The FDA's Cure ID mobile app allows healthcare professionals to quickly and easily report novel uses of existing drugs for rare diseases. This crowdsourced data platform aims to accelerate drug repurposing by connecting clinicians who've observed positive outcomes with researchers seeking potential treatments. The app streamlines the reporting process, allowing clinicians to submit cases directly to the FDA with minimal effort, fostering collaboration and potentially leading to faster identification of effective therapies for patients with rare conditions.
A new islet cell transplantation technique has shown promise in reversing type 1 diabetes. Researchers developed a method using bioengineered "scaffolds" derived from pig tissue, which house insulin-producing islet cells. These scaffolds are implanted under the skin of the recipient, protecting the cells from immune system attack without requiring long-term immunosuppression. In a small clinical trial, all six participants with severe type 1 diabetes were able to stop insulin injections for at least a year after the transplant, with one participant insulin-free for over two years. While larger trials are needed, this new method offers a potentially less invasive and safer alternative to traditional islet transplantation for achieving insulin independence in type 1 diabetes.
HN commenters express cautious optimism about the islet transplantation technique described in the linked article. Several point out that while promising, the need for immunosuppressants remains a significant hurdle, potentially introducing more risks than the disease itself for some patients. Some discuss the limitations of current immunosuppressant drugs and the potential for future advancements in that area to make this treatment more viable. Others highlight the small sample size of the study and the need for larger, longer-term trials to confirm these initial findings. A few commenters share personal experiences with Type 1 diabetes, emphasizing the impact the disease has on their lives and their hope for a true cure. Finally, some discuss the possibility of using stem cells as a source for islets, eliminating the need for donor organs.
Decades of Alzheimer's research may have been misdirected due to potentially fabricated data in a highly influential 2006 Nature paper. This paper popularized the amyloid beta star hypothesis, focusing on a specific subtype of amyloid plaques as the primary driver of Alzheimer's. The Science investigation uncovered evidence of image manipulation in the original research, casting doubt on the validity of the Aβ* subtype's significance. This potentially led to billions of research dollars and countless scientist-years being wasted pursuing a flawed theory, delaying exploration of other potential causes and treatments for Alzheimer's disease.
Hacker News users discussed the potential ramifications of the alleged Alzheimer's research fraud, with some expressing outrage and disappointment at the wasted resources and misled scientists. Several commenters pointed out the perverse incentives within academia that encourage publishing flashy results, even if preliminary or dubious, over rigorous and replicable science. Others debated the efficacy of peer review and the challenges of detecting image manipulation, while some offered cautious optimism that the field can recover and progress will eventually be made. A few commenters also highlighted the vulnerability of patients and their families desperate for effective treatments, making them susceptible to misinformation and false hope. The overall sentiment reflected a sense of betrayal and concern for the future of Alzheimer's research.
The New York Times opinion piece "The Legacy of Lies in Alzheimer's Research" argues that the field of Alzheimer's research has been significantly hampered by a decades-long focus on the amyloid hypothesis – the idea that amyloid plaques are the primary cause of the disease. The article points to potential data manipulation in a key 2006 Nature paper, which solidified amyloid's central role and directed billions of research dollars towards amyloid-targeting treatments, most of which have failed. This misdirection, the piece contends, has stalled exploration of other potential causes and treatments, ultimately delaying progress towards effective therapies and a cure for Alzheimer's disease. The piece calls for a thorough investigation and reassessment of the field's research priorities, emphasizing the urgent need for transparency and accountability to restore public trust and effectively address this devastating disease.
HN commenters discuss the devastating impact of the potential amyloid beta fraud on Alzheimer's research, patients, and their families. Many express anger and frustration at the wasted resources and dashed hopes. Some point out the systemic issues within scientific research, including perverse incentives to publish positive results, the "publish or perish" culture, and the difficulty of replicating complex biological experiments. Others highlight the problematic role of the media in hyping preliminary research and the need for greater skepticism. Several commenters also discuss alternative theories of Alzheimer's, including vascular and metabolic causes, and express hope for future research focusing on these areas. A few express skepticism about the fraud itself, noting the complexity of the science involved and the possibility of honest errors or differing interpretations of data.
Summary of Comments ( 17 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43648649
HN commenters are largely skeptical of the FDA's Cure ID app. Several express concern that it will primarily serve as a data collection tool for pharmaceutical companies, enabling them to repurpose existing drugs for new, potentially lucrative applications without investing in the original research. Some doubt the app's ability to effectively filter out placebo effects or accurately attribute positive outcomes to the reported drug, given the lack of rigorous controls. Others question the practicality and ethics of relying on clinician anecdotes, suggesting it might lead to the spread of misinformation or encourage off-label drug use without sufficient evidence. There's also cynicism about the FDA's motives, with some believing this initiative is merely a performative measure designed to appear proactive in addressing drug development challenges.
The Hacker News post titled "Cure ID App Lets Clinicians Report Novel Uses of Existing Drugs" linking to an FDA article about the same topic has a modest number of comments, generating a small but focused discussion.
Several commenters express skepticism about the practicality and effectiveness of the app. One commenter questions whether doctors have the time or incentive to meticulously document and report off-label drug uses, suggesting the process is too cumbersome for busy clinicians. This sentiment is echoed by another who doubts the app will gain widespread adoption due to the perceived extra work involved. They argue that doctors are already overloaded and unlikely to embrace another administrative task.
Concerns about data quality and potential biases also emerge. A commenter highlights the possibility of the app primarily capturing positive outcomes, as clinicians might be more inclined to report successes than failures, leading to a skewed dataset. Another points out the challenge of verifying the accuracy of the reported information, emphasizing the importance of robust validation mechanisms.
However, some commenters offer more optimistic perspectives. One suggests the app could be a valuable tool for identifying potential new uses of existing drugs, especially for rare diseases where traditional clinical trials are difficult to conduct. They argue that even anecdotal evidence can be a starting point for further research. Another commenter highlights the potential for crowdsourcing drug repurposing, emphasizing the collective intelligence of clinicians and the possibility of uncovering unexpected therapeutic benefits.
A couple of comments delve into the regulatory aspects, discussing the FDA's role in evaluating the data collected through the app and the potential implications for drug approvals. One commenter questions whether the FDA has the resources to effectively process the potentially large volume of reports.
Overall, the discussion reflects a mix of cautious optimism and pragmatic concerns about the Cure ID app. While some see its potential for accelerating drug discovery and repurposing, others remain skeptical about its practical implementation and the reliability of the data it will generate. The comments highlight the inherent challenges of balancing innovation with rigorous scientific validation in the context of drug development.