Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[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