Comments
KetosisMD t1_j7hs2pf wrote
Zero surprise.
burtzev OP t1_j7huvnq wrote
One thing strikes me. After the 50% price reduction in early 2022 the wholesale !! price of a one year 'maintenance dose' of Tilavonemab was $28,200. You can be sure that the company is still making money even after halving the price. As of April last year up to 1.5 million people had been treated with the drug. This is in the running for the most successful failure ever.
KetosisMD t1_j7i14jt wrote
That’s nuts.
I can’t believe anyone prescribed dangerous placebos.
It’s hard to know what is more broken the FDA or Healthcare
Edit
> 1.5 million treated
No, 1.5 million would be eligible. CMS denied coverage to anyone who isn’t in a trial.
This is good news. I was hoping CMS would pass on this drug and they did.
burtzev OP t1_j7i8181 wrote
I believe you are right and that I misread the NYT article.
Xinlitik t1_j7ilsea wrote
Why is CMS paying for trial drugs? I thought pharma companies paid for trials- isnt that their excuse for price gouging after the trial is done?
KetosisMD t1_j7im6t0 wrote
You’d think !
The trials will fail. All these new Alzheimer’s drugs are garbage.
---LJY--- t1_j7knjo2 wrote
Any promising ones?
KetosisMD t1_j7lcj13 wrote
Absolutely zero.
it’s all prevention:
Everything that’s good for the heart is good for the brain.
friendofoldman t1_j7ouhna wrote
Stop eating sugar and seed oils.
AutoModerator t1_j7h6jwp wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j7hb6m4 wrote
Why does this include the results for the three doses of tilavonemab, but not for the placebo group?
burtzev OP t1_j7hc4hw wrote
Three different amounts of the drug. As for placebo it would be 'hard' to devise 3 different amounts of nothing in solution. Maybe one could lie to the control group and tell them that they are getting different doses of the nothing solution. The article compares the effects to the placebo, hence the results are implicit in the design.
Brain_Hawk t1_j7hw0ee wrote
You don't have to dose placebo. You tell the participants there are either two or four conditions in a case like this. Most likely you've reveal the full design, that they will either receive a placebo or one of three doses of the drug. After that the participant and the researchers are blind as to what condition each participant is in. Until after the analysis is done.
You are not ethically allowed to lie to people and tell them they will receive medication when they might receive a placebo. They have to be aware that the possibility of placebo is there.
burtzev OP t1_j7hxed2 wrote
I know. The part about lying was deliberately facetious. Unless you get the ethics committee really drunk before the meeting of course. The question in the comment was phrased such that I couldn't say if the author meant 3 different doses of placebo or if they had missed the part where all the doses were compared to placebo. So I covered both bases with a little sugar pill of humour.
Brain_Hawk t1_j7hxt7t wrote
Oh I totally missed it :p
[deleted] t1_j7ifjv9 wrote
[removed]
Call_In_The_Bin t1_j7j3e1v wrote
By the time they figure out Alzheimer's I'll be an incontinent drooling vegetable. They've been spinning their wheels for 20 years, I swear.
altxrtr t1_j7k0mnj wrote
Nope, Cassava Sciences’ simufilam has been shown to improve cognition, behavior and a range of biomarkers in mild AD patients. Currently in Phase 3.
_MonteCristo_ t1_j7keb1n wrote
A quick google shows that several papers regarding this have been retracted and there are several investigations into potential fraud ongoing.
[deleted] t1_j7ki4tq wrote
[removed]
ButterBallTheFatCat t1_j7jq6ha wrote
Alot of it was based off of falsified data for literally decades that we just found out about
burtzev OP t1_j7h7d8w wrote
Sadly, despite earlier reports of (slight) efficacy this study found that treatment with Tilavonemab wasn't significantly better than placebo.
>A total of 453 patients were randomized, of whom 337 were treated with tilavonemab (300 mg, n = 108; 1000 mg, n = 116; 2000 mg, n = 113) and 116 received placebo. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable across groups. The mean age was 71.3 (standard deviation [SD] 7.0) years, 51.7% were female, and 96.5% were White. At baseline, the mean CDR-SB score was 3.0 (1.2), which worsened through Week 96 for all treatment groups. The least squares mean change from baseline at Week 96 in the CDR-SB score with tilavonemab was not significantly different compared with placebo (300 mg [n = 85]: −0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI): –0.83 to 0.69]; 1000 mg [n = 91]: −0.06 [95% CI: –0.81 to 0.68]; 2000 mg [n = 81]: 0.16 [95% CI: –0.60 to 0.93]; all P ≥ 0.05). The incidence of any adverse event and MRI findings were generally comparable across groups.Tilavonemab was generally well tolerated but did not demonstrate efficacy in treating patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. Further investigations of tilavonemab in early Alzheimer’s disease are not warranted.