Fmello:
There is no comparison, except that maybe that both are infusions, between Brainstorm’s NurOwn and Biogen’s infusion (aducanumab) to treat Alzheimer’s. Here is a portion of a letter that I sent to the WSJ a year or so ago about aducanumab:
The Biogen and Eisai drug, BAN240 (aducanumab), failed before. So what's new about their latest announcement?
WSJ article: ”Analysts said questions remain about the results of the BAN2401 study. For one thing, researchers used a novel measure of efficacy that was developed by Eisai’s in-house researchers, rather than standard measures in the field.”
They, Biogen and Eisai, obtained a different outcome with a new measure of efficacy. Biogen’s partner Eisai, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, came up with a new standard to measure ”success”. This ”success” measured by a new internally conflicted standard should by itself raise a red flag.
Even then this ”success” may not be so great considering their drug is an infusion and the same WSJ article points out: ”The study involved 856 subjects in the early stage of the disease. Among the side effects that the companies reported were reactions at the sites of the infusion and swelling around blood vessels observed with brain imaging.”
Making multiple trips to a clinic or medical office for infusions as opposed to taking a pill poses difficulties in addition to the risks of adverse events, and for what: BAN240 does not stop or reverse Alzheimer’s. To sum up : IV injected, only works at highest dosage at if at all, takes 6 months to kick in, and the cognitive tests we're created in house and not standard. And, what percentage of adverse events occurred at this highest dosage? It would be of interest to know what percentage of those receiving ONLY the highest dosage, the one that reportedly works, developed adverse events.
Alzheimer’s is a cruel disease. Let's not promote false hopes - especially one based on the amyloid hypothesis that has been virtually a 100% failure.
