Why is drug testing so slow when people are dying?

[madoka]

I watched my uncle wither away and die from pancreatic cancer a couple of years ago.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...with-pancreatic-cancer.2421234/#post-37180800

Now I'm reading of a possible cure from a drug given to alcoholics that was discovered to kill pancreatic (and breast and colon) cancer cells back in 1977! FORTY years ago and they're now starting to look at it?!?!!?! WTF!

However, as shown in this new study, Antabuse has another effect on the body. For their study, the researchers observed the drug's effect on both living mice and on human cancer cells. In doing so, they noted that when the drug is metabolized it causes the protein, NPL4, to clump together with the enzyme p97, immobilizing the protein. This “freezes” the cancer cells and prevents them from disposing of unnecessary proteins. The build-up stresses the cancer cells and eventually causes them to die, Science Mag reported.

Results were even more pronounced when the drug was combined with copper, and the drug did not discriminate when it came to what type of cancer cells it killed. In the study it was just as helpful in killing prostate, breast and colon cancer. In addition, only cancer cells are affected by Antabuse while normal cells seem to be unharmed. The reason for this is unclear.

The connection between the drug and cancer treatment dates back decades, with the first case report acknowledging the connection published in 1977 in Progress in Clinical and Biological Research. The case detailed a breast cancer patient who also was an alcoholic. She was given Antabuse to treat her alcoholism, but an autopsy upon her death (which was due to falling from a window, not cancer) revealed that her body was clinically cancer-free despite having no further cancer treatment. In fact, the only drug she had continued to use was Antabuse.

The new study is the first to suggest a biological explanation for this side effect of the drug.

The new study now is the first to suggest a biological explanation for this side effect. Still, Dr. Matthew Galsky, an oncologist and a professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Newsweek that it may be too soon to count this as a cancer cure just yet.

“Obviously the major questions are, that’s great that it works in test tubes, but what does this mean for patients, and how do we test that?”

Galsky noted that the study was extremely detailed and showed exactly how this drug affects cancer cells, but we still do not know if the doses used to achieve these results in the laboratory can be safe and effective in human patients.

"Unfortunately, we want advances quick when we are treating cancer because this is a devastating disease, and repurposing drugs does shorten this time,” said Galsky. “Still, we need to do a careful investigation in the clinic to make sure that it’s safe to give adequate doses.”

If this drug was determined to be safe to give to alcoholics, why not give it to dying cancer patients? What the f do they have to lose?

 

[Ancalagon44]

Because for every drug like that, you have many more cases in which drugs were pushed through that A) do not do what they claim to do, or B) work but are dangerous and possibly deadly.

There are many, many examples that fall into category B. One example is the Dalkon Shield, that also came out in the 70s if I remember correctly. It led to many women being irreversibly sterile and a number of women died from it. So, this is the reason they don't rush drugs - when they do, people die.

 

[shortylickens]

Because for every drug like that, you have many more cases in which drugs were pushed through that A) do not do what they claim to do, or B) work but are dangerous and possibly deadly.

There are many, many examples that fall into category B. One example is the Dalkon Shield, that also came out in the 70s if I remember correctly. It led to many women being irreversibly sterile and a number of women died from it. So, this is the reason they don't rush drugs - when they do, people die.

Bingo.
Desperation makes people stupid and careless. Thats why we do everything we can to make scientists objective and thorough. Sadly that means long research and trial periods, and usually lots money invested which might never pan out. But thats a better system than needlessly wasting hundreds or even thousands of lives.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Because for every drug like that, you have many more cases in which drugs were pushed through that A) do not do what they claim to do, or B) work but are dangerous and possibly deadly.

There are many, many examples that fall into category B. One example is the Dalkon Shield, that also came out in the 70s if I remember correctly. It led to many women being irreversibly sterile and a number of women died from it. So, this is the reason they don't rush drugs - when they do, people die.

You forgot the last (and most important) part.... and companies in healthcare get sued. When their mom dies their kids will sue the docs for administering the drug, the hospital for hosting the drug, and the drug maker for creating it for a money grab.

 

[Exterous]

Because for every drug like that, you have many more cases in which drugs were pushed through that A) do not do what they claim to do, or B) work but are dangerous and possibly deadly.

There are many, many examples that fall into category B. One example is the Dalkon Shield, that also came out in the 70s if I remember correctly. It led to many women being irreversibly sterile and a number of women died from it. So, this is the reason they don't rush drugs - when they do, people die.

If the options were between being sterile or dead from cancer I think many would choose sterile. I get your meaning though but I wish there were better options for terminal patients to choose less tested treatments in the hopes of beating the otherwise unbeatable

 

[Gunbuster]

Look up iatrogenic deaths. Depending on who you ask prescription drugs and medical "care" make up somewhere between the number 1 and 3 top killer in the US.

 

[gill77]

Look up iatrogenic deaths. Depending on who you ask prescription drugs and medical "care" make up somewhere between the number 1 and 3 top killer in the US.

You combine that with the number of prescription drug deaths and you wonder how much longer the public will rely upon government to keep us "safe".

 

[madoka]

Because for every drug like that, you have many more cases in which drugs were pushed through that A) do not do what they claim to do, or B) work but are dangerous and possibly deadly.

Yes, but in this particular case, the drug was already approved as safe and it has been given to people for 40+ years. It was given to alcoholics to curb their temptation to drink. They just happened to find that it targeted and killed cancer cells.

From further reading, I learned that:

- this cancer killing effect was first discovered in 1971
- it may not cure cancer in everybody but will extend lives
- the real reason why they've been so slow in this case was about money:

Finding a new use for an approved drug is appealing because the compound has already passed safety testing. However, “big pharma probably won’t be interested” in developing disulfiram for cancer because there’s no patent protection on the drug

That's messed up.