Slashdot Mirror
100 Year-Old Drug Halts Progress Of Alzheimer's
pafischer writes "Several Australian and UK websites are running articles on this story. I'm shocked that I heard it on the Baltimore rock radio station news, but don't see it on any of the big US new websites. 'Clioquinol, developed 100 years ago, can absorb the zinc and copper compounds that concentrate in the brains of Alzheimer's sufferers before dementia sets in, the study found.' Read all about it at ABC Radio AU, The Sidney Morning Herald, and The Age." Of course, the pathology of Alzheimer's is far from fully understood.
Just so you know:
They aren't really that close.
If you look at the graphs associated with the original paper, which is published in Archives of Neurology if you've got a way to access it (I've got a Tufts University account that I can use) - they don't show that patients regain cognitive functioning. In fact, all patients throughout the study lose cognitive functioning as measured on their ADAS cognitive sub-scale.
Their most interesting finding, imho, is the 3 month period where patients on their drug hold relatively steady, and other patients have a slight decline (the difference is really only about 2 points on a 1-70 point rating scale, while the ADAS is 1-120).
Is this statistically significant? Yes, I think so. And practically, I think any improvement in patients is significant. But I don't think it's significant enough to claim that the disease has been eradicated.
Original Article Info, for anyone who wants to look it up:
Metal-Protein Attenuation With Iodochlorhydroxyquin (Clioquinol) Targeting A[beta] Amyloid Deposition and Toxicity in Alzheimer Disease: A Pilot Phase 2 Clinical Trial
Ritchie, Craig W. MBChB, MRCPsych; Bush, Ashley I. MBBS, PhD, FRANZCP; Mackinnon, Andrew PhD; Macfarlane, Steve MBBS; Mastwyk, Maree BN; MacGregor, Lachlan MBBS; Kiers, Lyn MBBS, FRACP; Cherny, Robert PhD; Li, Qiao-Xin PhD; Tammer, Amanda PhD; Carrington, Darryl BSc; Mavros, Christine BSc; Volitakis, Irene BSc; Xilinas, Michel MD, DSc; Ames, David MD; Davis, Stephen MD, FRACP; Beyreuther, Konrad PhD; Tanzi, Rudolph E. PhD; Masters, Colin L. MD
Volume 60(12) December 2003 p 1685-1691
Archives of Neurology
100 Year-Old Drug Halts Progress Of Alzheimer's Rather, all the drug has been shown to do in this study is stop a few of the many chemical abnormalities that are coincident with alzheimers. It is unknown whether these chemicals actually do anything to cause alzheimers. They may as well be a byproduct of it, for all we know. It is also unknown how else this drug alters brain chemistry and what the side effects of that could be. So proclaiming it a miracle cure is very premature.
Repeal the DMCA!
This is the same problem with lithium. Can't be patented, so it isn't profitable enough. Lithium has been shown to prevent beta-amyloid accumulation. While beta-amyloid plaques are only associated with (not known to be causative of) Alzheimer's, the fact is that lithium may inhibit the pathological process that produces such plaques far enough upstream to be just what the doctor ordered. One problem with lithium, however, is that it's tough on the kidneys. People of Alzheimer's age might not tolerate that well -- nor other side effects like tremors. Regardless, it's been in wide use since the early 70's for other things. I believe there's some NIH-sponsored thrust to conduct clinical trials with AD patients, but don't quote me on it. If you have access, search through this summer's issues of Nature for the review article on lithium.
100-year old drug means no patents. No patents means no profits.
The AC is wrong on two levels. First, the pharmaceutical industry is full of manufacturers that make generic drugs. These companies make profits through efficient manufacturing and distribution (versus through patents and R&D). Most people don't know about these makers because the companies have no reason to advertise.
Second, because this is a 100-year old drug, it's approved and out there. Although nobody can advertise that the drug works for Alzheimer's until somebody does all the expensive regulatory clinical studies, any doctor can prescribe the drug of any "off-label" use. If enough web-enabled family members of Alzheimer's victims learn of the drug, they will demand the treatment from doctors, find a doctor who will give this treatment, or find an online pharmacy that wil provide the drug.
The bottomline line is that we don't need the big pharma companies to create either supply or demand for a drug.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
There might be little guys that offer it in the short term, but it wouldn't take long for Pfizer et. al. to swoop in and mop the scene with a "New and Improved" version just for the sake of killing the little supplier to keep them from becoming a big, competing supplier. Once the little supplier is dead, they can the "New and Improved" version and nobody else has the guts to come stomping on that territory again.
It's the same general principle as a big, rich company setting up a crappy lean-to next to an existing gas station, then undercutting the price until you're both losing money on each sale. Eventually, if you have the cash reserves to survive the profit loss on sale and the other guy doesn't, the other guy dies off because he absolutely cannot cut his price any lower (and people are buying from you because you still have the lower price) and you tear down your lean-to and leave.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
It's a 100 yr old drug that is already approved to treat *SOME* illness. Therefore somebody must make it already for that other purpose. Doctors can prescribe drugs for purposes other than that for which they were designed. They don't need anyone's permission. So where's the issue?
Eat at Joe's.
Sure: pennies made after 1982. We handle those zinc depaced excuses for pennies all the time and it's not like copper and zinc are hard metals.
learn it first. Autopsied Alzheimer's brain shows no sign of the prion-nucleated chain reaction that is characteristic of Mad Cow or other prion diseases. It is amyloid-beta that accumulates in Alzheimer's. And it isn't even known whether the amyloid "plaques" are causative or simply an anomalous by-product.