Adaptive DBS Provides Similar "On" Time with Trend of Improvement Compared to Continuous DBS in Parkinson's Disease and 98% of Participants Chose to Remain on aDBS (S2.008). Neurology (internet). 2024 Apr 9;102(17_supplement_1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000204762
- Background: PubMed 34483867Nakajima A, Shimo Y, Fuse A, Tokugawa J, Hishii M, Iwamuro H, Umemura A, Hattori N. Case Report: Chronic Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Personalizing Therapy Based on Parkinsonian State. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 Aug 13;15:702961. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.702961. eCollection 2021.
- Description Medtronic Percept System (conventioal/adaptive DBS system used in this research)Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. Personal data security issues
Related trials for Parkinson's Disease (PD)
Recruiting
Prevention-in-PD-Study
Parkinson's Disease (PD)
Recruiting
Effect of Physical Activity on the Course of Parkinson's Disease in Patients With Bilateral DBS-STN Stimulation.
Parkinson Disease, Deep Brain Stimulation
Not yet recruiting
Parkinson's Research In Metagenomic Early Stage Biomarkers
Parkinson's Disease (PD)
RecruitingObservational study
Study on the Incidence of Malignant Neoplasms in Patients With Parkinson's Disease and Heterozygous Mutation of the GBA Gene
Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease (PD)
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Safety, Tolerability and Exploratory Efficacy of EC5026 in Parkinson's Disease (STEP Study)
Parkinson's Disease (PD)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Maria Fiorella Contarino, MD, PhD principal investigator
HagaZiekenhuis
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Optimized conventional DBS and Optimized adaptive DBS in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD), run by HagaZiekenhuis at 2 sites in Netherlands.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Netherlands. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Maria Fiorellla Contarino, MD, PhD (+31 (0)70 210 2997, m.contarino@hagaziekenhuis.nl), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient preference of DBS settings (time frame: after the two week trial phase of the study). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07105280, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Sep 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.