Clinical research protocol · draft for neurologists and Ayurvedic physicians

PRĀṆA–PD feasibility and validation protocol

1. Aims and design

Primary aim. To determine whether the five-domain PRĀṆA–PD assessment can be delivered reliably in routine PD care, and whether inter-domain relationships and individual profiles can be estimated with usable precision.

Secondary aims. (a) Feasibility, adherence and safety of adding standardised, supervised complementary practices (adapted breathing, meditation, adapted yoga, dietary counselling) to usual care. (b) Whether individualised multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves selected domain outcomes. (c) Whether an Ayurvedic assessment adds predictive information beyond conventional measures.

Not an aim. Demonstrating cure, neuroprotection or disease modification.

PhaseMonthsDesignKey outputs
0 · Foundations1–3Textual and literature review; expert panelDefinitions and limits of each mapping; draft instrument
1 · Measurement4–6Delphi consensus; content validity; cognitive interviews with patientsFive-domain instrument v1; Ayurvedic assessment form with defined items
2 · Observational pilot7–9Single-centre repeated-measures cohort, same-state assessmentsTest–retest reliability; inter-rater reliability; domain correlations
3 · Model validation10–12Analysis of Phase 2 data; simulation-based calibrationEstimates of \(\rho\), \(\mathbf A_C\), \(\mathbf D\) with uncertainty; predictive test vs baseline
4 · Feasibility13–15Single-arm or small randomised feasibility study of add-on practices (usual care continues)Recruitment, adherence, retention, adverse events, signal in domain outcomes
5 · Review16–18Independent review and trial designGo/no-go; full RCT protocol if justified

2. Participants

Inclusion (proposed)

  • Clinical diagnosis of idiopathic PD by a neurologist (e.g. MDS clinical diagnostic criteria).
  • Age ≥ 40; Hoehn & Yahr stages I–III in ON state.
  • Stable PD medication for ≥ 4 weeks.
  • Able to give informed consent and attend visits.

Exclusion (proposed)

  • Atypical or secondary parkinsonism.
  • Unstable cardiopulmonary disease; uncontrolled orthostatic hypotension with syncope.
  • Recent aspiration pneumonia or severe dysphagia unmanaged by a swallowing team.
  • Dementia that prevents consent or safe participation.
  • Use of any L-DOPA-containing supplement (e.g. Mucuna pruriens) or unregulated herbal/mineral preparation.
  • Pregnancy is not expected in this population.

3. Schedule of assessments

Standardisation rule. Every visit takes place at a fixed time after the morning dose (ON state), and levodopa-equivalent daily dose (LEDD), last-dose time, meals and sleep are recorded, so that medication fluctuation is not mistaken for improvement or decline.

Domain / outcomeInstrumentFrequency (proposed)
PrāṇaRespiratory pattern; spirometry if indicated; olfaction (screening); sensory itemsBaseline, every 3 months in Phase 2; monthly in Phase 4
ApānaBristol Stool Form Scale + 7-day bowel diary; SCOPA-AUT (GI/urinary items)Weekly diary, monthly SCOPA-AUT
SamānaNutrition screen, weight, appetite/GI symptoms; dose–meal timing logMonthly
VyānaMDS-UPDRS III, 10-metre walk, Timed Up and Go, seated/standing BP (orthostatic)Monthly (UPDRS III every 3 months)
UdānaSpeech intelligibility rating, EAT-10, clinical swallow screen; referral for instrumental assessment if indicatedMonthly
Global outcomesMDS-UPDRS I–IV, PDQ-39, ADL, patient-defined goalsBaseline, 3-monthly
Paired perception (optional)Sākṣī check-in: measured vs reported per domain (discordance)Weekly, home
Ayurvedic assessmentStandardised Vata/Pitta/Kapha, Agni, Āma, Dhātu, Ojas items, blinded to domain scoresBaseline and 6 months; two assessors for inter-rater study

Sample size is to be justified by the statistician. In simulation (see paper), coupling estimates from 60 patients with weekly data had SD about 0.02–0.03 per week, and from 200 patients about 0.01–0.02, with uncorrected bias in some links. Sparser clinic sampling will do worse, so Phase 2/3 conclusions about coupling should be treated as exploratory and descriptive. A typical feasibility phase involves 30–60 participants, but the final number must come from the primary feasibility criteria below.

4. Interventions in Phase 4 (added to usual care)

Usual care, including all PD medication, stays under the treating neurologist. Nothing in this protocol changes, delays or replaces medication.

CategoryStandardised contentDelivered by
Movement (Vyāna)Parkinson's-specific physiotherapy: gait, balance, strength, aerobic activity, individualised to fall riskPhysiotherapist
Nutrition (Apāna, Samāna)Dietitian-led plan: fluids, fibre, meal pattern; protein/levodopa timing only if the neurologist and dietitian advise itDietitian, with Ayurvedic physician for āhāra counselling
Respiratory (Prāṇa)Gentle, supervised diaphragmatic and paced breathing; no breath retention and no forceful or rapid breathing techniquesPhysiotherapist / trained instructor
Speech and swallowing (Udāna)Speech-language therapy per local PD standards (e.g. voice-loudness training), swallowing rehabilitationSpeech-language therapist
Mind–bodyStandardised meditation and relaxation programme, seated or lyingTrained instructor
Ayurvedic adjunctPhase 4 limited to non-ingestible or dietary-routine elements (e.g. daily routine counselling, adapted yoga). Ingestible herbal or mineral preparations are excluded in feasibility. Any later phase must use batch-tested products with certificates of analysis for heavy metals and a pharmacology review.Qualified Ayurvedic physician
Use of the adaptive controller. The model's intensity recommendations are decision support for the clinical team at scheduled reviews. They are never used by participants, never change medication, and are overridden by clinical judgement. The medical channel is outside the controller.

5. Safety and stopping rules

6. Analysis plan (to be finalised and pre-registered)

  1. Reliability (H1). Intraclass correlation (test–retest, inter-rater), standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change per domain; internal consistency where multi-item.
  2. Associations (H2). Correlation and multivariable regression of domain scores against symptoms, adjusting for age, disease duration, LEDD and stage.
  3. Coordination (H3). Test whether inter-domain coordination measures add predictive information beyond single-domain scores (likelihood-ratio/AIC, cross-validated error). Dynamic network and state-space models per the paper's estimator, with simulation-based calibration under the actual sampling design before interpreting any coupling value, because bias of 60–90 % was observed in some simulated links.
  4. Rehabilitation (H4). Linear mixed-effects models of domain outcomes over time; effect sizes with confidence intervals; no multiplicity-free claims.
  5. Adjuncts (H5). Descriptive in feasibility; formal comparison only in a later adequately powered randomised trial.
  6. Prediction (H6). Compare the model with a conventional baseline using temporally held-out data and an external validation cohort; report calibration, not only discrimination.
  7. Missing data and noise. Multiple imputation sensitivity analyses; measurement-error handling for instrument noise.

Feasibility criteria (proposed; to be set by the team before starting)

7. Ethics, governance and data

8. Dissemination

Results will be reported regardless of outcome, with the model's limitations. Claims will be confined to what the data support: feasibility, reliability, associations and functional outcomes, and never cure or reversal of disease.

Research paperSimulatorSākṣī app