Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone heard of Campath?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anyone heard of Campath?

    So I went into my neurologist's office earlier today to sign papers for TOUCH as I am starting Tysabri later this month. The nurse there was talking about drugs that are being studied currently and mentioned that he feels Campath should have great benefits for MS.

    Has anyone heard of this or been on a study with this medication? If so, what was your experience like?

    He said there are only 5 treatments per year and there is no PML risk and no one has died from taking this medicine. I know that it is already out for leukemia, so does that mean it is already safe and should have no problems or differences when used for MS? I'm confused yet so curious about this possible future medication.
    "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power
    is made perfect in weakness." -2 Cor. 12:9

    dx 11.23.10 RRMS

    #2
    Hi Kelsey:
    There have been a few threads here about Campath. You can find them by using the search function. Even better would be to Google "Campath and multiple sclerosis" and read the research reports and articles on authority sites about Campath and MS.

    The imipression you came away with from your neuro's office with is not accurate and a bit too rosy. There was one death in the Phase II trial of Campath for MS. And while there have been no cases of PML in the MS trials, PML has occurred in people treated with it for cancer. When the immune system is suppressed, there is always the chance of PML developing. Hundreds of people who take immunosupressant drugs die from PML every year, but it doesn't make the news.

    Other opportunistic infections have also occurred in that group. Adverse effects in cancer patients have included deaths not related to their cancer and suspected of being due to Campath. In the MS study, a significant number of subjects developed Grave's disease and three developed ITP, a blood-clotting disorder. The person who died, died from ITP.

    Campath is showing very good results in the trials for MS and is quite promising, especially with the possibility of long-term remission. But no drug that severely suppresses the immune system (or causes that many significant side effects) is "safe." Like with other medications, taking it is -- and will be for MS -- a trade-off of benefit vs. risk.

    Comment


      #3
      I'm excited about this also. its 5 treatment one time(week) a year. its generic name is Alemtuzumab. its currently being used to treat leukemia as Campath and in 2012 vit will be released as Lemtrada to treat MS if the trials are completed ok.

      do a search on those drug names and there have been posts on it. it sounds like Trysabri has less risk of a very serious side affect of PML and lemtrada doesn't but Lemtrada will have a greater risk of a less serious and treatable side affect of cancer. one article i read said that an interferon will have to be taken with it to reduce the cancer risk? I'm still excited about the 1x a year treatment. "a set it & forget it drug"..but i'm also respopnding well to tysabri so i'm uncertain if those who respond to tysabri will be eligible to use Lemtrada & the use of an interferon ruins the 1x a year treatment benefit.
      xxxxxxxxxxx

      Comment


        #4
        I went to a talk that my neuro gave on emerging MS therapies and was very interested in the Campath. It sounded very promising.

        Unfortunately, I had ITP when I was 6 years old so I don't think that I would be able to take this treatment. Thankfully I had my spleen removed and I've been in "remission" since then, but who knows what will happen in the future.

        Comment


          #5
          I had my 5 days of campath this past November. It wasn't a trial or anything. It took a while for my insurance to approve it since right now it is only for B cell leukemia. I was so blessed because I only had to pay an $80 copay. I was on betaseron, so of course I am thrilled to not have to do a shot every other day. Things are going well so far. I kept getting strep pretty often the 1st 3 months after the treatment. My white count is only up to 2...but hey...that's pretty good compared to the -0 I had immediately after the treatment. I get my mri in October to determine if it helped. When my counts come up to a suitable level, I will have my 2nd round and that should be all I have to do. I'm happy to answer any questions!
          DX RRMS 2001
          Organic Anxiety Disorder
          Campath-Nov.2010

          Comment


            #6
            Generic Alemtuzmab
            when used for leukemia it is called Campath.
            It is currently going through trials under FDA fast track status to be approved for the treatment of MS under the name Lemtrada. CARE-MS trial

            They just released the results of a first part pase III thrail which confirmed it was 55% more efficient than Rebif. Since rebif is 30% effective lemtrada is 85%.

            Here is a link to an article in Medscaped about the trial results.

            In the article they say physiocians remain conflicted about this med because while they applaud the great efficiency, they shudder at the seriois side affects
            such as such as immune thrombocytopenic purpura, thyroid disease, and cancer.

            one doc in the article is quoted as saying he does not think it will be approved. But if it were available he would use it. Stanley Cohan, MD, medical director at the Providence Multiple Sclerosis Center in Portland, Oregon

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/746184

            Me I'm watching this drug closly as it goes through the process of getting FDA approval. My MS is not bad enough for the risk, but i so hate doing ms meds, i'd like to get it down to once a year!
            xxxxxxxxxxx

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by 0485c10 View Post
              They just released the results of a first part pase III thrail which confirmed it was 55% more efficient than Rebif. Since rebif is 30% effective lemtrada is 85%.
              That's not how those numbers work.
              If Rebif is 30% effective and the new med is 55% more efficient, that makes the new med about 47% effective.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by 0485c10 View Post
                one doc in the article is quoted as saying he does not think it will be approved. But if it were available he would use it. Stanley Cohan, MD, medical director at the Providence Multiple Sclerosis Center in Portland, Oregon
                That is incorrect. According to the Medscape article, Dr. Cohan said he would NOT use Campath.
                "I don't think this drug will be approved," Stanley Cohan, MD ... told Medscape Medical News ... "But if it were available, I wouldn't use it."

                Originally posted by 0485c10 View Post
                They just released the results of a first part pase III thrail which confirmed it was 55% more efficient than Rebif. Since rebif is 30% effective lemtrada is 85%.
                Actually, the test results and the article don't say anything like that. The results of CARE-MS show a 55% reduction in relapse in subjects treated with alemtuzumab compared with those receiving Rebif. The article doesn't address efficiency at all -- not of alemtuzumab and not of Rebif. And even if it did, the mathematical calculation of the opinion presented in the quote as fact is erroneous. Percentage-wise, that's 100% false.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thanks for the correction Rewing, i'm sure glad i provided a link to the article.
                  xxxxxxxxxxx

                  Comment


                    #10
                    And my thanks to Bob too nice to get other's interpretation on an article
                    xxxxxxxxxxx

                    Comment


                      #11
                      85% not 47%

                      bob--i just want to clarify my thanks to you for correcting the way i said it, not that it was reportred at 47%,. 47% is just your interpretation of how i phrased it.

                      previously it was reported that lemtra was 85 % efficient, although with deference to redwing i did not define what efficient was, but i supplied a link to the article, it was a reduction in relapse, there are many ways to define efficient.--and i was just making a brief intro to the link to the article. it not like i was writing the article myself, i was supplying a link to the article.

                      i was happy the link was used and read, i think i will make mistakes in all intro to links, then i know they were used.

                      in this article they reported the trial results confirmed it was 55% greater than rebif. 55% + 30% = 85% and the fact that the article said it confirmed previous trials results which were reported was at 85% means that it was meant to be added to get a confirmed 85%.

                      if you back calculate that Lemtrda was 55% more of what rebif, and the trial confirmed previous results which were 85% means that whatever rebif did was 85%-55%=30%. but everyone pretty much knows that crab drugs are 30% at whatever efficient/effective ect. so i did not back calculate, i just used what is general knowledge.


                      but your right, the way i phrased it could be mathematically interpreted as 30% + .55(30%)= 47%.
                      but that was not how is was intended by either me or the person who wrote the article. its good to be suspicious of trial reports results, but in this case it was meant at 85%.

                      PS there are a lot more articles reporting the results of this trial, i just posted one, but i am certain others said it in different ways that i may have used a combination of how they phrased it, because I read all of them that came to my attention then selected just 1 to provide a link to.

                      I didn't want to leave the impression that the article reported only 47% when i was thanking you for correcting my intro to the article. it confirmed previous results at 85% which is 55% more than rebif.
                      xxxxxxxxxxx

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X