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.

Comments

Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK

[MissMarvel]

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.

Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK

[Meowing]

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.

Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK

[ctr2sprt]

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.

Re:Watch the big drug companies kill this QUICK

[G4from128k]

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.

It's be great to see this thing finally killed

[ChopsMIDI]

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.

Re:It's be great to see this thing finally killed

[Ieshan]

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

Article title is grossly inaccurate

[Tuxinatorium]

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.

Lithium

[nmbg]

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.

Symptoms of Alzheimers...

[floydigus]

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

Wait a minute...

[A55M0NKEY]

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?