Patient trials

GM604

April 4, 2016 by Dr. Richard Bedlack

At this time ALSUntangled finds no independently verifiable data supporting the efficacy or even the safety of GM604 in patients with ALS. We believe that independent peer review and replication are fundamentals of good science (36,37). Accordingly, we share the FDA’s April 2015 opinion that the data on GM604 in ALS should be released now for

independent peer review (38). If these preliminary data are confirmed to be positive, statistics on the false-positive rate of small trials (29,30) and consensus ALS trial guidelines (35) dictate that they be replicated in a larger, longer duration study before GM604 is deemed effective or even safe for patients with ALS.‌‌

ALSUntangled generally supports the use of expanded access programs during ALS drug development. We believe that these should be reserved for treatments that have at least some independently verifiable safety data. In our opinion, that is not the case with GM604, so we feel that expanded access is premature at this time. When we can independently verify safety data, we hope to see a GM604 group expanded access program that has transparent entry criteria, systematic objective outcome measures, full disclosure of results, and, as suggested by the FDA, allows for a sponsor’s cost recovery but not for profit (39).‌‌‌

Click here to download the complete review.

Lunasin

September 23, 2014 by Dr. Richard Bedlack

Lunasin has interesting mechanisms of action that might be useful in treating ALS, and it appears reasonably safe although some forms of it are expensive. While some PALS have reported improvements on lunasin, we have thus far found only one in which we were able to independently validate these improvements. This patient had atypical features for ALS including a history of myasthenia gravis, which can produce weakness that improves spontaneously. At this time there is not enough evidence to recommend that PALS take lunasin. A reasonable next step would be a small pilot trial of lunasin with validated ALS diagnoses and outcome measures.

Click here to download the complete review.

Sodium Chlorite NP001

January 15, 2013 by Dr. Richard Bedlack

The NP001 formulation of sodium chlorite acts through a plausible mechanism and preliminary data suggest that it is safe and may slow ALS progression in some PALS. The WF10 formulation of SC appears to act through this same mechanism. Although WF10 is available for off-label use, it is very expensive, may have more side-effects than NP001, and at this time has only scant anecdotal evidence for efficacy in PALS. ALSUntangled supports further carefully monitored studies of NP001 and WF10 in PALS. In contrast, oral sodium chlorite has potentially dangerous and toxic side-effects may hasten disease progression, and is not clearly absorbed from the gut. We do not recommend further use of oral sodium chlorite unless it can at least be shown to be safe and to act on mechanisms in humans that are relevant to ALS.