
Alzheimer's vaccine trial a success - jamesbritt
http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=130&a=145109&newsdep=130
======
glimcat
It looks like this was primarily examining the safety of the drug in human
subjects.

<http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00411580>

Trial went from 2005 to 2010, results are just now out. Medical research is
_so_ _slow_ , but there is some seriously cool stuff over the horizon
nonetheless.

------
salimmadjd
All they have demonstrated is the vacine is creating an immunogenic response
against beta-amyloid. Which is a great step. However, whether or not this will
slowdown Alzheimer is whole different story. But I sure hope the answer could
be as simple.

------
domwood
Well, the fact it's not causing liver failure/brain damage/bouts of pedantic
arguing/etc is a good thing. Waiting another decade to see if it actually
works isn't too bad either, we haven't had a vaccine for the last 10,000 years
of human civilisation, so what's another 10?

~~~
mkramlich
> , we haven't had a vaccine for the last 10,000 years of human civilisation,
> so what's another 10?

If you had a family member with a devastating disease like this, right now,
you might not be so glib about waiting another 10 years. For some folks, they
don't have another 10 years to spare.

~~~
Dan_Nguyen
I'd politely disagree. My mother is already showing early stages of
Alzheimer's, and while I honestly hope for a cure or even for treatments to
arrest the progression of the disease, with medicine I think it's something
that should be done right the first time.

Honestly, I am tempted to want to push this out myself. In the end though,
given the medical, legal, and social (note: anti-vaccine crowds) implications
of pushing out a faulty drug, I think in the long run it's better to wait and
make sure it's safe first before opening treatment to the public.

~~~
arto
Better for whom, exactly? Clearly not better for the people who could have
been helped in the meantime.

~~~
mistercow
Well, take all the ways that it could be unsafe, and (by some measure)
estimate some utilitarian cost of rolling the drug out early for each
individual person for each unsafe scenario. Now multiply each of those costs
by the probability of that unsafe outcome happening for a given individual,
sum those up and place them in column A. Now take the probability that the
drug is effective and multiply it by each individual's probability of getting
Alzheimer's, and then multiply that by the utilitarian penalty for that person
having Alzheimer's. Put that in column B. Subtract column B from column A and
put that in column C. Any row who has a positive value in column C - that is
for whom it's better to wait and vet the treatment's safety.

Practically speaking, these will be people who know they are genetically
predisposed to Alzheimer's and get the vaccine before they show any signs.

Now, if we could _actually_ run the calculations I mentioned above, the
problem would disappear because we wouldn't simply say "approved as safe" or
"rejected as unsafe". We'd just keep a running tally of the odds of safety and
give the treatment to people according to the desperation of their individual
case. But unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

------
radical_cut
I'm always glad to see news like this.

After I got my B.S. in computer science three years ago I decided to start
"from scratch" and applied to molecular biology and genetics. I was fascinated
by research done in immunology, cancer biology and many other fields which
helped prolong human life considerably during 20th century.

However after some time I realised that improving human health and prolonging
life is just one side of the coin and that there is something equally
important (and sadly often neglected especially in the media): we should
strive very strongly on improving quality of life and not "only" it's length.

There's a very good chance that you and me will live quite a long life,
according to statistics. But over the last year I experienced some things that
really shook my personal and professional view on this... That's probably the
same for anyone who had at least some experience with any case of mental
deterioration disease, not only in case of elderly people even though they're
affected most often. I've realized there is no point in living into one's
eighties without some dignity or without being able to enjoy it.

Luckily for as all there's an amazing research being done in the field of
neuroscience so I have my hopes up.

~~~
rhino42
As someone with a bit more knowledge in the field, can you help inform me: I
thought the consensus was that beta amyloid was a second order effect of
Alzheimers. Didn't we (as in the medical community) establish that it was now
likely to be a result of chronic sugar toxicity? I'll find the relevant study

------
rposborne
As a safety only trial this leaves quite a bit to be desired. "Larger trials
must now be conducted to confirm the CAD106 vaccine's efficacy".

~~~
xiaoma
Stage 1 clinical trials are this way by design. Drugs passing stage 1 are then
given to larger groups of people for stage 2 trials in which efficacy is
tested. After that step, stage 3 trials are open to an even larger group,
often enrolling subjects at doctors' offices, clinics, and research centers
nationwide. Stage 3 compares an experimental treatment directly against the
currently standard treatment.

------
electrichead
I would like to know what happened to the other 20%

~~~
taligent
They can't remember.

