A Vaccine for Alzheimer's?

An article appeared in the science section of The Telegraph (21st March 2018) claiming that drugs to vaccinate over-50s against Alzheimer’s could be here in a decade. 

New analysis commissioned by Alzheimer’s Research UK found that drugs to halt, slow or reverse the disease could be available in as little as three years with major vaccine and screening programmes possible within a decade.

This would be a huge money-spinner for Big Pharma so my suspicions are immediately aroused and so I sought to find out a little more about Alzheimer's Research UK. Is it just another facade to mask the machinations of the pharmaceutical industry? On it's website it claims:

We believe in the power of research to change the future and we’re funding a unique Research Network of over 700 dementia researchers across 15 Centres in the UK – bringing together the best minds to defeat dementia.

Some funding comes from donations but it would be interesting to see how much comes from Big Pharma. In its 2018 Annual Review it states that:

It’s been a record year. In 2016/17 our income rose to £30.5 million, fuelled by a 44% increase in donations, allowing us to power more dementia research than ever before.

 

Of course, this still doesn't give us any idea of the relative contributions by individuals and pharmaceutical companies. In the Annual Report for 2017, it states that:

Total income rose strongly to £30.5m, up 38% on 2016 (£22m). This growth was underpinned by donations and legacies delivering £29.1m, an increase of 44% from 2016 (£20.2m). Legacy income delivered an extra £1.7m whilst donations increased by £7.2m from 2016. Investment income performed well, with an increase of 12% to £731,035 (2016: £655,520), and the portfolio remains strong, generating net gains of £787,448 (2016: £1,470,033) in the year. Alzheimer’s Research UK receives no income from government sources for our research. 

An increase in funding of 44% is quite a lot and most of it has come from donations. I'm doubtful whether donations from individuals would have increased significantly from 2016 to 2017. The organisation makes it clear that no income is derived from government sources so it would seem that corporate sponsors have been largely responsible for the increase in donations. However, how do we find out who these corporate sponsors are? There's much mention made of the organisation's corporate partners and this is made up of organisations that have made Alzheimer's Research UK their favourite charity and things of this sort. These organisations carry out fund-raising activities and support various initiatives but don't apparently make direct donations.

There is no indication of any support from the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not criticising such support but if there are significant financial contributions from the industry then why is it not transparent? Of relevance here is this news (posted on 8th January 2018) from Alzheimer's Research UK's website that it is:

calling for a recommitment from pharmaceutical companies to continue efforts to fund research into dementia, the leading cause of death in the UK. Recent news that Pfizer will refocus efforts away from dementia research is a reminder of one of the barriers that stands in the way of bringing about the first life-changing treatment for dementia. 

Clearly then Pfizer has been helping out financially but is now reducing its investment. However, donations are up 44%. So what's going on? Well, the 2017 corporate donations would been determined late in 2016 and Pfizer's announcement that it is abandoning research to find new drugs aimed at treating Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease was fairly recent (Saturday 6th January 2018). So while the company may have spent money in 2017, it clearly won't be doing so in 2018.  Perhaps other big pharmaceutical companies are of a similar mind and so donations may plummet for 2018.

It is important to establish the extent of the financial support from the pharmaceutical industry because then it possible to gauge the degree of control they have over the direction of research. It turns out that Alzheimer's Research UK recently acquired a new director of research. Her career path is described in an article taken from this site (24th May 2017):

My original interest in neuroscience was purely due to a brilliant neuroscience lecturer who taught me during my degree, and so when a PhD advert in neuroscience popped up on a board, I applied.  The technology I developed during my PhD then enabled me to take a role in a Pharmaceutical company out in California setting up this technology and supporting the expansion of neuroscience within the company.

After five years in California, I began to miss England and so took a role back in the UK again working in preclinical neuroscience. This led to a role in SmithKline Beecham and it was here that I really took a keen interest in the more translational side of neuroscience, progressing potential new medicines from the lab bench towards patients. After several industry and Biotech positions within translational medicine, I took a slight change in career to join the new Dementia Discovery Fund, a fund focussed around the development of new treatments for dementia, before finally joining Alzheimer’s Research UK. Whilst I remain a strong supporter of the Dementia Discovery Fund, the philanthropic approach of Alzheimer’s research UK, and the focus on basic research and translational medicine are more strongly aligned to my aspirations.

Her allegiance is clearly to the pharmaceutical industry and this is not necessarily a criticism but it does suggest that the direction of any research she approves will be drug-oriented. It's unlikely that she would incline toward research of the following type:

New research from Lund University in Sweden has shown that intestinal bacteria can accelerate the development of Alzheimer's disease. According to the researchers behind the study, the results open up the door to new opportunities for preventing and treating the disease. Source

The reason is there's probably not much money to be made in regulating intestinal bacteria. It might even be possible to do it for free! This leads back to the article cited at the start of this post that goes on to say that the new drugs being trialled could come with a £9 billion price tag. The article continues:

Already 12 Alzheimer’s drugs are in late Phase III trials, the final hurdle before licensing ... the 12 drugs coming through the pharma pipeline could provide a lifeline for patients. Most of the clinical trials involve drugs which target sticky clumps of beta-amyloid, which accumulate in the brain and stop neurones from communicating. Several vaccine-like treatments - which work more like a ‘statin for the brain’ than a traditional jab - are currently at an earlier stage of development, undergoing Phase I and II trials, said the experts. The report estimates that a vaccine could prevent around 70 per cent of Alzheimer’s cases. Speaking at a news briefing in London, report co-author Professor Jonathan Schott, from University College London's Dementia Research Centre, said: "The availability of new treatments for Alzheimer's disease is a when and not an if. "Our patients are desperate for new treatments. When the media reports any hint of a new treatment for Alzheimer's disease our clinics are inundated. “When we have a successful trial, and I say when, this will be headline news around the world and the demand will be instant and huge."

Statins for the brain sounds scary and statins of course are scary drugs (visit this site). It's not clear how the new treatments work but they promise to make a lot of money for the pharmaceutical companies with successful marketing. That's why it's surprising that Pfizer is reducing its involvement, given the tone of the Telegraph article. However, it seems that some of the new drugs that are being trialled are not living up to the hype and are proving disappointing. For example, this article from The Guardian (10th January 2018) reveals:

The quest to develop drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease has experienced a new setback, with a promising medication failing to show benefits in the latest series of clinical trials. Earlier trials had suggested that the drug idalopirdine, from the Danish international pharmaceutical company Lundbeck, might improve cognition in those with Alzheimer’s disease when taken alongside existing drugs – known as cholinesterase inhibitors – acting to improve symptoms rather than stopping the disease from developing. But the latest trials have dashed such hopes.

The Telegraph article seems like an attempt on the part of Alzheimer's Research UK to maintain the marketing hype surrounding these "promising" new drugs in the face of declining interest from Big Pharma. The prospects of Big Pharma defeating Alzheimer's Disease anytime soon seem unlikely and this makes the Telegraph article simply a ploy to stem a likely drying of corporate donations.