great essay by john palfeman on the need for cheaper continuous l-dopa
 

http://iospress.metapress.com/conten...7/fulltext.pdf
this guy doesn't pull any punches.

title: who dropped the ball on l-dopa
by john palfeman

i'm paraphrasing here, can' cut/paste.

researchers basically bored by l-dopa? the following seems to apply to more advanced pd'ers suffering on/off.

"the effort to produce a better delivered l-dopa failed, says henry ford hospital professor peter lewitt, because products were based on a lot of "half hearted pharmaceutical development, with poor design and not enough clinical research".
he includes sinemet-cr, stalevo, dopamine agonists, mao-b inhibitors.

Yes, a "great essay".

Making levodopa work better for us is an attainable target.

We can sit and hope for Big Pharma to deliver and likely wait years for something to get regulatory approval, and even then find that they charge such a high price that we can't afford it; or, we can work on the issue ourselves.

On this forum we've discussed many possible approaches:
- liquid levodopa, sipped frequently;
- patches;
- nasal sprays;
- natural sources, e.g. fava beans;
- grapefruit juice;
- liposomes, etc.

But all the time we stop short of running a clinical trial ourselves. Let's adopt a "can do" attitude NOW.

John

interesting he didn't comment on IMPAX LABS about to be released "improved" CR/IR combo.

Thanks for the link ST. I agree, it was a great commentary on the state of PD research. Yes, there are some other ongoing LD trials that weren't mentioned. But, the point is, outside of Abbvie's gel, all of the other studies are being conducted by small, generally underfunded, companies. MJFF tends to be the major source of initial funding. However, to bring these new treatments home through completed Phase IIIs and NDAs, takes a lot more money. It's a shame, because it is much easier to improve on an existing treatment like LD than to it is to find new protein vaccines, or neuroprotective cures. I have to believe that if big pharma would have put more of their resources behind some of these trials better versions of LD would have been on the market many years ago, as well as better delivery systems. But alas, it's not sexy, nor nearly as profitable, as hitting the holy grail of "neuroprotection".

As to Impax's Rytary, there has been little news regarding the FDA's follow up inspection. They have their quarterly earnings call on Aug. 6, maybe they'll give an update at that time.

i assume there's more money in other diseases especially if insurance companies continue to pay the astronomical prices for some of these new drugs, for example hepatitis C, cancer.

I assume when big pharma looks at pd, they see a disease where by the time they bring a new drug to market, there might be a "cure" of sorts or a less risky/cheaper DBS.

it was assumed when i was diagnosed in late 2001 there would be a cure in 5 years.

i wonder what the newly diagnosed are told by their neuros nowadays?


rytary doesn't seem all that great, could be wrong.
have to research DEPOMED and see if his optimism is justified.
seems too good to be true, 1-2 pills/day. i know pd'ers on stalevo, requip, amantadine that are doing well 12+ years after diagnosis but the advantage of just 1 drug is obvious in any disease even if the cost was slightly more.

let's hope for successful fetal and stem cell trials in 2015. keep exercising.