Fact Remains, Aricept Is Weak, Inadequate Alzheimer's Treatment
If Aricept were superior to Anavex 2-73, whatever it's actual molecular mechanism of action, why doesn't it exhibit such superiority in actual clinical use, in the multitude of Alzheimer's patients who presently take it (at least for the relatively short period it provides benefits)?
The actual chemical processes of both or either Aricept or Anavex 2-73 can be academically debated and contrasted. But for both Alzheimer's patients and AVXL shareholders, the only matter of importance is actual, practical clinical efficacy. Does this approved Alzheimer's drug provide safe, enduring stabilization or suppression of cognition deficits typically encountered in Alzheimer's patients?
Clearly, as the drug's label clearly indicates, Aricept provides only temporary, short-term symptomatic relief from Alzheimer's symptoms. After a certain (but variable) period of relief, symptoms will re-appear and the patient will irretrievably descend into ever more severe levels of dementia, culminating in a death that Aricept merely postponed for a period.
Wouldn't it be interesting to learn how many of the Australians in that clinical trial of Anavex 2-73, now so late in the game, have lost large degrees of cognition, or have even died from advanced Alzheimer's? How might they compare to any parallel group that has been dosed solely on Aricept for the same period?
Those data will probably never appear. But more valid data will, at the conclusion of the up-coming double-blind Phase 3 Anavex 2-73 Alzheimer's trial. Those with the slightest doubt about Anavex's superior treatment efficacy should refrain from taking any AVXL position until positive trial results appear, apparently sometime in late 2018 or later.
If the putative superiority of Aricept is to be the standard of comparison, Anavex has a very low bar to hurdle.
For some, they will have to safely wait and see. Others have already taken a well-considered initial Anavex position. To each, his own.
