angelofcharlie20 Posted June 22, 2006 Posted June 22, 2006 Hi All, Anyone know of a way to combat this? Any input would be greatly appreciated, Shirley Quote
RandyW Posted June 22, 2006 Posted June 22, 2006 This is something I had sent to someone else and had found an article discussing Fish Oil but that did not pan out so here is the back up and best info I can find for you; Ark Therapeutics Grp - Research Update RNS Number:9512W Ark Therapeutics Group PLC 16 January 2006 Ark Therapeutics Group plc Full Analysis of Vitor Study Confirms Therapeutic Effect in Cancer Cachexia Vitor significantly slows progression of cachexia in two cancer types and statistical significance achieved in two secondary endpoints across all cancers Confirmatory Phase III trial to be planned with the Regulators 16 January 2006, London UK: Ark Therapeutics Group plc today announces the full analysis from the first safety and efficacy study of Vitor in cancer cachexia. The results are consistent with the preliminary results previously announced on 28 October 2005 and provide additional statistical confirmation. The study examined whether Vitor changes the pattern of cancer cachexia (unintentional weight loss) in three types of cancer: colorectal, non-small cell lung (NSCL) and pancreatic cancer. 200 patients with cancer cachexia were included in the study. Full results from patients completing the study showed the reduction in the rate of cachexia in patients with NSCL and colorectal cancer following treatment with Vitor was statistically significant (p<0>0.05). The statistical results in the primary endpoints were principally confounded by pancreatic cancer patients showing a different response from the other two cancer types and a large proportion (42%) of study non-completers causing high variability in the data. For the co- primary endpoint of hand grip strength across all cancers, Vitor treatment attenuated the reduction in mean hand grip strength by 42% compared with placebo but the results did not reach statistical difference. Statistical significance was reached in two secondary endpoints, extent of fatigue since last visit (p< 0.039) and level of fatigue at the reporting time (p<0.0072). Patients had lost an average of 15% body weight (av. 24 lbs) in the six months prior to entering the study. The rate of weight loss on entering the study slowed markedly in both treated and untreated groups. It is possible that because patients had lost so much weight prior to entry, they could lose little more; however, a 'study entry' effect may have existed. Nevertheless, the trial population lost an average of 2.3lbs during the 12 week period with treated patients losing an average of 1.91lbs and controls 2.68lbs. After four weeks in the study, the beneficial effect of Vitor on rate of weight change became evident in all cancer types. Pancreatic cancer patients on Vitor on average lost 0.020lbs/day from week 4 to week 12 with controls losing 0.061lbs/day and NSCL and colon cancer patients showed average net weight gains of +0.0025lbs/day on Vitor whilst controls lost 0.022lbs/day. The patients who had lost the most weight on study entry appeared to show the greatest response to Vitor. The safety profile showed Vitor to be well tolerated and the study did not reveal any unexpected events. Professor John Martin, Chief Scientific Officer at Ark, commented: 'These results are both scientifically and clinically encouraging. Although there is variation in the data across the cancer and patient types, there is a consistent difference in favour of the Vitor treatment group on virtually all clinical endpoints measured. We have therefore seen a definite therapeutic effect from Vitor and we now have to work with the understanding gained to refine how we assess this disease and take the product forward so that cachexia patients can benefit from the clinical effects Vitor produces. The potential for efficacy combined with an established safety profile makes Vitor a very promising agent.' Dr David Eckland, R&D Director at Ark, added: 'Ark will now be working to apply the information gained from this study into the design of a confirmatory Phase III trial of Vitor in cancer cachexia and we expect to be discussing this with the regulators in the near future.' For further information please contact: Ark Therapeutics +44 (0)20 7388 7722 Dr Nigel Parker, Chief Executive Officer Martyn Williams, Chief Financial Officer Financial Dynamics +44 (0)20 7831 3113 David Yates / Davina Langdale Notes to Editors Vitor and cachexia in cancer Vitor is an oral small molecule therapy for the treatment of muscle wasting (cachexia), a secondary, often fatal, condition commonly seen in patients with cancer. The active ingredient was originally developed as a treatment for high blood pressure and is currently marketed in Japan and certain countries in Europe. Vitor has been shown to up-rate the ability of mitchondria to produce energy. In addition by working on the ubiquitin proteasome pathway, it prevents the breakdown of muscle proteins (actin and myosin) and reverses the impaired muscle protein production, which both occur as a result of the action of chemicals secreted by the cancer tumour and lead to the weight loss. Ark Therapeutics Group plc Ark is an emerging healthcare group (the 'Group') now entering the commercialisation phase, with one product introduced into hospitals and three further lead products in late stage clinical development. Capitalising on over ten years of research in vascular biology and gene-based medicine, Ark has a balanced portfolio of proprietary healthcare products targeted at specific unmet clinical needs within vascular disease and cancer. These are large and growing markets, where opportunities exist for effective new products to generate significant revenues. Ark's products are sourced from related but largely non-dependent technologies within the Group and have been selected to enable Ark to take each product through development and to benefit from Orphan Drug Status and/or Fast Track Designation, as appropriate. The Group generally retains ownership of its product candidates throughout clinical development. Ark has secured patents or has patent applications pending for all its lead products in principal pharmaceutical markets and retains the right to market its lead products in the key North American and European markets. Ark has its origins in businesses established in the mid-1990s by Professor John Martin and Mr Stephen Barker of University College London and Professor Seppo Yla-Herttuala of the AI Virtanen Institute at the University of Kuopio, Finland, all of whom play leading roles in the Company's research and development programmes. Ark's shares were successfully listed through an initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange in March 2004 (AKT.L). This announcement includes 'forward-looking statements' which include all statements other than statements of historical facts, including, without limitation, those regarding the Group's financial position, business strategy, plans and objectives of management for future operations (including development plans and objectives relating to the Group's products and services), and any statements preceded by, followed by or that include forward-looking terminology such as the words 'targets', 'believes', 'estimates', 'expects', 'aims', 'intends', 'will', 'can', 'may', 'anticipates', 'would', 'should', 'could' or similar expressions or the negative thereof. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors beyond the Group's control that could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Group to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions regarding the Group's present and future business strategies and the environment in which the Group will operate in the future. Among the important factors that could cause the Group's actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include those relating to Ark's funding requirements, regulatory approvals, clinical trials, reliance on third parties, intellectual property, key personnel and other factors. These forward-looking statements speak only as at the date of this announcement. The Group expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to disseminate any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained in this announcement to reflect any change in the Group's expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statements are based. As a result of these factors, readers are cautioned not to rely on any forward-looking statement. This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END RESLELLFQFBBBBL_SN_RNS9512W_SU_RNSTEST_XX_070118.4048_RZ__RT_R.xRoute.001 ~ Data provided by Hemscott Group Limited.Disclaimer Quote
ma's kid Posted June 22, 2006 Posted June 22, 2006 Randy W, You are so helpful and I just wanted to say thank you for always being here for all of us. You bring a sense of *comfort* to this board Libby Quote
Linda661 Posted June 22, 2006 Posted June 22, 2006 Randy, it was me you sent the info. to and we really can't say that the Fish Oil didn't pan out. Research had shown that EPA (Eicosapentaenoic Acid), a component found readily in oily fish, was effective in combatting/interrupting the effects of Wasting Syndrome. The only problem was that the research article made no recommendation on amount of EPA necessary to administer. Also consider that my mom got pretty wasted darn fast by the time I asked the question --- The best I could do with that was buy fish oil pills locally that had the most EPA in them I could find: that was 300mg per daily recommended intake of the capsules -- with no other information, we are following label directions and that probably isn't enough to be as effective as it could be, but I have no guidelines on how much to really administer....and the medical community doesn't know what to do with it either (if it ain't a drug, they're stumped...lol) and my chiropractor didn't know what else to do there either. So far, mom's physical deterioration from wasting isn't getting any worse that I can tell and might be slightly improving -- she's a little more mobile now (not bedridden now with zero energy) even though she is a significant fall risk. Her last labs weren't showing any improvement in protein utilization that I would expect to see, but she'd only been on fish oil for a short time when they were drawn -- natural substances generally take a bit longer to show signs of working in things like labs. Mom never did lose significant amounts of weight (about 15-20 pounds over the last year): she's within her normal weight range, but looks wasted and starved nonetheless from the loss of muscle all over her body. Bottom line: Fish oil is worth a try in my opinion if Vitor isn't a viable short-term option. There is no down-side risk to it either. Linda Quote
RandyW Posted June 22, 2006 Posted June 22, 2006 Thank you for that info I searched hi and low for that info in posts or letters Saw another post and thought you had said it was not working and thank you for clarifying my tired eyes that night. Quote
EastCoastLadi Posted June 22, 2006 Posted June 22, 2006 Shirley, I don't know if you have heard about "ATP" - Adenosine 5-triphosphate... my husbands' radiologist recommended it to him today, it is a supplement, ( some athletes use ), it is suppose to increase energy levels, and help with weight gain... I'm still trying to find out about it myself for my husband, you can buy it over the counter, but it is not that easy to find, he told my husband only 1 drug store in our city has it... If I find out more I will let you know Grace Quote
angelofcharlie20 Posted June 22, 2006 Author Posted June 22, 2006 Thank you so much Randy for that information. I bought my father some fish oil capsules a few weeks ago. I don't know how many mg it is though. Grace - Please let me know if you find out more about that. Praying and Hoping, Shirley Quote
Linda661 Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 Thanks for the info. on ATP. Appears to have real merit -- check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract Randomized clinical trial of adenosine 5'-triphosphate in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Agteresch HJ, Dagnelie PC, van der Gaast A, Stijnen T, Wilson JH. Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Extracellular adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) is involved in the regulation of a variety of biologic processes, including neurotransmission, muscle contraction, and liver glucose metabolism, via purinergic receptors. In nonrandomized studies involving patients with different tumor types including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ATP infusion appeared to inhibit loss of weight and deterioration of quality of life (QOL) and performance status. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effects of ATP in patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or IV). METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive either 10 intravenous 30-hour ATP infusions, with the infusions given at 2- to 4-week intervals, or no ATP. Outcome parameters were assessed every 4 weeks until 28 weeks. Between-group differences were tested for statistical significance by use of repeated-measures analysis, and reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were allocated to receive ATP treatment and 30 received no ATP. Mean weight changes per 4-week period were -1.0 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.5 to -0.5) in the control group and 0.2 kg (95% CI = -0.2 to +0.6) in the ATP group (P =.002). Serum albumin concentration declined by -1.2 g/L (95% CI= -2.0 to -0.4) per 4 weeks in the control group but remained stable (0.0 g/L; 95% CI = -0.3 to +0.3) in the ATP group (P =.006). Elbow flexor muscle strength declined by -5.5% (95% CI = -9.6% to -1. 4%) per 4 weeks in the control group but remained stable (0.0%; 95% CI= -1.4% to +1.4%) in the ATP group (P =.01). A similar pattern was observed for knee extensor muscles (P =.02). The effects of ATP on body weight, muscle strength, and albumin concentration were especially marked in cachectic patients (P =.0002, P =.0001, and P =. 0001, respectively, for ATP versus no ATP). QOL score changes per 4-week period in the ATP group showed overall less deterioration than in the control group-physical scores (-0.2% versus -2.4%; P =. 0002); functional scores (+0.4% versus -5.5%; P =.02); psychologic scores (-0.7% versus -2.4%; P =.11); overall QOL score (+0.1% versus -3.5%; P =.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrates that ATP has beneficial effects on weight, muscle strength, and QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC. This particular link will take you to related articles on the topic as well -- fascinating stuff. Couldn't easily find where to purhase it either (but I didn't spend much time at that search) -- the studies reported using IV infusion of it and the cancer community seems to know about it (it shows up in cancer site searches) -- wonder if any oncs. are using it as a supplement in chemo????? Linda Quote
teresag Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 My "cancer scam" sensors went on alert when I read this thread. Please keep in mind that the study was done with intravenous ATP, not the oral OTC supplement. Drugs that are effective by one route may be utterly useless when administered by another route. Many drugs cannot be orally administered without losing their effectiveness (insulin is one example). Ask yourself, "Why would the study use the IV form, which requires a needle stick and sterile equipment, when the oral form is available OTC?" The usual reason for this is that the oral form does not work. Please be cautious about supplements; there are so many that are useless and even harmful. Quote
Welthy Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 I echo teresag's comments. Check with the Doctor before taking ANY supplements. Welthy Quote
EastCoastLadi Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 I know it is the best thing to approach anything new w/ some skepticism, but my husbands' radiologist has had some patients who have felt better after taking ATP, so like w/ many other otc, med, treatments it is an individual thing. With my husbands' current condition he said it wouldn't hurt him, but of course he couldn't say if it would help him at all. The only thing he could do is to try... so we're still looking into this.. Grace Quote
Linda661 Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 You're absolutely correct Teresa about caution when investigating and considering the use of these sorts of things (and always clear it with your doctor) -- I guess I thought I had made the point of the study using IV method rather than OTC...just not clearly enough; just saying that the compound appears to have merit for further investigation (didn't mean folks should run out and get it). There is another study out there that found some limited merit to OTC, but not enough to hang their hat on, and they conclude that more testing needs to be done. There may be others........ On another caution note: highlighting a research article or two on anything needs to be taken with caution as well. While we all want to help, topic interests based on research presented should be reviewed and followed up individually -- I'd never presume that there isn't more to be found to round out my understanding of something new to me and possibly of interest to my journey with this. Add things like not all studies published out there are valid or something else may be out there to counter the conclusions of a highlighted study in post that might affect my decision on what to pursue....very important never to assume that any of us have posted "the bottom line" on research -- we try to help with information leads, but it can take alot of time to follow-through thoroughly on research information, depending on the subject. I had found a study on a cancer site on my own followup that countered Randy's lead on EPA, for example -- it concluded that fish oil pills were a waste of time and didn't work. However, in my review, I found that the researchers had megadosed study participants (oral) for two weeks -- that's it and it created problems for study participants. That study has questionable merit in my mind from my own personal experience so I decided to take my findings to our doctor, who said it was worth a try in our case, but we couldn't conclude anything on dosage end.....I took a lead posted here and further investigated on my own before doing anything. Which information is correct, if any? Will it actually help my mom? We don't really know: all we have is a possibility on this topic of wasting. Linda Quote
teresag Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 Anther twist on this is that there are accepted drugs that work for increasing appetite, which is not the sole answer to wasting disease, but maintaining nutritional intake is important. These drugs' brand names are Megace and Marinol. In some states, medical marijuana (ingested or smoked) is legal and is useful for this purpose for some people. Wasting (cachexia) is a difficult problem, to be sure. Although it seems counter-intuitive, moderate frequent exercise (e.g., a little a day) helps, too. Best of luck to you in solving this challenging problem, Shirley. Quote
Bill Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 I heard my father and the plumonologist talking about this. my mothers body became a human furnace with the cancer consuming huge amount of energy. robbing the healthy part of her body of nutrition. up til about the last week of her life she had a good appetite. ate alot and recieved supppements and still lost about 25 pounds in a few weeks. every body was pushing food hi carb drinks and appetite boosters like megace and none of it could stop the weight decline and weakness rob Quote
Linda661 Posted June 24, 2006 Posted June 24, 2006 I found your original link you sent me on this topic, Randy. It's http://www.supportiveoncology.net/journ ... 103159.pdf. I investigated many, many, many others along the way, including ones published as late as early this year -- never found any that were any better at understanding cachexia and why it is so difficult to manage. Though it's technical, it also did the best job of explaining things that the layperson has some chance of grasping. Edit: I see that there may be some trouble getting the link to work now. If it doesn't work, simply go to www.supportiveoncology.net. On their homepage, you'll want their 2003 journal articles. The title of the article is "Pathogenesis of Cancer Cachexia," by Michael J. Tisdale, DSc, PhD, Volume 1, Number 3, in the September/October 2003 issue of their journal. You rock RandyW, in case you don't know that yet! Linda P.S. When you look at study content, you want to look for statistical significance of p<.01 as being the cadillac-era of a marker of something that's working; p<.05 is good, but it should be better if you're going to solidly rely on it long-term (note Randy's Vitor study -- they've got enough going there for Phase III investigation at p<.05 -- Vitor is promising so far); p<.1 or worse isn't good study result.....then there's the issue of the study design, sample size (less than 50 studied [if it's even a random sample of study participants] leaves more room for result errors), and methodology that the statistical results are based on......easy to get garbage in, garbage out. Just a friendly warning on what everyone is looking at in studies -- I'm not a medical professional, but I am really well schooled in probability and statistics, including study design (Masters level with teaching assistant experience on these issues). There is a bit of an art to knowing what you are looking at here. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.