Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CatumEntanglement t1_iycajff wrote

Reply to comment by Slyons89 in Alzheimer's drug lecanemab hailed as momentous breakthrough by Methoszs

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