 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Alzheimer's / October 2006AD
I am not publishing, broadcasting, rewriting or distributing!!! Just received this today. Gwen ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE Researchers Identify Root Cause Of Alzheimer's Doctors Link Insulin Deficiency To Disease A groundbreaking finding by Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University researchers identifies a root cause of Alzheimer's disease and a way to reverse its effects, the scientists said. The researchers said Alzheimer's is caused by a lack of insulin in the brain, Providence, N.H., television station WJAR reported. Right now, Alzheimer's treatments are targeted at reducing levels of a protein in the brain known as amyloid. By reducing the levels, doctors have been able to slow the progression of the disease. Dr. Suzanne de la Monte of Rhode Island Hospital has been studying insulin deficiency and Alzheimer's for years. Her research shows that high levels of amyloid are triggered by an insulin deficiency. "I'm coining the term 'type 3 diabetes' to let (people) know that you don't really have to have type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome to have the brain abnormalities," de la Monte said. For the work, researchers created an animal model, induced Alzheimer's disease and then administered treatment, looking at three different insulin-sensitizing compounds, including one that's currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat diabetes. De la Monte said all three worked to some extent. But the one that worked the best, she said, is one that's not yet marketed or FDA approved. That compound, she said, really reversed the learning impairment or prevented the learning impairment and actually prevented most of the neurodegeneration. This chemical compound is currently sold only for experimental use and is not approved for human use. But given the results, de la Monte believes it's only a matter of time before it will be reformulated and studied in Alzheimer's patients. Distributed by Internet Broadcasting. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  SignatureI was always taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find one. > ... > Researchers Identify Root Cause Of Alzheimer's > Doctors Link Insulin Deficiency To Disease > ... I admit to being an incurable sucker for the latest scientific announcements, I fell for the whole "cold fusion" thing when that first came out too. But I can't help but be really encouraged by this one. They're talking about dealing with _causes_ here, not just symptoms. > For the work, researchers created an animal model, induced Alzheimer's > disease and then administered treatment, looking at three different > insulin-sensitizing compounds, including one that's currently approved by > the Food and Drug Administration to treat diabetes. > > De la Monte said all three worked to some extent. Did everyone notice that? One of the treatments that worked "to some extent" is already FDA approved! This is something that could be tried out, as we say in the business, Real Soon Now. If it's already FDA approved, doctors can prescribe it off label right now, without waiting for clinical trials. Maybe it won't help us the way it helped mice, but we know it's relatively safe and available to try - at least that's my interpretation of Gwen's posting. We need more info about this! Anyone who talks to their doctors about it, please report back to tell us what they said and whether they're interested in trying it out. Alan >>... >>Researchers Identify Root Cause Of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > by this one. They're talking about dealing with _causes_ here, > not just symptoms. Scares hell out of me, though. I mean, if Alzheimer's really is a form of diabetes, what's going to happen as the "never drinks anything that isn't sugary" generation ages? We already have changed the name of "adult-onset diabetes" to "type II diabetes" because it's become epidemic in children. I don't eat sugar -- and by that I mean I've eaten three sugar-sweetened desserts in the past 5 years -- and I have this awful vision of me as the last sane person standing. We may be facing an epidemic of Alzheimer's so vast that we don't have enough unaffected people left to tend to the demented ones. Brrrrr. Dana This adds more credence to what Easter said about her medicine for diabetes helping her AD. Gwen >>>... >>>Researchers Identify Root Cause Of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dana >>>... >>>Researchers Identify Root Cause Of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dana It's very scary, Dana. But nobody knows what illness will take them, or what the cause of it will be. As a type 2 diabetic, I face that reality also. As I have learned, it is more than simply just sugar. It is the way our bodies have been mishandling carbohydrates in general, for many years prior to diagnosis as an actual diabetic. Diabetes is a very complicated disease, one that develops over time. Many experts are in dispute as to which came first, the proverbial chicken or egg. Did we get fatter because our bodies were mishandling carbohydrates in the first place, or did we over-eat and get fat and then this happened? There is evidence on both sides of that coin, you know. There is a strong genetic component in diabetes too. Just as there is (frighteningly enough) a genetic component in alzheimers disease. As time goes on I hope that researchers are able to connect the dots and find out more. Meanwhile we must deal with each of these illnesses according to the science of the day, as it is all we have. SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') I am new yo this group and it is quite a surprise for me, that apparently AD can be considered a different type of diabetes. AD has always puzzled me a lot, I try to understand what really goes on every moment I spend with my sick mother, and I wonder, why all of a sudden, cells simply start degenerating or dying. So apparently it`s a chemical problem? I always assumed it had more to do with circulatory and cholesterol disorders. This finding opens up a whole new perspective on the subject, because If that`s true, wouldn`t there be any "signs" in routine bloodtests over the previous years?Wouldn`t it be a lot easier and cheaper to diagnose it at very early stages? Plus,I feel this finding opens a whole lot of more chances for hope. My mother is in the mid stage of the illness and deteriorating at a very rapid pace even though she`s been medicated for several years now with different "cocktails" of drugs with all their side effects,... and the fact she´s 69, not that old. My only suspicion is that insulin is not as expensive as most AD drugs, so, will pharmaceutical companies not try to block or deny these recent findings? After all, these companies are pretty powerful and they make a lot of money wiht present prescribed AD drugs. Best regards to all. > >>>... > >>>Researchers Identify Root Cause Of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Evelyn > (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') ... > I always assumed it had more to do with circulatory > and cholesterol disorders. Diabetic problems are also involved in circulatory disorders and may also affect cholesterol metabolism - though I don't know anything about that. But your assumptions may not be wrong. > wouldn`t there be any "signs" in routine bloodtests > over the previous years?Wouldn`t it be a lot easier and cheaper to > diagnose it at very early stages? That might be so, but my reading of the article was that this is a third type of diabetic problem. Maybe insulin uptake in the brain is impaired without it being impaired elsewhere so that blood sugar levels do not rise very high. > My only suspicion is that insulin is not as expensive as most AD drugs, > so, will pharmaceutical companies not try to block or deny these recent > findings? > After all, these companies are pretty powerful and they make a lot of > money wiht present prescribed AD drugs. I am no fan of the drug companies, but I don't think they could supress this research even if they wanted to. There is a _lot_ of money being spent on Alzheimer's research, including some by drug companies as well as by NIH, universities, biotech startups, and the Alzheimer's Foundation. This research won't stop just because somebody will make less money on Aricept if it succeeds. Alan Alan When I first heard of the avandia they were saying it could clear the damage from the brain left there by the Alzheimers...And one of my friends has a brother that had just found out he had diabetes and was given Avandia to keep his blood sugar down...I take the Avandia and the Glucophage.....they both lower the blood sugar.. >"adri" <adrianaweder@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1159399449.715598.47900@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >I am new to this group and it is quite a surprise for me, that >apparently AD can be considered a different type of diabetes. Just because some (one?) kinds of Az **may** have the same root cause, doesnt mean that all do. Most people with Az do not have diabetes, and most people with diabetes dont have Az. If it was that simple, the association would have been noticed many years ago. It isnt that simple. >AD has always puzzled me a lot, I try to understand what really goes on >every moment I spend with my sick mother, and I wonder, why all of a >sudden, cells simply start degenerating or dying. So apparently it`s a >chemical problem? I always assumed it had more to do with circulatory >and cholesterol disorders. your assumption was way off the mark (eg completely wrong), its been suspected for years it is do with specific chemicals accumulating in brain cells and killing them. The diabetes connection appears to be that lack of insulin through some chain of events, causes the chemicals to accumulate in the brain(gross simplification) however its by no means that simple, since as I said the fact you have diabetes doesnt mean you'll have Az, or the other way round. Also, what do you mean by 'sudden'? After all, Az takes years to kill you. Plus, the brain is a very resilient organism, you could lose many many brain cells before the damage became aparent. So cells may(almost certainly) have been dying for years before anything became visible as a symptom. Nothing sudden about it at all. >This finding opens up a whole new perspective on the subject, because >If that`s true, wouldn`t there be any "signs" in routine bloodtests >over the previous years?Wouldn`t it be a lot easier and cheaper to >diagnose it at very early stages? Its not true in the sense you mean, eg there is a chemical who absence or presence in the blood means you have/will get Az. Its not that simple. >Plus,I feel this finding opens a whole lot of more chances for hope. >My mother is in the mid stage of the illness and deteriorating at a >very rapid pace even though she`s been medicated for several years now >with different "cocktails" of drugs with all their side effects,... and >the fact she´s 69, not that old. Sorry, any hope is for people who havent got it yet, not current sufferers. Brain damage is irreversible at our current level of knowledge and likely to remain so for many years. Big difference between stopping further damage and repairing existing damage. Plus, since many(some?) types of Az may have nothing to do with Az, anyone with Az not "caused" by diabetes, will not be any nearer a 'cure' (where cure=stops further progression). Its not that simple. As an aside, has you mother been diagnosed with 'early onset Az'? presumably she had it from not much more than aged 60,? This is quite early,and unfortunately EOAD seems to be more agressive (quicker) than other types. Does your mother have diabetes? If not, then any diabetes/Az connection would not be any help in your case (or in the case of the many(most?) of us who have LOs in the same situation) >My only suspicion is that insulin is not as expensive as most AD drugs, >so, will pharmaceutical companies not try to block or deny these recent >findings? Even if you took a completely paranoid view of their behaviour, there would still be a very strong case for Az drugs, because; 1) once you have got the damage and been diagnosed, you still need it 'repairing/masking' which current drugs do by 'boosting' the function of various chemicals in the brain (but they dont stop to root cause of the progesssion). 2) Its patently obvious that not all Az is associated with diabetes (or vice-versa) 3) These 'findings' are a long way from being definitive 4) If diabetes really was the main cause, there would be a lot of money to be made by taking anti-diabetes drugs for many many years, rather than anti-Az drugs for a very few years. 5) (4) above would be a great spur to develop more anti diabetes drugs, (its not just cheap insulin) 6) many people would have low level diabetes which would be undiagnosed, lead to Az,and they would then need the Az drugs. Plus some companies would only have an anti-diabetes drug, if that was shown to be a 'cure' how could that be denied by a different company? (This is how Viagra was discovered, as a side effect, what it lead to was more reserach on similar drugs, not other comapnies trying to deny/suppress Viagra). However, AFAIK to date no diabetes drugs have been shown to prevent Az. But in any event I think you are getting carried away by one or two reports. We see these all the time. If you went by the reports, you would also be safe from Az if you did the crossword/had a couple of glasses of red wine/ drank a few cups of tea/took various herbal medicines/exercised/didnt cook with aluminium pans/prayed/ etc etc etc. All of us here can come up with examples of people who do some or all of the above, plus did/do not have diabetes, yet have/got Az. Its just not that simple. >after all, these companies are pretty powerful and they make a lot of >money wiht present prescribed AD drugs. Do you know how much they make with Az drugs specifically, and compared to drugs to combat diabetes? If you dont then you have no idea what would be in any one companies interests to develop. SignatureTumbleweed > ... > Sorry, any hope is for people who havent got it yet, not current sufferers. > Brain damage is irreversible at our current level of knowledge and likely to > remain so for many years. Big difference between stopping further damage and > repairing existing damage. > ... Although I think Tumbleweed is generally right, some qualifications to this may be in order. First, brain cells that have stopped working correctly due to damage may not all be dead. Neurons are huge cells with very long extensions that contact other cells. Damage can accumulate in the extensions and render the cell ineffective, but if the process that leads to the damage can be halted, the natural cellular repair processes might very well restore functionality to many cells that aren't yet dead. There are experiments that show that this is the case with other kinds of nerve cell damage. Secondly, although brain cells do not divide and replicate once we are beyond our infancy, there is a reserve pool of undifferentiated cells in the brain that it can call upon to restore functionality. It is also possible for people to re-learn many things using different, still alive cells in the brain. I am far from an expert, but I'm thinking that, if we can arrest the damage in a patient, we may never restore full functionality, but we might see the patient function at a level that gradually improves over time to at least be better than the worst we saw in that patient. Alan ,snip> > I am far from an expert, but I'm thinking that, if we can arrest the > damage in a patient, we may never restore full functionality, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Alan You are an optimist, I hope you are right :-) SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> ha scritto > Did everyone notice that? One of the treatments that worked > "to some extent" is already FDA approved! The mentioned drug is called pioglitazone (Actos), and a recent study seems to confirm some activity in treating AD: http://snipurl.com/xo34 However, the study is very small, and it only regards patients with mild to moderate AD. WD > "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> ha scritto >> Did everyone notice that? One of the treatments that worked [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > WD without looking at the URL, I think progress treating mild to moderate is the most likely, because anything that showed an effect on severe would have to repair brain damage, whereas I suspect/hope that with mild or moderate, brauin damage can be masked. Even if the diabetes drugs do work (and a report I read said that the one in question only worked on people with a certain gene, which IIRC was maybe 50% of the population) chnaces are they will stop people getting Az but those that alreday have it in more than mild form, will need treatment from a different source. Plus the other 50% who dont have the right gene. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com >> "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> ha scritto >>> Did everyone notice that? One of the treatments that worked [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > but those that alreday have it in more than mild form, will need treatment > from a different source. Plus the other 50% who dont have the right gene. Ah, just read the report, only 25 patients. IMHO that makes it worthless, unless it cured all of them or something remarkable like that, which the report certainly doesnt indicate. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > ... > Ah, just read the report, only 25 patients. IMHO that makes it worthless, unless it > cured all of them or something remarkable like that, which the report certainly doesnt > indicate. It looks like it was a Phase I trial - intended to find out if the drug is safe enough to try in a larger number of patients. They always do a Phase I first so they won't harm a large number of patients if the drug turns out to be dangerous. They seem to be preparing a Phase II trial with 2-300 patients. That will tell us what the drug will do. However, if I were diagnosed with Alzheimer's today, I'd be rushing to get into the upcoming trial. Who knows if it will work, but given the certain downhill slide, I don't know what anyone has to lose by trying new drugs. It's interesting TW how the two of us reverse roles on drugs. I'm very antagonistic to the drug companies, but optimistic about the new drugs. You're much more supportive of the companies, but pessimistic about the drugs. Alan >> ... >> Ah, just read the report, only 25 patients. IMHO that makes it worthless, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Alan Alan, I am not so sure about rushing to get into a drug trial, the reason being that SOMEBODY has to be receiving the placebo, or denied the standard crop of currently used drugs, in order to get a clear picture of what the new drug is actually doing. Nobody but the drug company knows which person is getting a placebo. Meanwhile it is your own health that is maybe being denied what help is already available. I'd say it wasn't worth it. I'd only go for a drug trial if they allowed you to take the Aricept and Namenda and whatever else is currently allowed at the same time. SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') >>> ... >>> Ah, just read the report, only 25 patients. IMHO that makes it [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Aricept and Namenda and whatever else is currently allowed at the same > time. But that doesnt fit with what several people here asked for (including Alan, IIRC), which was for new treatments(drugs) only allowed if they were better than the current ones! Plus, you might have drugs which are excellent by themsleves, but maybe there is an adverse reaction or poor result, if taken with an existing drug. Peraps trials are changing now, like my fathers case, trial in two phases, phase 1 double blind, phase 2, definitely the drug. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > > ... > > Alan, I am not so sure about rushing to get into a drug trial, the reason [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Peraps trials are changing now, like my fathers case, trial in two phases, > phase 1 double blind, phase 2, definitely the drug. I agree that the trial will be better if the patients are not allowed to take Aricept or Namenda. Otherwise, as TW says, it won't be possible to be sure that any positive effect was due to the new drug. Alternatively, _everybody_ should be given Aricept or Namenda. But that's probably not as good a test. One of the problems we face in drug development is that everybody wants new drugs, but nobody wants to be a guinea pig for them. If everyone refuses, there won't be any new drugs - period. I'm a believer in clinical trials myself and, although I want the drug and not the placebo, I think I'd be willing to take the chance either way on the theory that it's the right thing to do. As far as the issue of requiring drugs to be better - I still believe in that. Aricept and Namenda work on different targets, and Aricept can have serious side effects (don't know about Namenda). It seems to me perfectly reasonable to approve new drugs that don't do better than old ones if they treat people who can't tolerate the old ones. But we need to know 1) whether they are better or worse than the old ones, and 2) if the new drug is not better, then what category of patients will do better on it - even if most won't. If the drug is worse than the old drug, or if no category of patient does better on it, it's a real disservice to people to approve it. The result will be like the blood pressure drugs. Millions of people have been taken off relatively safe, effective, and cheap diuretics and switched to more expensive, more dangerous, and _less_ effective new drugs. Who knows how many died as a result. Alan Google burped and told me my posting didn't go through - do it again, so I did. But it put through both of them (actually, it told me this twice and put through two of the three). The post below is formatted slightly better. Alan >> > ... >> > Alan, I am not so sure about rushing to get into a drug trial, the [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Alan Alan, we were just having a discussion about diuretics on the diabetes newsgroup. They aren't always good and they aren't always safe, or the best choice (depending on the person, of course). Case in point, for diabetics, they can stress kidneys that are often already under a great deal of stress. I take a combination drug which contains a small amount of diuretic combined with another drug. Together they work well. Years ago my Dr. started me on only diuretic drugs to control my blood pressure, and I got terrible headaches from them. Not every person does well on them. SignatureBest Regards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox') > > ... > > Alan, I am not so sure about rushing to get into a drug [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Perhaps trials are changing now, like my fathers case, trial in > two phases, phase 1 double blind, phase 2, definitely the drug. I agree that the trial will be better if the patients are not allowed to take Aricept or Namenda. Otherwise, as TW says, it won't be possible to be sure that any positive effect was due to the new drug. Alternatively, _everybody_ should be given Aricept or Namenda. But that's probably not as good a test. One of the problems we face in drug development is that everybody wants new drugs, but nobody wants to be a guinea pig for them. If everyone refuses, there won't be any new drugs - period. We'll all be losers. I'm a believer in clinical trials myself and, although I want the drug and not the placebo, I think I'd be willing to take the chance either way on the theory that it's the right thing to do - especially if they gave me access to the drug after the test period - if it worked and if I had the placebo. In the particular case of Alzheimer's, this is an easy choice. Aricept and Namenda do nothing to slow the progress of the disease. At best, for some patients, they allow the patient to function better while he deteriorates. As far as the issue of requiring drugs to be better than existing drugs, I still believe in that. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to approve new drugs that don't do better than old ones if they treat people who can't tolerate the old ones. But we need to know 1) whether they are better or worse than the old ones, and 2) if the new drug is not better, then what category of patients will do better on it - even if most won't. If the drug is worse than the old drug, or if no category of patient does better on it, it's a real disservice to people to approve it. The result will be like the blood pressure drugs. Millions of people have been taken off relatively safe, effective, and cheap diuretics and switched to more expensive, more dangerous, and _LESS_ effective new drugs. Who knows how many died as a result, firmly believing as they died that they got the best medical treatment. Alan > > ... > > Alan, I am not so sure about rushing to get into a drug [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Perhaps trials are changing now, like my fathers case, trial in > two phases, phase 1 double blind, phase 2, definitely the drug. I agree that the trial will be better if the patients are not allowed to take Aricept or Namenda. Otherwise, as TW says, it won't be possible to be sure that any positive effect was due to the new drug. Alternatively, _everybody_ should be given Aricept or Namenda. But that's probably not as good a test. One of the problems we face in drug development is that everybody wants new drugs, but nobody wants to be a guinea pig for them. If everyone refuses, there won't be any new drugs - period. We'll all be losers. I'm a believer in clinical trials myself and, although I want the drug and not the placebo, I think I'd be willing to take the chance either way on the theory that it's the right thing to do - especially if they gave me access to the drug after the test period - if it worked and if I had the placebo. In the particular case of Alzheimer's, this is an easy choice. Aricept and Namenda do nothing to slow the progress of the disease. At best, for some patients, they allow the patient to function better while he deteriorates. As far as the issue of requiring drugs to be better than existing drugs, I still believe in that. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to approve new drugs that don't do better than old ones if they treat people who can't tolerate the old ones. But we need to know 1) whether they are better or worse than the old ones, and 2) if the new drug is not better, then what category of patients will do better on it - even if most won't. If the drug is worse than the old drug, or if no category of patient does better on it, it's a real disservice to people to approve it. The result will be like the blood pressure drugs. Millions of people have been taken off relatively safe, effective, and cheap diuretics and switched to more expensive, more dangerous, and _LESS_ effective new drugs. Who knows how many died as a result, firmly believing as they died that they got the best medical treatment. Alan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.