Updated January 24, 2022
Since our review we found a new publication (Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 2018;15:3203-3210). This describes a study in which 31 people with ALS were treated with Endotherapia and were said to have benefits on their ALSAQ40 compared to a “worldwide reference” population. This study has the same significant flaws as the previous 12 patient study we described in our review. These flaws include the fact that the ALSAQ40 is a measure of quality of life. This is not tightly linked to motor function. It cannot be used to estimate survival. It is not an appropriate primary measure of ALS progression. We are unaware of a worldwide reference population that can be used to universally estimate disease progression. Since ALS progression is dependent on demographics and disease characteristics, careful matching is necessary when using historical control groups. Again, this does not appear to have been done here. No systematic screening for or reporting on adverse events appears in this new paper. Our TOE grades and conclusions are unchanged. We cannot recommend the use of Endotherapia as an ALS treatment at this time.
Key Information
Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Preclinical Trials Grade:
C
Published: Jan 2016
Endotherapia has a proposed mechanism that hinges on the ability of an isolated laboratory’s immunoblots to identify the cause and specific pathways that are driving ALS progression. In our opinion this ability has never been convincingly demonstrated. While there is a flawed animal study supporting the utility of Endotherapia in rats, such studies rarely translate into useful human treatments (29). The data on Endotherapia in PALS have so many problems that we believe they are uninterpretable. ALSUntangled does not recommend the use of Endotherapia for ALS at this time. A reasonable next step would be a study to validate the utility of the above-described immunoblots, ideally by a group without a potential conflict of interest.
Click here to download the complete review.
Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans
Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)
Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans
Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS
Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: Two or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in well-designed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade B: One peer-reviewed publication reporting benefits in a well-designed study.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publication(s) reporting benefits in flawed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)
Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits
Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial
Grade D: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a flawed trial.
Flawed trials means those in which there are identifiable problems with patient selection, randomization, blinding, controls or follow-up. These have ‘high or unclear risk of bias’ according to published criteria. Well-designed trials are those that have ‘low risk of bias’.
Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms
Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade B (oral): More than 0% but less than10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D (intravenous): More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
