Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_iyb31c7 wrote

[deleted]

135

Murgatroyd314 t1_iyb3l77 wrote

Results are not as spectacular as the summary makes them sound, nasty side effects are common.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2340082-alzheimers-drug-results-are-promising-but-not-a-major-breakthrough/

175

Starlightriddlex t1_iybgqxc wrote

To be honest, even if the drug does occasionally kill people and doesn't always work, it will still be worth it for people. Once you get Alzheimer's, you, as a person, basically die anyway and you get replaced by someone who is often cruel or violent towards your loved ones, while you waste away for years.

If given the choice to suffer through that or take a potential treatment that might kill me quickly instead, I would take the treatment. Alzheimer's is a terrible disease.

197

ThickerSalmon14 t1_iyc37yr wrote

Dealing with my father in law who has Alzheimer's. It really is a disease that kills the person, but leaves the body up and walking around.

Also people can evolve and become better people... and then the memory loss takes that away. A loving inclusive man who dedicated his life to helping people turns to me and is suddenly a 19 year navy recruit who is going out to Fire Island to beat up Gays on the weekend.

112

PixieDrifter t1_iycw0u9 wrote

That sounds heartbreaking for him and everyone who loves him.

17

Heel_Paul t1_iybl4qr wrote

My grandpa right now was a loving person. But that guy right now isn't the person I remember. He's a mean fox news watching bigot who treats everyone like they are a piece of shit.

47

Taniwha_NZ t1_iybzvyh wrote

That's happened to a lot of elderly without alzheimers, see the documentary 'the brainwashing of my dad', things have only gotten worse since then.

So this transformation probably isn't a great example of what alzheimers does to you. Or maybe it just demonstrates that watching right-wing news has the same effect on your brain as alzheimers.

48

KookooMoose t1_iyco7n1 wrote

Do you know how incredibly insensitive it is to compare someone watching a news channel that you don’t agree with to a horrific disease that destroys loved ones and rocks families?

−30

EternalStudent t1_iycvjwv wrote

>Do you know how incredibly insensitive it is to compare someone watching a news channel that destroys loved ones and rocks familys to a horrific disease that destroys loved ones and rocks families?

FTFY, and having been someone who's had both happen... yes.

19

Versificator t1_iyd1rg5 wrote

Fox news is worse. People who consume that garbage are willingly lobotomizing themselves.

7

Methoszs OP t1_iycxf9r wrote

My mom passed away from alzheimers a few years ago, I can tell you that if even if the drug has a chance at killing me. I'd rather die than live through it. You become just a husk of a human.

23

BeKind_BeTheChange t1_iyd9xgx wrote

My mom too. Right at 2 years ago. We actually don't know for sure that she had Alzheimer's because she refused all medical care once her memory started to slip. She would say, "I know I'm losing my memory. I don't want to be doped-up. You can deal with it."

And, she forced me to deal with it even though she absolutely refused to do any end-of-life paperwork. It was horrible dealing with my mother and our system.

15

Dandan0005 t1_iybnibm wrote

Alzheimer’s is already a death sentence.

They estimate ~19 more months of independent life with this drug.

Don’t know anyone who wouldn’t take that.

35

CatumEntanglement t1_iycbhmt wrote

There is zero data that shows people gain 19 months of functional independent life with this drug. The phase 3 trials were not even studying this, as the people enrolled have not passed away yet to even determine how long they had "functional life" with the drug verses a placebo group.

23

Slapbox t1_iybpw8r wrote

Side effects? I'm sure there are others.

Don't get me wrong though, this drug is a big fucking deal.

13

Slapbox t1_iybprho wrote

I don't feel like that's a fair characterization.

Having an effective agent for Alzheimer's, even if insufficiently effective, cracks the door open to better understanding what processes are actually crucial to Alzheimer's symptoms and which are incidental.

There have been many theories about the cause of Alzheimer's. Even though this isn't a breakthrough for anyone suffering today, this is a huge breakthrough for future research.

28

Aviri t1_iyb3zld wrote

It's very expensive, isn't broadly or powerfully effective, and regularly causes severe enough side effects people on it will require regular(also expensive) testing to ensure they don't die from them.

61

redditmydna t1_iyb4eat wrote

So, forget it, then.

27

AnselmFox t1_iybh96g wrote

It doesn’t do anything… so for yrs we’ve noted increased amyloid plaque buildup with Alzheimer’s. And so there was a line of reasoning (widely accepted) suggesting the buildup may be part of a causal relationship with cognitive decline. This medicine does what it is what targeted to do- but it turns out amyloid buildup may not play the role we thought (as the medicine doesn’t do anything for the actual symptoms). So it’s cool in that it makes us think about lines of inquiry being off the mark, but I wouldn’t prescribe it to any of my Alzheimer’s pts.-because again it doesn’t actually help

22

SingularityPrime t1_iybrn2a wrote

They estimated 19 more months of independent living. There's quite the discrepancy between what you're saying and what they're saying.

3

AnselmFox t1_iybyggf wrote

No “they” don’t. The phase 3 shows almost no real change in symptoms vs control groups…1.6 vs 1.2 change in score (out of 18) on Alzheimer’s battery used (CDRSB) and over an 18 months— (calling that a 27% change in symptom progression is disingenuous- yes it’s “statistically significant” but in reality that’s the difference between a 1/2 point in scoring on some domain of the battery over a yr and a 1/2 of treatment) and nowhere is it suggested in the actual data that there are “19 months more of independent living”— maybe the stock prospectus says that though! It’s a crock of shit. This is a media blitz. Anyway don’t take my word the study is published if you can sift through the bias in it

33

CatumEntanglement t1_iycaabv wrote

Thank you, thank you, thank you. As someone on the research side of human neurodegenerative diseases, this drug is, as you say...a crock of shit.

As an aside, all patients classified with idopathic/sporadic AD (which are 95% of cases) showed no change in the CDRSB scoring. This drug is no better than a placebo IMO. A very expensive ($30k-50k) placebo that has to be infused into the CSF and causes brain bleeds in 17% of patients. The only true significant thing this drug does is give people brain bleeds.

10

statslady23 t1_iych4jf wrote

It's just like the US drug Aduhelm. It's $56000 per year, and Medicare doesn't cover it yet. Plaque reduction has implications for CTE, Parkinson's, maybe long-term covid, etc. I talked to one of the Aduhelm researchers at a dinner party recently who said other similar drugs are close on the horizon. Exciting times for this area of neuro research for sure.

3

SimbaOnSteroids t1_iyem5jn wrote

You’re getting downvoted but this is in-line with what one of the Aduhelm researches told me. Removing amyloid plaques may prove to be important but it’s clearly not the whole picture.

1

Slyons89 t1_iyblmk8 wrote

It would only potentially be effective in very early stages of disease development. Much earlier than when it is typically detected. And still then not very effective. So we need a more reliable early detection method to make this particular version of the drug worthwhile.

However according to the article this is the first drug ever to show any actual results in breaking down the troublesome amyloid proteins on neurons in the brain. So this is just the earliest version of a potential treatment. Maybe it can be improved upon. I'm thinking about the earlier treatment methods for cancer compared to what we have today. And how early detection is still incredibly important to survival rates.

1

CatumEntanglement t1_iycajff wrote

It's not. Biogens Aduhelm out now does the same in being able to remove plaques...but does nothing in patients to stop or reverse cognitive decline. But it does give people brain bleeds at $30k-50k for the treatment. It was the drug that was pushed through the FDA against all recommendations that it shouldn't because it doesn't significantly help patients.

11

Slyons89 t1_iyctnci wrote

>One of the world's leading researchers behind the whole idea of targeting amyloid 30 years ago, Prof John Hardy, said it was "historic" and was optimistic "we're seeing the beginning of Alzheimer's therapies". Prof Tara Spires-Jones, from the University of Edinburgh, said the results were "a big deal because we've had a 100% failure rate for a long time".

>How changes in nerve cells could offer protection in old age Currently, people with Alzheimer's are given other drugs to help manage their symptoms, but none change the course of the disease.

1

KamahlYrgybly t1_iyd4wfc wrote

Of course he promotes it, if he is the leader in beta-amyloid research. Which has not been proven as the cause of Alzheimer's. It may just as well be a result of the disease process.

This is nowhere near an actual breakthrough.

9

Slyons89 t1_iyd5zmm wrote

The first drug successfully target beta-amyloid is absolutely a breakthrough. It's a breakthrough in drugs successfully targeting beta amyloid. Going from 0 drugs having an effect to 1 drug having an effect is by definition a breakthrough.

It's not effective at treating or curing Alzheimers at this stage, especially because it would not have any appreciable affect by the time the disease has progressed to the stage where it is typically diagnosed, which I stated in my top comment in response to someone asking "why isn't this as exciting as it sounds".

If you are thinking a 'breakthrough' means a 'immediately available permanent cure', then no, obviously not.

−1

StickyTaq t1_iydemvr wrote

There have been a number of drugs which have been shown to slow beta-amyloid plaque development, but this is the first to show any reduction in cognitive decline in association with it. For instance, the same companies who development lecanemab also trialed aduhelm, which reduced plaques with no change in patient cognitive abilities. This was approved by the FDA as well with much controversy, resulting in the resignation of 3 members of the advisory committee. However, the results are modest with some scientists claiming it will not result in any perceivable difference for the patient. Indeed the above poster is correct in that there is a growing concern whether beta-amyloid plaques are the cause of the disease, as the foundation of the hypothesis has been called into suspect due to potentially fraudulent work. There was an interesting write up recently in Science about it. Now, this is not my field, but I'm curious of what may come out of it. It may be akin to a sort of Piero Anversa c-kit stemcell fall out, resulting in the retraction of a slew of studies.

5

CatumEntanglement t1_iydc63w wrote

But there is no breakthrough. This drug, like Aduhelm which is already out, does not slow not stop Alzheimer's disease. All people who get the treatment still progress in the same degree as withoit treatment. This drug is the same kind of treatment that Aduhelm is, which is a monoclonal antibody for plaques. Your statement that there are 0 drugs targeting amyloid is incorrect, as Aduhelm is already out for the public.

95% of all AD cases are sporadic with no genetic cause, the other 5% are from familial AD. These antibody drugs fail to do anything for sporadic cases and the only people there is any difference is with the 5% familial group. And that treatment difference disappears after a few months with the disease progress continues. The drug causes brain bleeds in more people than it does treating Alzheimer's.

2

WhereWhatTea t1_iyc23mq wrote

No. Just read the damn article. Your question gets answered in the first couple paragraphs!

1

piTehT_tsuJ t1_iybeb0w wrote

Becuase the amazing breakthrough is just an attempt at lining big pharma's investors pockets and not really help people in need.

Your not an investor, therefore not excited...

−20

streamofbsness t1_iybh0nn wrote

Please fuck all the way off. Like you have any idea how difficult it is to develop a decent drug, especially one targeted towards the brain. How many thousands of researchers are working on Alzheimer’s, how many billions of dollars have been poured into it. How many people work at these companies that are there because they’ve seen their family and friends waste away from it. Shame on you for putting less than two seconds of thought into your judgement.

I’d wager that you’re not a biologist, nor have any experience that would give you the first clue about the science and economics of drug development.

13

Relevant_Quantity_49 t1_iybllao wrote

>The first drug to slow the destruction of the brain in Alzheimer's has been heralded as momentous and historic. > >The research breakthrough ends decades of failure and shows a new era of drugs to treat Alzheimer's - the most common form of dementia - is possible. > >Yet the medicine, lecanemab, has only a small effect and its impact on people's daily lives is debated.

Way to walk back that opening.

I wish we could be a little more guarded in our optimism about these new drugs. We've seen more than a few that promised to move us forward in our effort to treat Alzheimer's only to watch them faceplant at the finish line. As someone who is watching a loved one die of this disease, it feels like a cynical and exploitative manipulation of our hopes for companies and researchers to tout their success before it's established.

As an aside, if anyone is looking for more information on Alzheimer's then Jason Karlawish's The Problem of Alzheimer's is an excellent book. I don't agree with him on some things that are a matter of personal values and beliefs, but his coverage of the history of Alzheimer's and the state of research up to the point the book was published is excellent.

57

zeddoh t1_iycn8ib wrote

I do agree with you re headlines. But a few years ago, I started working with researchers and specifically Alzheimer’s researchers (not in a sciencey role at all). It has been such a long slog and there have been so many failures that the simple fact that there is now proof we can modify this disease really is momentous. Medical research is such a long game, especially Alzheimer’s research, which is chronically underfunded.

This quote from a recent article struck me:

“Earlier this year, De Strooper searched the US medical database PubMed for dementia. He found 250,000 studies. He then searched for cancer and found 4.7m. Next, he searched for Covid, a disease that didn’t exist before 2019, and found 300,000 studies. It’s a rough metric, but it suggests that more research has been done on Covid in the past three years than on dementia in the past century.”

Edit - I am very sorry you are having to watch a loved one go through AD, it is truly such a cruel disease.

18

Relevant_Quantity_49 t1_iycsbqv wrote

The effect this study found is so small it could very well evaporate in follow-up studies. It's not proof we can modify Alzheimer's at all. At best it's an indication of an avenue for further research. That's my point: We're celebrating before we're certain there's anything to celebrate.

Regarding the difference between dementia research and the novel coronavirus, we need to keep in mind that they are not remotely equivalent situations.

First, they don't have equivalent economic or social impacts. SARS-CoV-2 is killing and disabling far more people and wreaking havoc on global economic systems. Dementia is not.

Second, their research involves different levels of complexity. Identifying and developing treatments for a novel virus is a lot more straightforward (relatively speaking) than unlocking the secrets of the brain. Neuroscience on a whole is a field that is a slow slog.

Third, the research is occurring on different scales. Alzheimer's was first described in 1906, when scientific publishing was still quite young. All of the basic research, case studies, and clinical reports happened when there were very few places to publish, very few researchers, and there wasn't a ton of research specialization.

Covid, on the other hand, came along at what may be the height of academic publishing. There are tons of journals on every conceivable specialty--more than a few of dubious quality--and a "publish or perish" mindset that drives people to put anything out there whether or not it's decent work. Additionally, the medical research and scientific field is huge compared to what it was with specialists for everything you can think of.

And Covid, because of it's unique behavior as a virus that affects pretty much every organ system, touched all of those specialties simultaneously.

Instead of the basic research trickling out in the pages of The Lancet over months or years because that is how science worked in the early 20th century, everyone and his cousin published their observations and experiments at roughly the same time.

As horrifying as Covid was, watching the research explode virtually overnight was incredible. But, yeah, while Alzheimer's research is definitely underfunded, one can't draw any meaningful conclusions from a comparison with Covid research.

13

zeddoh t1_iycvoc8 wrote

I’m going off what the head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society has said. Are you saying he’s wrong? Not trying to be combative - genuinely wondering.

““This is not a cure by any stretch of the imagination, but if it does slow cognitive decline, it means that for the first time we are modifying the disease,” says Dr Richard Oakley, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society.”” From here

Appreciate your analysis of the covid / Alzheimer’s research comparison, really interesting insights. Totally agree the explosion of Covid research was incredible to behold!

3

Relevant_Quantity_49 t1_iycxp6m wrote

I'm saying he's premature. We aren't going to know if he's right or wrong until we see additional studies. This is how science works.

I think it's important to remember that professionals are just as prone to confusing what they want to be true with what is true as anyone else. When someone's entire career is oriented towards a certain goal, they're representative of an organization oriented towards a certain goal, and they're speaking to a reporter, I think that line can become even more blurry.

If you look at the entire quote, Oakley isn't even basing his statement in the research itself. He's basing it on what nebulous "people" and "everyone" are saying.

>“This is not a cure by any stretch of the imagination, but if it does slow cognitive decline, it means that for the first time we are modifying the disease,” says Dr Richard Oakley, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society. “We need to understand the real-world clinical benefit, but I’ve spoken to people and where there’s never been excitement, always hesitation, this does look like the real deal. We need to see the data, but everyone is now saying this is the beginning of disease-modifying treatments.”

If you have a strong study, you don't talk about how other people are telling you how exciting the study is. You talk about how exciting the study is. Furthermore, anywhere in that statement that he talks about the research, he talks about uncertainty. "We need to understand the real world clinical benefit, but..." meaning the study doesn't show that. "We need to see the data, but..." meaning it's not there yet.

If it was there, he would've said "The study shows..." or "The data shows..."

6

zeddoh t1_iyd4ibl wrote

Thanks for taking the time to explain. That article and the quotes were actually from a couple of weeks ago, before the full results of the study were released just yesterday (initially the drug company just released a summary statement), so he wouldn’t have been able to say ‘the study/data shows’ but I do take your point more broadly.

There are so many respected, expert scientists in this field (representing numerous organisations and institutions all over the world, not affiliated with the drug company) stating this is an exciting step forward and I believe them. More fool me perhaps. They aren’t saying it’s a magic pill, they’re saying it’s the start, while also rightly highlighting the numerous real issues now to be tackled through further investigation, additional studies, etc. That’s how science works, as you say. What happens next will be the proof in the pudding.

3

NPVT t1_iyb5vpp wrote

Sigh

https://www.science.org/content/article/second-death-linked-potential-antibody-treatment-alzheimer-s-disease

35

Dandan0005 t1_iybnwih wrote

Alzheimer’s is already a death sentence.

And honestly, having see people go through it, some would argue it’s worse than a death sentence.

They estimate 19 more months of independent life with this.

Is it a miracle? No. But it’s hardly nothing.

8

moo100times t1_iycv2a8 wrote

It's not just death or improvement, it is all the middle ground of increased disability and impairment that it can cause (including swelling and bleeding) can likely leave a person much more disabled and impaired, whilst still alive, than Alzheimer's would itself. That the phase 3 study did not reveal any but already two in an open label, extension study is itself highly concerning, and in my opinion shows this drug is clearly not near being ready for market.

Alzheimer's is bad, but showing at best a modest improvement on oddly chosen end points in early disease whilst risking significantly disabling side effects that works directly against what you hope the drug will achieve makes me concerned.

1

Tom_Neverwinter t1_iyb5od5 wrote

As a scientist we can say this is a start.

It shows signs of helping.

Now just have to isolate the helpful part and remove the not helpful parts.

26

videopro10 t1_iyb4xml wrote

Is it any better than Aducanumab or does it also do nothing?

15

chiffed t1_iybcqbw wrote

It raises stock values very well.

12

CatumEntanglement t1_iycatcx wrote

It also does the same as Aduhelm, which is to say it does nothing to halt AD. This is a media blitz to help prepare it to have positive coverage before it goes before the FDA. Biogen hopes that it also causes the public to force the FDA to approve this drug like they did with Aduhelm. This is just another incredibly expensive placebo that needs to be infused directly into brain CSF, and gives 1 in 5 people a brain bleed.

7

OneofLittleHarmony t1_iyb6eey wrote

It causes the brain to bleed. Maybe when you remove a structure from the brain…. It causes some bleeding?

6

docdoc_2 t1_iybk4tp wrote

Nice signal but very minimal clinical improvement on memory testing, vs ~10% brain bleed or swelling with no clear research on longterm effect of those brain side effects

4

CatumEntanglement t1_iycaywg wrote

17% get brain bleeds. 7% have to stop because of more serious symptoms like stroke. Mind you, it's also a ridiculously expensive drug ($30k-50k) that has to be infused on your cerebral spinal fluid. All of that for a treatment that actually doesn't work.

3

Dandan0005 t1_iybnzyz wrote

Bro there is no long term with Alzheimer’s.

2

docdoc_2 t1_iybsb9q wrote

…this trial is in very early disease. These patients could live for decades.

4

ATR2400 t1_iyc2hss wrote

Sure it has big problems but the fact that it works means that we did something right and we’re on the right track. Now we can learn more about why it works, isolate the helpful parts, and then learn about and try to avoid the stuff that causes the side effects

4

WilderKat t1_iybgopr wrote

I don’t understand the negativity here. This is a start that can be built on. Maybe it won’t help my current family members with dementia, but for the following generation there might be more viable treatments because of these medications.

3

CatumEntanglement t1_iycb8ck wrote

It's built on the faulty premise that plaques cause AD. That's why the drugs targeting plaques don't work...because plaques don't cause AD. The truth is that every single person who reaches about 80 shows plaques in the brain. People who show no age related dementia have plaques in the brain. Plaques don't denote Alzheimer's at all. It's a very old misconception that the public keeps hearing from people very invested in plaque-related treatments.

2

Motherdiedtoday t1_iycdumt wrote

Isn't it possible that the processes resulting in AD begins many years before symptoms appear, and that deposits of amyloid plaque are an early sign of these processes, i.e., that plaque does not immediately cause cognitive decline and dementia, thus, it can be present in the brains of individuals who do not present any symptoms of AD (but who would eventually do so if they lived long enough)?

My mother died of AD last week. She only began showing symptoms in October of last year.

2

CatumEntanglement t1_iyce3aq wrote

If that was the case then all people with plaques would have Alzheimer's, which is not the case. In my own lab I see brains from dementia free patients in their late 70s-90s who have plaques. It's an age related phenomenon to have brain plaques as we age. Additionally there are a significant nunber of AD patients who have all the classic symptoms of AD while alive, but are found to have brains that are completely plaque free during a post-mortem analysis.

2

Hot-Bint t1_iybnn4l wrote

This gives me hope. My grandmother died of Alzheimer’s. I thought it jumped a generation (i am not entirely sure) but all 4 of her daughters, my mom included, died of it. So now I just don’t know. No one wants to go out like that 😞

3

anotherjustlurking t1_iyby0vj wrote

Isn’t this one of the only drugs in history to be approved AFTER the review committee recommended NOT approving it. If it’s the same drug I read about it’s been lobbied for zealously…even though nearly everyone unanimously voted against it…(I guarantee I’ve messed up some of these reports because - never mind.

3

KarlsReddit t1_iybams1 wrote

Still can't believe this drug is still allowed to be pushed through in humans.

2

PunisherASM129 t1_iycam31 wrote

better title would be "hailed BY INVESTORS as momentous breakthrough"

2

gizmozed t1_iyckus8 wrote

This looks very much like a case of the FDA approving a drug because lots of money was spent developing it. Clinical trials did not go remotely well with this drug. Why is it getting approved?

2

brash2019 t1_iyb941k wrote

What a medical breakthrough!!! This will improve millions of lives!! Help families around the wor-….

Wha-what’s that? Martin Shkreli just made a bid for it? Ah, for fuck’s sake.

1

Jerrymoviefan3 t1_iybi2ej wrote

Since the crappy drug that does nearly nothing costs $28,000 a year I assume this OK one will cost $280,000 a year.

1

theassman_ t1_iyby1x6 wrote

Well, they spent all their resources on the research, not the name.

1

Al3rtROFL t1_iychkqp wrote

It's 102472002 dollars and ineffective at doing what it's meant to treat due to a falsified study.

1

SmtNocturneDante t1_iyd9f1y wrote

Yagami Detective Agency should look into this.

1

sugar_addict002 t1_iydrurq wrote

After what happened with the last miracle Alzheimer study, why would we trust this one?

1