While most of us roll our eyes when we see the seemingly daily forecasts on imminent AVXL price and volume from George, it is not unusual for him to actually post some useful information or reference worthwhile stories in the media. I am responding to his Saturday post of an article from The Guardian (US) which gives a European view of the monoclonal antibody treatments for Alzheimer's. The researchers cited are suggesting that the benefits cited are proving harder to quantify than the potential harms. You have heard much of it before, but the article is a good read since we know that blarcamesine (A2-73) has gotten over the first hurdle at the EMA and is on its way to an MAA filing.
While Dr. Sebastian Welch, a dementia researcher with the University of Cambridge is not terribly troubled over the ARIA side effect risks for the vast majority of patients (at least for those not on blood-thinning type medications), he is skeptical of selectivity of the trials where 80% percent of the patients were screened out as ineligible. To my way of thinking, he delivers the real "money shot," saying if, when prescribed in the real world, "the drug eligibility is restricted to match the trial eligibility, then very few people will be eligible. If legibility is broader, then the already small effects are likely to be even smaller and the side-effects more pronounced." That no doubt has been pointed out to the EMA (and will be to the FDA, if it has not been already) by the Anavex team in touting the superiority of blarcamesine.
