Tysabri Webcast

A board to discuss the newly-released drug Tysabri, (formerly known as Antegren) as a treatment for Multiple Sclerosis

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:11 am

Observer,

Here is the webcast link - you can launch the multimedia presentation at the bottom of this link. I understand a transcript of the Q&A will be on-line next Monday.

http://www.msleaders.org/ms-leaders...mplications.asp


I get a "page not available" response to that URL.

If she gives a lot of sources and factual information, why doesn't she tell us like it is, and give us the facts about the 2yr data she is privy to? Seems rather strange, or maybe she is a bit concerned that the FULL STORY (not half of it) will be somewhat different than her speculation?


If a person gives you information about something, the person is highly credible and perhaps a very good friend but asks you not to reveal the source because of possible personal ramifications, would you go ahead and publish the source anyway.....or would you respect the person's request?

We'll see in time. And I'll be happy to eat any crow I'm due. Will you?


As long as you provide the salt and mustard :D But why do I somehow think that you are treating this like a contest of some sort as opposed to an exchange of information where two people have very different views?

The transcript is available as above. Let the readers review and decide for themselves. And Biogen does not have a marketing plan for Tysabri, Biogen Idec and Elan do.


Still can't access the page and are we starting to split hairs here or what..Biogen vs Biogen Idec/Eland!!???

As for your wife's neurologist, please see my post above concerning another neurologist's view - he claims its applicable to 75-80% of patients. Whom to believe? Again, I think patients should discuss the applicability of Tysabri with their doctors, as there are obviously varying views.


I know who I believe and you choose to believe who you want to.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Advertisement

Postby Ptwo » Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:41 am

User avatar
Ptwo
Family Member
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:11 am

Oberver,

I certainly agree that we need more data, but I'd like ANYONE to show me what information Biogen Idec has given out that was not approved or did not come from FDA-approved clinical trials. Show me anything. I believe nothing will be found, suggesting that this contention by the poster is simply false.


I'm not sure that I would be relying on the integrity of the FDA these days especially with the Celbrex situation added to the list of questionable decisions. Watching Good Morning America this a.m., the commentator stated that the FDA's recent actions are brining it into a lot of trouble. He went on to say that even though they are responsible for the safety of drug approvals, the public is demanding much quicker approval of these drugs and the FDA is not taking the proper time to determine the safety factor. He went further by stating the drug companies are paying for the safety tests....resulting in a HUGE conflict of interest.

As for Biogen's reliability...I go back to my wife's neurologist who point blank stated to me that their reputation in the field for information leaves a lot to be desired.

And she also says that Tysabri does not impact lesion load. One only need to look at the label (available at www.tysabri.com) to see that she's made another false statement. Tysabri has significant effects on lesion load. Hmm.


Yeah, I wondered about that as well but our neuro inferred the same thing...said Tysabri only reduced exacerbations and nothing else.


Now, the purpose of this note is NOT to disparage this poster, as she is obviously a dedicated, caring individual who knows a lot more about MS than I'll ever know. But Harryz has referenced this poster as a very reliable source, and it appears that there are some things the poster is saying that are just incorrect. Readers should be aware of that.


Well, let's look at Clinical 1's credentials. She has been posting on various MS Forums for quite some time, she is a MS certified nurse, she is a member in good standing with the Consortium (very respected group of MS professionals), she attends various MS seminars and workshops, she is in continuous contact with some of North America's most highly knowledgeable and respected MS neurologists, she has met with several of the "big four" MS pharmaceutical reps including Biogen re: Tysabri and she suffers from MS herself. Now if I or anyone can't refer to this person as a reliable source of information about MS, then we really have a problem, don't we?!!!! Perhaps the fact that I am using her as a reference by reading her posts and that she has the same doubts about Tysabari that I and many others have, is reason for Observer to cast doubt on her information.

Perhaps it is simply that I'm misinterpreting what she is saying, but the point that I was making in my previous post is this


I think this may very well be the case. From all that I have read from Clinical 1, she is one of the most objective MS posters on the net that I have come across. Because of her knowledge and inside contact information, I have absolutely no reason to doubt what she is saying. Readers on Brain Talk and MS Sucks have tried to "bait" her into changing her statements but she is far too knowledgeable about MS to fall for that tactic.

"Readers should beware of theories, rumors and half-truths disguised as facts, particularly on message boards."


I agree and the same can be applied to info that the drug companies release to us as well. One only has to look at Merck, Pfizer, Warner-Lampert, the FDA and others who have told us how "safe" their approved drugs have been.

Comments such as being privy to 2 yr data and saying the drug has been falsely promoted are inappropriate. Whether they ultimately are proven to be true, we shall see.


One would have to presume that 2 yr data is out there. You yourself have said that the Phase III trials have been staggered and while some are still going on, many others have been completed. Our neuro must have made his comments based on his personal experience in the Phase III trials. Yes, these are bits and pieces of data that don't make up the entire picture but obviously some people have access to this data. How much of it is 100% accurate will be known in due time.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:34 am



Thanks. Read the intro and guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow for the Q and A's/

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:20 am

Observer,

Looks like you and I, and I'm sure Harryz, agree on one thing: the sooner they get the 2yr data out, the better!


Absolutely!! One of the biggest problems that has surfaced with Tysabri has been the lack of this two year data. Most neuros want cold, hard data that they can look at and interpret and they haven't been able to do that. Most data used for FDA approval comes from two year trials that have been peer reviewed. When the standard practice hasn't been followed it leads to all kinds of speculation.

It appears that some of this two year data is out there but it is coming from other sources other than Biogen. Is it being leaked? Is it accurate? But we are seeing more and more comments about it and that is only leading to the kind of various opinions that are being expressed. Not good!!

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby Observer » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:03 pm

Harryz
Sorry about the link. I simply reposted that info from the Braintalk forum. I should have checked it.

Perhaps the fact that I am using her as a reference by reading her posts and that she has the same doubts about Tysabari that I and many others have, is reason for Observer to cast doubt on her information.



Cast doubt on her information? Yes, I'm afraid I am but I am NOT doing it because I disagree with her (and your) view about Tysabri. I'm just looking at facts, and in the same Braintalk thread/post you reference she has said at least two factually wrong things. And you want us to believe a rumour she promulgates? You believe it if you wish; I think I'll stick to facts.

First, Clinical1 said tysabri did not affect lesion load. The webcast and drug label clearly said/show Tysabri has a signficant effect on lesions. I have no idea how Clinical1 can make the statement that Tysabri 'does not impact lesion load.' If your neuro inferred the same thing, I think I'd be looking for a new neuro, ask him if he knows anything about Tysabri, or at least get him to clarify his statement. For the avoidance of doubt, I suggest anyone read the webcast transcript or drug label (available at www.tysabri.com). Here is an excerpt from the webcast

"DR. RICK MUNSCHAUER: I agree with Julie. I think MRI - you can't look at an MRI and know what the patient looks like. But I think all of us who have seen patients over many years accumulate T2 burden of disease, accumulate T1 black holes and have progressive atrophy, know that that patient is headed for trouble.

What I think is the advantage of the MRI data is for the AFFIRM and SENTINEL trials that led to the approval of Tysabri®, is that they offer internal validity that, indeed, the reduction in exacerbation rate is a real phenomenon. In the AFFIRM trial, the placebo group over one year grew about 6.1 new T2 lesions, which I thought was interesting, and that was decreased by some 80%, new or enlarging T2 lesions. In the SENTINEL trial remember, all of those people were on Avonex®. Even the Avonex® plus placebo group grew another two lesions on average - 2.1 lesions on average. And I think that implies that Avonex® had had some effect on that patient in reducing new or enlarging lesions, but the Avonex® plus Tysabri® group, that was reduced down to .5. So I do feel that that makes me the gadolinium T1 data is very similar with an 85 or so percent reduction in gadolinium lesions. And, you know, it makes me believe more that the one-year data on Tysabri® is indeed good, solid, valid outcome data. "

And there are other references in the webcast to the substantial reduction in lesions from the use of Tysabri. How anyone would get from the webcast that Tysabri doesn't affect lesions is beyond my comprehension. Indeed, its unbelievable.

The 2nd point Clinical1 made regards the publicity and hype supposedly put-out by Biogen Idec or Elan. Clinical1 makes that statement several times in the referenced post. Where is any of this publicity? I await any proof, other than the clinical trial results announcement and the data given out about these trials by the Companies.

So, again, I'm sure Clinical1 is very knowledgable and has the best of intentions, but at least two of her statements are wrong. Harryz, you're suggesting we believe the 3rd statement from her ('she's privy to some 2yr data and hence is skeptical') in the same post referenced above because she is 'highly credible'? Good grief.


In your view, perhaps I should have told him that his comments were "dark" and "negative" and that there were many neuros who were very excited about Tysabri. I can certainly tell you that he was one of the docs that wasn't!



As above, I'd suggest you ask him whether he has read the drug label. If he said Tysabri had no effect on lesions, then he either can't read or worse. But perhaps you should have asked for a clarification, because one simply cannot ignore the drug label, can one?

And with regard to the comment

But why do I somehow think that you are treating this like a contest of some sort as opposed to an exchange of information where two people have very different views?


Contest? I really don't know how you reached that conclusion. My simple goal is to ensure ALL the information is available to readers, rather than half of it or, worse yet, rumours. If the information I post is wrong, I'm happy to admit it - like I said, I've made more mistakes than I can remember. I wish others would admit their errors as well, or at least state the assumptions/limitations of comments posted as fact.

Further to that, many people (me included) sometimes ignore evidence contradictory to their beliefs and post their beliefs as fact. Take the lesion load issue above - Tysabri's label, the John Hopkin's webcast, and every other factual source I have seen indicates Tysabri reduces lesion load. Yet Clinical1's post and Harryz's wife's neurologist say it does not reduce lesion load. Do I believe the data that I can review with my own eyes, or someone's interpretation of it? Reminds me of the old question 'Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?'

Other rumourmongering abounds - some have referred to a 'rebound effect' when the data clearly indicates that it does not exist. Posters suggesting an '18 month efficacy drop' have provided NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE in support, suggesting instead that the reader 'trust' them because it comes from confidential, reliable sources. Yeah, right.

The exchange of information, Harryz, is what I'm interested in. Not rumours, fearmongering, or contests. I've found that sticking to the facts is usually a pretty good policy. I'll continue to do that. If I see others straying from the facts, I'll throw my 2 cents in. Why? Because I am interested in this forum as a couple of people (one a close relative) I know who are afflicted with MS may be reading it, and I'd like to ensure that they get, as Paul Harvey says 'the rest of the story.' (Full disclosure: I am also an investor in Elan.)

Oh, by the way. I'm a stickler for saying Biogen Idec rather than Biogen due to accountability issues. Biogen does not exist any longer, so people can say anything about it and later correctly claim they were not criticizing Biogen Idec. Subtle but interesting difference. Splitting hairs? Maybe, but I note I first posted a link to the webcast transcript on a YMB which DID work, but you chose to point out (twice) that my 2nd posted link did not work (and you did not bother to correct my link - thanks to Ptwo for the correction).

R u splitting hairs? Dunno. Don't care. I don't think 'hair-splitting' or 'contest' comments have any place on this board - I suggest we stick to Tysabri and the facts. Agreed?
User avatar
Observer
Family Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:03 pm

Observer,

First, Clinical1 said tysabri did not affect lesion load. The webcast and drug label clearly said/show Tysabri has a signficant effect on lesions. I have no idea how Clinical1 can make the statement that Tysabri 'does not impact lesion load.' If your neuro inferred the same thing, I think I'd be looking for a new neuro, ask him if he knows anything about Tysabri, or at least get him to clarify his statement. For the avoidance of doubt,


I can't speak for Clinical 1's comment on the lesion load but will see if I can find an explanation for it. As for my wife's neuro, he simply avoided any mention of lesion load as a benefit and I never had the opportunity to ask him about it. It was a very quick conversation and who knows what he may have said if I had asked the question. I think you are being a bit unfair in suggesting that he doesn't know much about Tysabri. The MS Clinic here is one of the main centers for the Tysabri trials and they have been working with it for quite some time. The man is an established, MS researcher and is a very objective and caring doctor. He simply wasn't as enthralled by Tysabri as some people are and that has obviously come from his direct work with the drug. I think I would lean towards his views as opposed to those by Biogen or those being paid by Biogen to "promote" Tysabri.



The 2nd point Clinical1 made regards the publicity and hype supposedly put-out by Biogen Idec or Elan. Clinical1 makes that statement several times in the referenced post. Where is any of this publicity? I await any proof, other than the clinical trial results announcement and the data given out about these trials by the Companies.


If you can't recognize the publicity and hype being put out by Biogen since they started this about a year ago, then Biogen really does have you hooked. Fortunately, there are several MS people out there who know the difference between publicity and science and they aren't buying it one bit!


As above, I'd suggest you ask him whether he has read the drug label. If he said Tysabri had no effect on lesions, then he either can't read or worse. But perhaps you should have asked for a clarification, because one simply cannot ignore the drug label, can one?


See my note above.

Contest? I really don't know how you reached that conclusion. My simple goal is to ensure ALL the information is available to readers, rather than half of it or, worse yet, rumours. If the information I post is wrong, I'm happy to admit it - like I said, I've made more mistakes than I can remember. I wish others would admit their errors as well, or at least state the assumptions/limitations of comments posted as fact.


If your goal is to ensure that all information is available to readers, then why not leave it at that? But you infer that when others have different views, they are "wrong" because Biogen has told us something different.
You infer that my wife's neuro doesn't know anything about Tysabri because he didn't mention lesion load to me when giving his opinion on what he thought the drug could do. You want people to admit "mistakes" about comments on Tysabri when nobody yet knows what is right or wrong about the information about this drug. That's why I get the impression that this is a "contest" for you.

Yet Clinical1's post and Harryz's wife's neurologist say it does not reduce lesion load.


My wife's neuro DID NOT SAY THAT! He told me that reduced exacerbations was the only BENEFIT he saw and that the drug was safer than the CRAB drugs when it came to usage. Perhaps he didn't see reduced lesions as much of a benefit because we all know correlation between lesions and disease progression is very poor. I don't know why he didn't mention the reduced lesions. Maybe in their trial that wasn't the result they saw. But please stop adding your words into other comments and stating that was what someone else said!


The exchange of information, Harryz, is what I'm interested in.

Then stick to the information, give your opinion and stop twisting other people's words around.


Oh, by the way. I'm a stickler for saying Biogen Idec rather than Biogen due to accountability issues.


Give me a break, Observer!!

but you chose to point out (twice) that my 2nd posted link did not work (and you did not bother to correct my link - thanks to Ptwo for the correction).


This is exactly what I mean when I mention the word "contest". At the beginning of your message, you make a quick comment about correcting the link. Fine. Now you throw a littlle "barb" by stating I didn't bother to correct the link in the first place. Are you trying to gain points here or something? I spend hours visiting MS forums and really don't have the time to start checking out links.

I suggest we stick to Tysabri and the facts. Agreed?


I guess that is where we have very different views. You take Biogen's information and insist that is totally factual and beyond question. There are many people out there, me included, that don't believe everything that Biogen tells us is gospel.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby Observer » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:48 pm

Last post on this issue from me, just to set the record straight IMO, and I'll give you the last word. But let me say that, I'm sure that you (Harryz) have done a lot for this board and others, and will continue to do so. I am not in a contest with you, nor do I want to be. You and I have different viewpoints and sources, and perhaps its worthwhile sharing them. That is what this is about, I hope.

Having said that, here goes.


Observer: And she also says that Tysabri does not impact lesion load. One only need to look at the label (available at www.tysabri.com) to see that she's made another false statement. Tysabri has significant effects on lesion load. Hmm.

Harryz: Yeah, I wondered about that as well but our neuro inferred the same thing...said Tysabri only reduced exacerbations and nothing else.



I presumed that when you said your neuro 'inferred the same thing' you were referring to lesion load. There is no other topic in my quote you referenced above. And the last thing I said about your neuro (whom I do not know, for the record) was a suggestion that you ask him/her for a clarification. Check my post.

And then you go on to say:


Observer: Yet Clinical1's post and Harryz's wife's neurologist say it does not reduce lesion load.

Harryz: My wife's neuro DID NOT SAY THAT! He told me that reduced exacerbations was the only BENEFIT he saw and that the drug was safer than the CRAB drugs when it came to usage.


Well, I'm confused about what he did say, and what YOUR point was in referring to your neuro regarding lesion load and support of Clinical1's statement. Oh well, I guess I'll just be confused. But it appears that its just a communication hiccup, with us not understanding one another; I'm certainly prepared to accept that.

Then stick to the information, give your opinion and stop twisting other people's words around.

and
But please stop adding your words into other comments and stating that was what someone else said!


I'd ask you to show me where I'm twisting anyone's words around or adding my words into other's comments. Please, indulge me. [But I suggest that you do this in a private message, for the benefit of the board, but if you need to post it, so be it.]

If you can't recognize the publicity and hype being put out by Biogen since they started this about a year ago, then Biogen really does have you hooked. Fortunately, there are several MS people out there who know the difference between publicity and science and they aren't buying it one bit!


Pleeez, show me the links to any such 'hype.' Show me the 'beef,' as it were. Good grief, guilty until proven innocent.

In the end, show me where my facts are wrong. That is all I ask. And please don't tell me its from a trusted, reliable source, or I may have to use that tactic.

I thought we'd have to await the 2 yr data to get into another scrap. :o
User avatar
Observer
Family Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby optimist » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:49 am

Observer,

A queston about your following remark:

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:03 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harryz
Sorry about the link. I simply reposted that info from the Braintalk forum. I should have checked it.


Just curious for future technical use. I read the transcript yesterday, accessing it on the Braintalk forum though the same link that you posted and it did and still does work on Braintalk but not on This Is MS. Do links not work when you cut and paste them from another site?
User avatar
optimist
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:47 am

Observer,

Well, I'm confused about what he did say, and what YOUR point was in referring to your neuro regarding lesion load and support of Clinical1's statement. Oh well, I guess I'll just be confused. But it appears that its just a communication hiccup, with us not understanding one another; I'm certainly prepared to accept that.


Once more for the record....The neuro told me that the only benefit he saw with Tysabri was reduced exacerbations. That was his first comment to me when I asked about the drug. He did not mention anything whatsoever about reduced lesion load and I did not get a chance to ask him about that although I wish I had along with about a dozen other questions I could have asked. In another message "I" speculated that because he did not mention the reduced lesion load he inferred it wasn't an issue or important. It may very well have been the case or my "speculation" was wrong. I don't know but what I will do is send him an email and ask him. Now whether he will respond in writing I'm not sure but at least I will give it a shot.

I'd ask you to show me where I'm twisting anyone's words around or adding my words into other's comments. Please, indulge me.



You applied a quote to the neuro who did make any such quote.

Pleeez, show me the links to any such 'hype.' Show me the 'beef,' as it were. Good grief, guilty until proven innocent.


Guess you haven't been around pharmaceutical company marketing strategies very much.

I thought we'd have to await the 2 yr data to get into another
scrap. :o


I'll put my "gloves" aside in the meantime. :D

Take care.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby HarryZ » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:57 pm

Well, I sent off the e-mail to my wife's neuro and asked him about the reduced lesion load from the trials. Here is how he responded...

"Those new MRi lesions are a surrogate marker for clinical exacerbations
in relapsing MS and the drug apparently showed effects on both. Please
remember these are preliminary results of the 1 year interim analysis as
publicized by the sponsor - the study is still ongoing."

Now I'm not sure how that answered my question and I'm wondering just how he could have made the comment on the EDSS scores.....like where did he get the data that showed no change at all in the EDSS? I can only assume (a very dangerous word) that he would have been measuring EDSS in the trial patients at the clinic but he was emphatic and repeated there was no positive change in those levels.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

More on Tysabri being useful only for 'mild' MS

Postby RicMa » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:52 pm

About this discussion, I simply do not understand why Tysabri should be labeled as for "mild" RRMS only.

Based on what we know, it should be for RRMS and do better than CRABs. So, not just for mild cases. Also, it should provide some help for relapsing SPMS.

Of course, I agree that it would be best to have more than just trial data, especially considering that the we only have one year and no EDSS info.

Anyway, when Elan & Biogen decided to apply for a quick approval from FDA, with no release of data (to supposedly preserve an unbiased trial), a lot of speculations and rumors arose, both here and in BrainTalk forums. Up to now, nothing of what I heard in those days proved to be true....

Hope it helps

Riccardo
User avatar
RicMa
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:00 pm

Postby Observer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:04 pm

Optimist

I dunno why the link works on Braintalk and not here, but I suspect that the /...../ in the link were placeholders on Braintalk for the full link, while when I cut and pasted the link it was pasted at /...../. That's the only explanation I can think of.

Harryz

I think there was a misunderstanding, but I need to post this here as you continue to falsely accuse me.

As stated, you inferred the 'same thing' from your wife's neuro (see quote below). I took that to mean 'no effect on lesion load' whereas you apparently meant something else. I did NOT nor would I twist other's words around or edit/add to their quotes - it was an honest (and I still believe accurate) interpretation of your statement.

Observer: And she also says that Tysabri does not impact lesion load. One only need to look at the label (available at www.tysabri.com) to see that she's made another false statement. Tysabri has significant effects on lesion load. Hmm.

Harryz: Yeah, I wondered about that as well but our neuro inferred the same thing...said Tysabri only reduced exacerbations and nothing else.


And here is what I said based on your statement above:

Yet Clinical1's post and Harryz's wife's neurologist say it does not reduce lesion load.


'She' and 'Clinical1' in the above two quotes are the same person.

So I did not quote your neurologist; I only repeated what YOU had said. Don't blame me for your unclear writing, and please don't accuse me of twisting words or adding to others comments.

I'm sure all readers have enjoyed this little spat, but I could not let anyone besmirch my fine and upstanding reputation (yeah, right) on this message board without calling their bluff. I hope this is the end of it. Onto the facts about Tysabri, rather than I said, you said.


RicMa

You might find the P2 trial data of interest regarding whether Tysabri is applicable only to mild RRMS cases. Check out the Antegren P2 abstract from the 2001 ECTRIMS conference, kindly provided by FINN on another thread:

ECTRIMS 2001

Here is an excerpt from the Natalizumab (Antegren/Tysabri) abstract:


Results: The patients in the three treatment groups were balanced for baseline demographic parameters; the mean age was 43.5 years, mean EDSS was 4.3 and 68% were relapsing-remitting and 32% secondary progressive. The mean number of new Gd-lesions was reduced by over 88% with Antegren compared to placebo; (p<0.0001). The reduction in Gd-lesions was apparent within 4 weeks of treatment. The proportion of relapse-free subjects was significantly higher in both Antegren treatment groups (p=0.03). Antegren was well tolerated with a similar number of subjects experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events in each of the treatment groups. On a global measure of patient well-being, Antegren-treated patients felt significantly better compared to placebo (p=0.03).{tc \l 2 ""}



Now why the companies chose in P3 to go after lower EDSS scores (average about 2.5) and no SPMS sufferers is open to conjecture. My GUESS is that they felt that, based on the data, Tysabri would work best against these patients. But that's just a guess.
User avatar
Observer
Family Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:36 pm

Observer,

As stated, you inferred the 'same thing' from your wife's neuro (see quote below). I took that to mean 'no effect on lesion load' whereas you apparently meant something else. I did NOT nor would I twist other's words around or edit/add to their quotes - it was an honest (and I still believe accurate) interpretation of your statement.


Explanation understood, accepted...and now we move on.

I'm sure all readers have enjoyed this little spat, but I could not let anyone besmirch my fine and upstanding reputation (yeah, right) on this message board without calling their bluff. I hope this is the end of it. Onto the facts about Tysabri, rather than I said, you said.


I NEVER try and besmirch ANYONE's reputation on ANY of the 12 MS sites that I regularly visit and those who have followed my posts on this and any of the other sites would know that. I never "bluff" anyone, either.
It's too bad that you have felt that way, Observer but I guess that is something that you have to deal with in your own way.


As for the use of Tysabri in SPMS and PPMS and Biogen not using this kind of patient in P3 trials.....researchers believe that the damage mechanism to myelin in this kind of MS is very different than RRMS. In RRMS, the immune system is reacting to the inflammation in the myelin and incorrectly attacks the myelin, further damaging it. When one has PPMS or SPMS, it is not the same mechanism and that is one reason that none of the CRAB drugs have been much if any help to this kind of MS. Lesion load with PPMS and SPMS is also more difficult to correlate to symptoms so reducing lesions doesn't necessarily help the patient.

And finally, there are far more RRMS patients out there than those who have PPMS and SPMS and from a financial point of view, it makes more sense to concentrate to where you are going to make the most profit.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby Observer » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:34 pm

Harryz, yes, I'll have to deal with it in my own way. We ALL have our crosses to bear, I suppose.

As for SPMS or PPMS, I don't know the mechanism of disease but I think back to the 5-yr old girl with an aggressive form of MS.

http://www.thisisms.com/modules.php?nam ... opic&t=598

All the CRABs and other inteventions had failed, yet Tysabri seemed to stop the MS cold in its tracks. Could/should this example provide any hope to SPMS or PPMS sufferers? Dunno.
User avatar
Observer
Family Member
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tysabri (Antegren or Natalizumab)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users