Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers?

[cy]

Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers?

"IT SOUNDS almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their "immortality". The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe. It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.

DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar. Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis's experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020)."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

 

[vizlor]

I seriously hope this is as good as it sounds.

 

[Fluffster]

+1

 

[KC2IXE]

What I wonder on this - they are going straight to Phase II trials (good thing) - but of course, a LOT of folks are getting turned down (My Mom included - terminal Lung Cancer). Now, as this is a drug already on the market, what is to prevent a MD to prescribe this drug "off label"?

 

[Manzerick]

who know for sure?

I begining to realize big business will always find a way to stick $$$ tags everywhere!

 

[cy]

since this drug is not patentable. understandably no drug company is willing to stump up huge cost of clinical trials.

wonder what's to prevent doctors from pre-scribing this to terminally ill cancer patient?

 

[BugOutGear_USA]

If this drug is viable I'm sure big pharma will find a way to claim stake to it. Although the drug may be off patent someone could come up with a better way to administer it quicker, cleaner, better, etc and patent that method.

Hope the hype is true...

 

[James S]

There is a LOT of garbage floating around in conspiracy circles about this, so let me summarize my reading over the last month or so about it.

First of all keep in mind all the wonderful cancer drugs we've heard about in the past where it worked so well in the testube that the researchers have gone to the press before doing human trials only to discover that the effect is almost useless inside a real person. So we keep hearing about miracles that never turn into products. THis isn't because of any conspiracy or $$$ it's just because things dont work the same inside a real live person that they do in the test tube.

Once a drug is approved it is permissible for a doc to prescribe it for anything else that they want to, as long as they can show some efficacy and you understand the risk/benefit of what they are doing. Expect much of this to happen while the trials are out, and expect many other docs to wait till the results are in. Like any drug there will be side effects and people that react badly to it, so a prudent doc will wait till enough info is in to make that risk/benefit decision I mentioned above.

The mechanism by which this works on cancers is more a side effect than the actual point of the drug. THere are other chemicals that target the actual action that they want more directly and more strongly. It is possible that one of them will be the one that is chosen for much more trials rather than this. Not because the drug companies want something they can charge more for, but because they can make something that works much better with fewer side effects. Or at least side effects not related to unnecessary action of the drug.

And the drug is too patentable. If not the substance, then the new use for it is. So the company that gets that will have bragging rights to the anti-cancer marketing of the drug at least and as we know from advertising, even though 2 things might have identical chemicals in them one will win out. So there is still TONS of money in it for whoever gets the studies done. Do NOT believe the folks that will tell you that the drug companies are not interested in it just because they can't get full patent protection. They already know that it's more than worth their while to work on it while they work on new drugs to specifically target the new action that this demonstrates.

So to sum up, this is a very interesting bit of information, but without a single actual cancer trial to back it up yet. What is learned from studying the action of this drug will likely lead to better more targeted (re: fewer side effects) drugs that can do the job better, both in the test tube and hopefully in a real patient too.

For those that would think I am in the pocket of big pharma (how you'd come to that idea I have no idea ) I can point you to a lot of further reading on cancer and this drug. There are actually some excellent articles on the daily kos website, and I dont think you can accuse them of being in the pocket of the government, at least not the republicans Here are those articles:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/3/113713/3658

and

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/144057/028

and they link to even more on those pages. For deeper science and understanding of what it does beyond the new scientist article you should start here:

http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2007/02/the_dichloroacetate_cancer_ker.php

and the university of alberta has a summary page with lots more links to read here:

http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

So if you're worried that it wont be studied for lack of funds I think you're wrong, and dont call conspiracy just because drug companies want to study other things with similar actions that might turn out to be much better and safer just because they might also be patentable.

PS, sorry just noticed that this last link was actually in the original post In any case, you should check it often for new information

 

[WAVE_PARTICLE]

+1 on what James said. Keep your hopes in check.

In vitro drug experiments are one thing, but experiments in the human body is another. There are so many more variables in the human body that can either render the drug useless or make the drug dangerous.

Just remember, there are literally thousands of compounds out there that are known to kill cancer cells.....the problem is, they kill other things too. Doctors are very careful when prescibing drugs especially those that are were not intended for the original treatment. They risk their medical license, can get sued, and perhaps can go to jail if something goes wrong.

If (big IF) this wonder drug turns out to be what everyone hopes, it will not be on the market for at least another 10 to 15 years. It must pass the R&D phase (5 years), the clinical trials (2 to 5 years) and FDA approval.

But we can all hope.....

Sorry to hear about your mom, KC2IXE...


WP

 

[Manzerick]

Have you seen the true cost of clincial studies and who pays?

it'll shock you

since this drug is not patentable. understandably no drug company is willing to stump up huge cost of clinical trials.

wonder what's to prevent doctors from pre-scribing this to terminally ill cancer patient?

 

[KC2IXE]

...snip...
If (big IF) this wonder drug turns out to be what everyone hopes, it will not be on the market for at least another 10 to 15 years. It must pass the R&D phase (5 years), the clinical trials (2 to 5 years) and FDA approval.

But we can all hope.....

Sorry to hear about your mom, KC2IXE...

WP

Thank you - actually, I was looking at the research - they are able to skip the R&D trials, and the Phase I trials, and go right to Phase II, due to this already being an approved drug - saves a LOT of time

Way back when, before we were married, my wife worked for a Medical researcher, so I know a tad (a very small tad) about the way trials are done. Being able to go straight to PII is going to save a LOT of itme (and is also how I knew to ask about 'off label' uses - LOTS of drugs get used off label)

 

[Lightmeup]

I hope it's got more credibility than Iran's herbal cure for AIDS:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250281,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iran

 

[WAVE_PARTICLE]

Being able to go straight to PII is going to save a LOT of itme (and is also how I knew to ask about 'off label' uses - LOTS of drugs get used off label)

Phase 1 trials takes the shortest time.....it's really Phase 2 and Phase 3 that eat up more than 90% of the clinical aspect. But that said, skipping the bulk of the initial R&D would practically shave off half of the total concept-to-market duration....which is good!

See if you can get your mom to volunteer in the clinical trials, although there's a chance that she would be placed in the "control" group which wouldn't work out for her.

WP

 

[goldenlight]

What I wonder on this - they are going straight to Phase II trials (good thing) - but of course, a LOT of folks are getting turned down (My Mom included - terminal Lung Cancer). Now, as this is a drug already on the market, what is to prevent a MD to prescribe this drug "off label"?

Absolutely nothing. In the USA at least, as long as a drug has FDA approval, any individual MD can, at his discretion, prescribe a drug for another purpose, as long as he stays within FDA guidelines for dosage and administration.

If this drug works in clinical trial as well as in vitro, the big pharmaceutical houses are going to fight approval of it tooth and nail. Anit cancer drugs are among the most profitible. They are usually administered intravenously in a hospital, or specialiced setting, allowing a further outrageous price (to the patient) markup.

For all the people who need it, I sure hopes this works as well as preliminary data suggests!

 

[James S]

true, the difference between the most expensive pill and getting the cheapest IV med in the hospital is an order of magnitude.

But keep in mind (after reading all the info linked to above) that even in the cancers that show this particular method of action that will make the drug work, only about half of the cells in a particular tumor will be affected, sometimes less. So this is likely to be a good adjunct therapy but if you only use it then all you'll end up with is a smaller tumor that can regrow and will be only the cells that aren't susceptible.

So this is not a cure for cancer, but might end up being a very helpful addition to the treatment.