---
type: source
title: "LIXIPARK Trial (NEJM, April 2024): Lixisenatide Meets Primary Endpoint in Early Parkinson's Disease"
author: "LIXIPARK investigators / NEJM"
url: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2312323
date: 2024-04-04
domain: health
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: vida
processed_date: 2026-05-08
priority: high
tags: [GLP-1, Parkinson's disease, lixisenatide, Phase 2 RCT, neuroprotection, motor symptoms, NEJM]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

**Trial name:** LIXIPARK
**Drug:** Lixisenatide (GLP-1 receptor agonist, daily injection)
**Design:** Phase 2, double-blind RCT, n=156 (75 lixisenatide, 75 placebo — note: some sources say 156, some 150), 12 months, early Parkinson's patients (<3 years since diagnosis)
**Primary endpoint:** MDS-UPDRS Part III score (motor symptoms in ON-state) at 12 months

**Primary endpoint result: MET — significant**
- Placebo group: MDS-UPDRS Part III worsened by +3.04 points at month 12 (disease progression)
- Lixisenatide group: remained at BASELINE (0 change) at month 12
- Between-group difference: statistically significant (p-value reported as significant)
- Interpretation: Lixisenatide halted motor symptom progression over 12 months where placebo progressed

**Safety concerns:**
- >50% of lixisenatide patients reported significant gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, vomiting)
- >1/3 of patients required dose reduction due to GI side effects
- The safety profile is a significant practical concern for real-world use

**Limitations:**
- Phase 2 (not Phase 3 — not definitive)
- 12 months (shorter than the exenatide Phase 3 at 96 weeks)
- No DaT-SPECT brain imaging to confirm neuroprotection vs. symptomatic benefit
- Off-label use NOT recommended pending Phase 3 confirmation
- GI side effects may limit dose titration and adherence

**Context:** Published NEJM April 2024. Preliminary results presented at 2023 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society congress in Copenhagen.

**BBB penetrance context (from Holscher 2024 PMC review):**
Lixisenatide, like exenatide, has been shown to cross the BBB via adsorption transcytosis mechanism. Holscher 2024 identifies lixisenatide as one of the GLP-1 agonists with the strongest neuroprotective effect in clinical trials, correlating with its BBB penetrance.

**Why lixisenatide succeeded where exenatide Phase 3 failed:**
- The Phase 2 vs Phase 3 design difference matters: LIXIPARK was 12 months in EARLY disease; exenatide Phase 3 was 96 weeks across broader disease stages
- Lixisenatide's penetrance mechanism may achieve better substantia nigra concentrations than exenatide
- The CSF finding from exenatide Phase 3 (insufficient drug reaching substantia nigra) suggests regional penetrance is the limiting factor — lixisenatide may differ

**Expert perspective:** Off-label use not recommended. "Larger trials have not yet confirmed these results." The LIXIPARK result has not triggered Phase 3 funding as of May 2026.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This is the POSITIVE Phase 2 GLP-1 trial in Parkinson's, which contrasts directly with the exenatide Phase 3 failure. The pattern — Phase 2 success, Phase 3 failure — may be replicating. BUT lixisenatide's mechanism may genuinely differ. The 12-month primary endpoint success in EARLY disease (vs. Phase 3 longer duration/advanced disease) raises the question: is GLP-1 neuroprotection real but only detectable in early stages with good penetrance?

**What surprised me:** The NEJM publication of a positive Phase 2 result for PD with a GLP-1 drug in April 2024 — while exenatide Phase 3 was still running and published its failure in February 2025. The two papers together create the within-class divergence: lixisenatide (Phase 2, positive) vs. exenatide (Phase 3, negative). This is exactly the kind of tension the KB should capture.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Phase 3 funding announcement for lixisenatide following the NEJM publication. This hasn't happened — the exenatide Phase 3 failure may have chilled funding for further GLP-1 Parkinson's trials.

**KB connections:**
- Creates divergence with exenatide Phase 3: two GLP-1 agonists, two different results — is this mechanism, penetrance, disease stage, or trial design?
- The BBB penetrance correlation (Holscher 2024) provides the mechanistic framework for why results might differ between drugs
- Relevant to Belief 2 disconfirmation: if lixisenatide's Phase 2 result holds in Phase 3, clinical pharmacology would be genuinely modifying dopaminergic neurodegeneration — expanding the effective clinical domain

**Extraction hints:**
- Primary claim: "Lixisenatide meets primary endpoint in early Parkinson's disease Phase 2 trial (LIXIPARK, NEJM 2024, n=156), halting motor symptom progression at 12 months where placebo progressed 3.04 points on MDS-UPDRS — but GI safety concerns affect >50% of patients"
- Secondary claim: "The divergence between lixisenatide Phase 2 success (LIXIPARK) and exenatide Phase 3 failure (Lancet 2025) in Parkinson's disease suggests BBB regional penetrance and disease stage are confounding variables in GLP-1 neuroprotection trials"

**Context:** Published NEJM April 2024. This result was the basis for optimism about GLP-1 Parkinson's applications that exenatide Phase 3 subsequently tempered.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: GLP-1 CNS specificity principle — Parkinson's application specifically
WHY ARCHIVED: The lixisenatide Phase 2 success (LIXIPARK/NEJM) vs. exenatide Phase 3 failure (Lancet 2025) is a genuine within-class divergence that requires a KB divergence file. Two GLP-1 agonists, different BBB penetrance mechanisms, different trial designs, opposite results. This isn't noise — it's a structured disagreement about GLP-1 neuroprotection in PD.
EXTRACTION HINT: Write as paired divergence with the exenatide failure archive. The claim is not "GLP-1 works for Parkinson's" or "GLP-1 fails for Parkinson's" — the claim is "GLP-1 efficacy in Parkinson's depends on CNS penetrance, disease stage, and trial design." That's a more precise and falsifiable claim.
