Key Information
RCH4 is an unlicensed, unapproved product reported to “probably slow the progression of your ALS” (6) on a website. The only peer reviewed publication we found on this product is a single abstract which was never presented at a meeting. We have been unable to determine RCH4’s structure or chemical class, and its purported mechanism is one that has never been shown to be useful in treating PALS before. We have been unable to independently verify RCH4’s reported efficacy or even safety. Thus, at this time, we cannot advise PALS to use this product. We hope the proponents of RCH4 will someday present more useful information about their product at a scientific meeting or in a peer reviewed publication.
We believe that regulatory oversight is important for optimizing patient safety on experimental drugs, and that independent peer review and replication are fundamentals of good science. Caution should be exercised around any product being developed and in clinical use without these safeguards and fundamentals in place.
Click here to download the complete review.
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility - C
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility
Mechanistic plausibility
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)
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
Pre-clinical models (animal or cell models recognized by ALSUntangled reviewers to be relevant to ALS)
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient case reports
Patient trials
Patient trials
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
Patient trials
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
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)
Risks (harms that occurred on this treatment)
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