Putting Bapi in Perspective

The topline results of the first bapineuzumab Phase III to report came out today, and to the surprise of no one that we know, they were negative. This trial was in APOE4 carriers, the next Phase III trial to report  will be in noncarriers. The expectations for that trial, and the two other Phase IIIs, are similarly low, though there are some who hope the non-carriers will be more responsive. If the patients enrolled in the noncarrier trial were in fact earlier in the ‘mild-to-moderate’ range than were these patients, perhaps there is some glimmer of possibility there, in that there may have been less pathology already in process.That’s not where we would be parking our hopes and dreams. It is a reminder that ‘Phase IIb is not optional’, and no one should ever embark on such a massively expensive Phase III production without first going through a smaller-scale rehearsal.

But this should also be a reminder that these ‘home run’ shots are not the only way to make a meaningful difference in Alzheimer’s. One does not need to cure the disease to make life far more independent and meaningful for patients–and their families. So as a reminder, Lundbeck‘s Lu58054 produced significant cognitive improvement as an adjunct to Aricept, and perhaps even more importantly (as was discussed in the prior post on this blog), EnVivo‘s EVP-6124 produced impressive cognitive and functional benefit as both adjunct and monotherapy, and its Phase IIb data suggested the possibility that it may have been disease-modifying as well. If Bapi’s coming data confirms the bad news from this trial, that will by no means prove that all approaches are fruitless, it will instead show that downstream tactics may be a more pragmatic and approachable route than tackling AD at its pathophysiological roots.

This entry was posted in Big Pharma, BioFollies and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Putting Bapi in Perspective

  1. Marnix says:

    When will the ‘Baptists’ finally admit they backed the wrong horse? The funding – NIH and industry – has for too long been weighted heavily in favor of A-beta, while underfunding other credible mechanisms! It’s about time the balance was reversed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s