• Skip to main content

ALS Untangled™

ALSUntangled™ reviews alternative and off label treatments (AOTs), with the goal of helping people with ALS make more informed decisions about them.

  • How to Use
  • Mission & Methods
  • Completed Reviews
  • Future Reviews
  • Search
  • EnglishEnglish
    • EnglishEnglish
    • EspañolEspañol

Search ALS Untangled™

Hyperimmune Goat Serum for ALS

Updated Review
Published: August 23, 2021
We found no new studies confirming a mechanism of action for Aimspro in ALS. Therefore our TOE Mechanisms Grade remains C. We saw a presentation by Professor Syed Haq at the 2013 American Academy of Neurology Meeting. This included data from a small flawed study in the mSOD1 mouse model of ALS in which Aimspro delayed disease onset but did not affect survival. This does not appear to have been published except in abstract form. Thus, our TOE Pre-Clinical Grade is D. We found no new case reports so our TOE Cases Grade remains D. In Dr. Haq's 2-13 presentation he also described a 21 patient open label trial of Aimspro. Some clinical outcomes were stable and others showed slight improvements bu the lack of a control group in this trial prevents any definite conclusion. Thus, our TOE Trials Grade remains D. There were no adverse events reported in that small unpublished trial. We found a published trial of Aimspro in patients with systemic sclerosis. In the 10 patients treated with Aimspro, there were 3 patients who experienced SAEs. These included a cerebral infarct, pulmonary embolus, atrial fibrillation and respiratory tract infection. Given this high frequency of SAEs in the only published trial of Aimspro we found, we change our TOE Risks Grade to F. Our conclusion remains unchanged: we do not recommend Aimspro as a treatment for ALS.

Key Information

Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Mechanism Grade: C
Preclinical Trials Grade: D
Cases Grade: D
Trials Grade: D
Risks Grade: F
Published: Nov 2010
Download

The mechanism of Aimspro remains unproven; if it is an immunomodulator and/or a modulator of sodium channels, it theoretically could be useful in ALS. A single, detailed but significantly flawed case report documents slowing in decline of certain respiratory functions in a patient claiming to have ALS, who started Aimspro shortly after bipap. Based upon this limited information, ALSUntangled supports further study of Aimspro, either in ALS animal models or in a small phase 2 trial with clear and objective endpoints carried out by skilled trialists familiar with the problems inherent with ALS clinical studies. Until a trial is undertaken, however, we do not support further use of this product by PALS.

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)

Mechanistic plausibility - C

Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology

Mechanistic plausibility

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

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’.

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

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’.

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

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’.

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit

Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Patient case reports

Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits

Patient case reports

Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits

Patient case reports

Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits

Patient case reports

Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits

Patient case reports

Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit

Patient case reports

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Patient trials

Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials

Patient trials

Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial

Patient trials

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’.

Patient trials

Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit

Patient trials

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

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

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

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

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization

Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)

Grade U: No useful information was found for this category

© 2023 ALS Untangled™ · All Rights Reserved · Website by Code the Dream & Tomatillo Design