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.

21 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    100-year old drug means no patents. No patents means no profits. No profits means the drugco's won't TOUCH it. And in fact I wouldn't be surprised if we see some studies showing that it causes cancer or something.

    Sorry folks. Alzheimer's won't get an effective until Pfizer is good and READY.

    1. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by MissMarvel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The drug companies may not touch it, but this is one of the Big A illnesses... Alzheimer's, AIDS, and Autism. It could draw a lot of attention at the NIH level.

      Remember, the drug companies weren't all that hot on research to oust hormone replacement therapy(HRT) either, but the Women's Health Initiative went forward with a vengance. As a result, Wyeth-Ayerst's Primarin took a nose-dive as millions of women decided to opt out of HRT.

      This 100 year old drug may become a "hot topic" in upcoming medical research. I just hope they have a few more patients in the next study.

    2. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by kurosawdust · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK,so assume ACME Pharmaceuticals realizes this - theyll probably say "hey, the other drug companies arent touching it + people want it = open market". Your conclusion that "Alzheimer's won't get an effective [drug]" is flawed because of this, I believe. I think its ridiculous to presume that *every* pharmaceutical company will sit on its hands when people want this drug and (under your assumption) nobody is supplying it.

    3. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by Meowing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to the generic drug manufacturers, and the companies that have been cranking out the same public domain OTC remedies forever.

      Really, drug manufacturers don't mind at all if you get better from disease A and live a bit longer, because they'll get to see you when you come down with disease B a few years later. See, the neat thing about the medical industry, from a financial standpoint, is that pretty much everyone manages to get real sick and even die sooner or later, so there's always going to be an opportunity to sell something.

    4. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by ctr2sprt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Since when is nonsensical paranoia interesting? Common sense proves the AC's an idiot. Go down to your local pharmacy. Note the shelves full of dirt-cheap medications, both brand names and generics. Obviously drug companies can continue to make money off extremely old medications.

      The reason is incredibly simple. The entire cost of a new medication comes from years and years of research. Not just of the medication that makes it to market, but of the ten which don't. Producing the actual pills costs virtually nothing.

      So you see, it does make sense for drug companies to sell unpatented pills. They won't make a killing, but they don't need to: they invested no money in research of the medication, they have no losses to recoup. Even if they only make five cents per hundred thousand pills, it's five cents they wouldn't otherwise have.

    5. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    6. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!
    7. Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK by Cap'nMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note the phrase, "either this drug or a better drug we have in development". That is the best way for any of the big drug companies to make money off of a discovery like this, by offering a better functioning alternative. Your point is valid that older drugs still function and are still available, but if there is a faster or more effective alternative, almost anyone will spend more to give their older relations the better drug.

      --
      Celebrities are like ads, if we all ignore them, they'll just go away.
  2. It's be great to see this thing finally killed by ChopsMIDI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RAFAEL EPSTEIN: How reliable is the study if it is only 36 patients?

    COLIN MASTERS: This is, again, a pilot study, so our next step is to take it into a much larger series of patients, either this drug or a better drug we have in development. What we have on the drawing boards is a better version of this drug which is more effective and will probably go into trials hopefully before the end of this year.


    I'd like to see the results after a much more extensive study has been conducted. If this really works, which at least with these preliminary tests suggest, it'd be nice to see alzheimers start to go the way if the dodo.

    --

    How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
    1. Re:It's be great to see this thing finally killed by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

  3. Testing testing testing - Re:It's be great to see by leoaugust · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is, again, a pilot study, so our next step is to take it into a much larger series of patients, either this drug or a better drug we have in development. What we have on the drawing boards is a better version of this drug which is more effective and will probably go into trials hopefully before the end of this year.
    This is just a pilot study with a small number of patients.
    • First it has to be scaled up to involve a lot more people.
    • Secondly there has to be long term monitoring of the side-effects of the medication on a much larger population - you need to have samples of young and old, sick with A or B, taking medication x or y, with previous condition of m or n, etc.
    • Thirdly, you have to find companies with big pockets that can finance the research, massive clinical trials, manufacture the drug, and then help put it on the doctor's prescription pad.
    • Fourthly, in the US the FDA is probably going to take 10 years or more to approve this. And in the intervening 10 years FDA may decide not to approve it after all, so the risk in trying to commercialize a drug is enormous.
    • Fifthly, there are many products that show potential early on, but then in the Phase 2 or 3 they find something not-good about it. And then down the toilet it goes.
    • Sixthly, the early investors may find the news a something that they can speculate based on (even that is too early for this drug) but for the rest it is a long long slog, and a small probability, that this drug will finally enter the market.
    • So, it is not that big a news to be making headlines worldwide.
    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
  4. Article title is grossly inaccurate by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Lithium by nmbg · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Symptoms of Alzheimers... by floydigus · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Loss of short term memory.
    2. Confusion.
    3. Short term memory loss.

    --

    All things in moderation; including moderation

    1. Re:Symptoms of Alzheimers... by paganizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      4. ??
      5. Profit!

      I've never, ever posted one of these lame jokes before, I just couldn't help myself.
      BTW, I'm of the opinion that if there is a disease or imbalance, there is a natural/herbal treatment for it; we may not ever find it, but I bet it is their.
      Um. does anyone have a mnemonic for when to use "there" as opposed to "their" in a sentence? I've been having problems with it for like 30 years.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    2. Re:Symptoms of Alzheimers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well the rate of Alzheimer's has been increasing rapidly, so I don't at all doubt that it can be prevented naturally. Just eat healthy unprocessed foods like our bodies evolved to do, and don't take in so many preservatives, pollutants, etc. Alzheimer's along with a bunch of other diseases would be much less common.

      That will never happen because people are too arrogant and ignorant, and somehow feel that they are cheating themselves if they don't suck down mad-cow and nitrite filled hotdogs, nutritionally empty processed foods, etc.

      As for a cure, well I guess I need to share an opinion of mine about Americans first. Most fall into two groups. One thinks all medicines should be synthetic pills you buy from a store, and the other thinks all medicines should be natural. In my opinion, both groups are extremely idealistic and ignorant.

      Imagine a carrot. Are there chemicals in it? Sure, vitamin C, sugars, stuff like that. Is there anything in that carrot that is not a chemical? Absolutely not! The entire carrot is made out of chemicals. Nothing that you can touch or see is not made entirely out of chemicals. The fact is, plants make chemicals, and so do scientists.

      Plants have a very diverse collection of chemicals available to us to use as medicines. Most drugs made today are only variants of natural chemicals. At the same time, scientists can tweak these chemicals and get different effects from them.

      The bottom line is that if you are excluding either natural or synthetic chemicals as medicines, your idealistic thoughts will likely result in less than optimal health. Don't be closed minded. I am talking to both groups of people when I say this.

  7. very interesting - especially considering BSE/CJD by vnv · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's been known for the past few years that Alzheimer's and Creutzfeld-Jacobs Disease (CJD) are eerily similar, especially considering that the symptoms of Alzheimer's and CJD are also eerily similar.

    In fact, at least 13% of Alzheimer's cases are indeed CJD caused by mad cow. If larger studies were done, this percentage could end up much higher.

    It may turn out that Alzheimer's is due to mad cow, or its predecessor, mad sheep (scrapie).

    I hope that any new studies of this drug also focus on how it works in people versus CJD.

    All over the beef-eating world, we are seeing CJD very early in people. Italy's only known case of CJD was a man who was merely 27 years old. Given CJD's incubation time, it would indicate that mad cow/BSE/CJD has been in Italy anywhere from 5 to 15 years.

    For transmission between people, CJD is a blood borne disease, similar to HIV in how it spreads. This would explain why the ramp on Alzheimer's is so rapid and why so many young people are getting Alzheimer's.

    Almost all the medical news regarding mad cow/BSE/CJD has been killed in the US. The simplest assumption would be that there is far more mad cow in the system than anyone wants to say. Only a ingenuous imbecile would think that out of over 35 million cows that are killed every year in the US, over the past 10 years or more, only 1 cow from Canada had BSE/mad cow. Especially considering that the US imports 1.7 million cows from Canada every year. And 1 million from Mexico. In both countries, Canada and Mexico, they have followed the US lead and perform near zero mad cow/BSE testing.

    Anyhow, that is a lot on the crazy cow. I am hoping a fool's hope that Alzheimer's does not turn out to be caused by crazy cow. For if it is, there will be an epidemic of dementia in the USA unless a cure is found in the immediate future.

    Of course an upcoming unstoppable Alzheimer's epidemic... would clearly explain the sudden and massive urge to offshore all jobs that require brain power to India, land of the sacred cow :-)

  8. Wait a minute... by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:very interesting - especially considering BSE/C by Arthur+Dent · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Actually, there is no record of 20,500 downers being tested. UPI has been requesting the test results for a while now and was told that theUSDA is still searching for the test documentation.
    USDA officials told UPI as recently as Dec. 17 the agency still is searching for documentation of its mad cow testing results from 2002 and 2003.

    UPI initially requested the documents on July 10, and the agency sent a response letter dated July 24, saying it had launched a search for any documents pertaining to mad cow tests from 2002 and 2003.

    "If any documents exist, they will be forwarded," USDA official Michael Marquis wrote in the letter.

    Despite this and a 30-day limit under the Freedom of Information Act on responding to such a request, the USDA never sent any corresponding documents. The agency's FOI office also did not return several calls from UPI placed over a series of months.
  10. Are these items possibly related? by GuardianBob420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This discussion from earlier cited some new research that suggests that some nano-particles can migrate directly into the brian via the olfactories... can anybody think of a good source of nano-sized "zinc and copper compounds that concentrate in the brains of Alzheimer's sufferers" - industrial, natural, or otherwise?

  11. This is garbage. If you want to talk science... by nmbg · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.