Patient Lift Market Manufacturers

18 Jun 19
ResearchReport

he global smart home healthcare market size is expected to reach 41.02 billion by 2026 and market will grow at a CAGR of 26.9% over the forecast period. Free Download Sample Report Pages for Better understanding@ https://www.acumenresearchandconsulting.com/request-sample/1440 Smart healthcare items joined with IoT is reclassifying restorative consideration for better treatment results at decreased expenses. The […]

13 Jun 19
healthcare

Air-assisted patient transfer systems (AAPTS) are equipment used by caregivers to shift patients with impaired mobility between stretchers, beds, wheelchairs, shower benches, automobiles, commodes, toilets, chairs, swimming pools, and other patient support systems during procedures such as surgery, radiology, and other examinations. These devices are used to prevent immobility, work related injuries, life-threatening complications, and […]

11 Jun 19
techannouncerblog

The research report “Global Patient Lifts For Home Use Market Insights, Forecast to 2025” by Fior Markets forecast a conclusive study on the specified market, offering an estimation of the overall market size from 2018 to 2025. The research report also presents a thorough assessment of the expense, business schemes, business planning, sales and marketing. The market key segments along with its market share, recent trends, and technologies used in the industry, overview of the prominent players and geographical augmentation are explained in the report.

DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT: https://www.fiormarkets.com/report-detail/291697/request-sample

This data will give an opportunistic roadmap to the reader of this report. The report serves crucial information to its targeted audiences such as raw material suppliers and buyers, manufacturers, individuals, entrep

07 Jun 19
Market Resolutions

Endodontics is a branch of dentistry that deals with the study as well as treatment of dental pulp. Endodontic treatment, otherwise known as root canal treatment, helps treat the soft pulp tissue on the inner side of tooth, which is impaired due to infections. The treatment is carried out by an endodontist. This kind of […]

07 Jun 19
Political⚡Charge

Where are the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates on the issue of healthcare? Healthcare was identified by the 2018 midterm voters as one of their most pressing concerns, and is one of the seven issues I covered in my 2020 candidate guides. Many of the readers here at Political⚡Charge asked me to organize the information in […]

07 Jun 19
Semiconductor And Electronics

The overall reed sensor market is expected to grow from USD 1.49 billion in 2017 to USD 2.30 billion by 2023, at a CAGR of 7.40% from 2018 to 2023. Reed sensors offer several advantages, such as simple and reliable sensing and actuation capabilities; low cost and zero power requirement for operation; and safe to […]

06 Jun 19
Pharmaceuticals And Healthcare

June 06, 2019: Global and Chinese Mobile Patient Lifts Market Research Report is a professional and in-depth study on the current state of the global Mobile Patient Lifts industry with a focus on the Chinese market. The report provides key statistics on the market status of the Mobile Patient Lifts manufacturers and is a valuable source of guidance […]

06 Jun 19

[ad_1] A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent.   The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually […]

06 Jun 19
The Psychiatrist

A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 per cent. The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually have […]

05 Jun 19
The Australian

That’s it for the Trading Day blog for Thursday, June 6. Stocks gained for a third session despite losses in the major miners amid rate cut prospects.

05 Jun 19
The Best Rates

A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent. The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually have that…

05 Jun 19
Mesoskinline - Non-invasive Mesotherapy

As one of the leading manufacturers of non-invasive Mesotherapy skin treatment products, machines, and equipment, Mesoskinline offers top quality, safe and secure solutions to ensure long-lasting results for consumers looking forward to such Mesotherapy skin whitening treatment. This report explores some of Mesoskinline’s products associated with Mesotherapy skin rejuvenation, Mesotherapy for skin whitening, and other […]

05 Jun 19
East Bay Times
[dfm_iframe src=”https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/7575aa1b-0d19-4370-a71f-cf6e6976c4bf?ptvads=block&playthrough=false” width=”100%” height=”400px” allowfullscreen=”yes” scrolling=”yes” /] By Christopher Rowland | Washington Post A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent. The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually have that effect in people would require a costly clinical trial – and after several years of internal discussion, Pfizer opted against further investigation and chose not to make the data public, the company confirmed. [dfm_iframe src=”https://apps.mercurynews.com/newsletters-signup/?campaign=morning-report” width=”100%” height=”220px” allowfullscreen=”yes” scrolling=”yes” /] Researchers in the company’s division of inflammation and immunology urged Pfizer to conduct a clinical trial on thousands of patients, which they estimated would cost $80 million, to see if the signal contained in the data was real, according to an internal company document obtained by The Washington Post. “Enbrel could potentially safely prevent, treat and slow progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” said the document, a PowerPoint slide show that was prepared for review by an internal Pfizer committee in February 2018. The company told The Post that it decided during its three years of internal reviews that Enbrel did not show promise for Alzheimer’s prevention because the drug does not directly reach brain tissue. It deemed the likelihood of a successful clinical trial to be low. A synopsis of its statistical findings prepared for outside publication, it says, did not meet its “rigorous scientific standards.” Science was the sole determining factor against moving forward, company spokesman Ed Harnaga said. Likewise, Pfizer said it opted against publication of its data because of its doubts about the results. It said publishing the information might have led outside scientists down an invalid pathway. Pfizer’s deliberations, which previously have not been disclosed, offer a rare window into the frustrating search for Alzheimer’s treatments inside one of the world’s largest drug companies. Despite billions spent on research, Alzheimer’s remains a stubbornly prevalent disease with no effective prevention or treatment. Some outside scientists disagree with Pfizer’s assessment that studying Enbrel’s potential in Alzheimer’s prevention is a scientific dead end. Rather, they say, it could hold important clues to combating the disease and slowing cognitive decline in its earliest stages. Pfizer did share the data privately with at least one prominent scientist, but outside researchers contacted by The Post believe Pfizer also should at least have published its data, making the findings broadly available to researchers. “Of course they should. Why not?” said Rudolph Tanzi, a leading Alzheimer’s researcher and professor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. “It would benefit the scientific community to have that data out there,” said Keenan Walker, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins who is studying how inflammation contributes to Alzheimer’s. “Whether it was positive data or negative data, it gives us more information to make better informed decisions.” Internal discussions about possible new uses of drugs are common in pharmaceutical companies. In this case, Pfizer’s deliberations show how decisions made by industry executives – who are ultimately accountable to shareholders – can have an impact well beyond corporate board rooms. As its Enbrel deliberations ended early last year, Pfizer was getting out of Alzheimer’s research. It announced in January 2018 that it would be shutting down its neurology division, where Alzheimer’s treatments were explored, and laying off 300 employees. Meanwhile, Enbrel has reached the end of its patent life. Profits are dwindling as generic competition emerges, diminishing financial incentives for further research into Enbrel and other drugs in its class. “I’m frustrated myself really by the whole thing,” said Clive Holmes, a professor of biological psychiatry at the University of Southampton in Great Britain who has received past support from Pfizer for Enbrel research in Alzheimer’s, a separate 2015 trial in 41 patients that proved inconclusive. He said Pfizer and other companies do not want to invest heavily in further research only to have their markets undermined by generic competition. “Someone can pop up and say, ‘Look, I’ve got a me-too drug here,’” Holmes said, referring to the advent of generic versions of Enbrel. “I think that is what this is all about.” Drug also approved to treat psoriasis The broader market forces that critics say discouraged Pfizer from investing in Alzheimer’s clinical trials are rooted in Enbrel’s “life cycle,” the 20-year period of patent exclusivity when a brand manufacturer reaps monopoly profits from a drug. By industry standards, Enbrel, an injectable biologic drug, is relatively old, with FDA approval for rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. It also has been approved to treat psoriasis. Pfizer got rights to market it internationally when it acquired drugmaker Wyeth in 2009. But Enbrel, which earned Pfizer $2.1 billion in 2018, now faces generic competition. Drug companies often are criticized for extending the patent life of a drug – and winning new profits – by merely tweaking a drug’s molecule or changing the method of delivery into the body. But it is a “heavy lift” for a company to win regulatory approval to use a drug for a completely different disease, said Robert Field, a professor of law and health care management at Drexel University. “Our patent laws do not provide the appropriate incentives,” Field said. Drug therapy for early Alzheimer’s “would be a godsend for American patients, so we should be doing everything we can as a country to encourage development of treatments. It’s frustrating that there may be a missed opportunity.” As Enbrel’s life cycle winds down, Pfizer has introduced a new rheumatoid arthritis drug, Xeljanz, that works differently from Enbrel. Pfizer is putting its marketing muscle behind the new treatment. While Enbrel revenue is shrinking, Xeljanz revenue is growing. The Xeljanz patent expires in 2025 in the United States and 2028 in Europe, according to Pfizer’s public disclosures. The drug is on track to make Pfizer billions more each year for the foreseeable future. Wagering money on a clinical trial of Enbrel for an entirely different disease, especially when Pfizer had doubts about the validity of its internal analysis, made little business sense, said a former Pfizer executive who was aware of the internal debate and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Pfizer matters. “It probably was high risk, very costly, very long term drug development that was off-strategy,” the former executive said. Another former executive, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Pfizer operations, said Pfizer offered virtually no explanation internally for opting against further investigation in early 2018, when the internal debate ended. “I think the financial case is they won’t be making any money off of it,” the second former executive said. ‘I do think you have to draw some limits’ Drug companies frequently have been pilloried for not fully disclosing negative side effects of their drugs. What happens when the opposite is the case? What obligation does a company have to spread potentially beneficial information about a drug, especially when the benefits in question could improve the outlook for treating Alzheimer’s, a disease that afflicts at least 500,000 new patients per year? A medical ethics expert argued that Pfizer has a responsibility to publicize positive findings, although it is not as strong as an imperative to disclose negative findings. “Having acquired the knowledge, refusing to disclose it to those who might act upon it hides a potential benefit, and thereby wrongs and probably harms those at risk of developing Alzheimer’s by impeding research,” said Bobbie Farsides, professor of clinical and biomedical ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School in London. Another health-care ethics specialist cautioned that the demand for drug company disclosure should remain focused on information collected during clinical trials. “I do think you have to draw some limits, and say that not every piece of information they have in their files has to be disclosed with others,” said Marc Rodwin, a law professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. Pfizer markets Enbrel outside North America. Another drug company, Amgen, which holds rights to market Enbrel in the United States and Canada, says it knew of the Pfizer data and similarly decided the findings held little promise. Amgen said market factors played no role in its deliberations. “Unfortunately, our exploratory work did not yield results strong enough to warrant further studies,” Amgen said. Enbrel ‘shows promise’ Sometimes doctors prescribe drugs for uses that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But none of the experts interviewed for this story said such “off-label” use of Enbrel would be appropriate for Alzheimer’s, because of the very limited nature of the data thus far. Nor, they said, do they believe such prescribing is happening to any significant extent. The role of brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s recently has been getting closer attention among academics after the failure of multiple experimental drugs that targeted the buildup of plaques on brain tissue. In 2016, researchers from Dartmouth and Harvard universities published a study of insurance claims data – similar to Pfizer’s internal findings – that showed a potential benefit of Enbrel. Enbrel “shows promise as a potential treatment” for Alzheimer’s, the study found. Pfizer’s analysis about potential Enbrel benefits in the brain sprang from the company’s division of immunology and inflammation, based in a large Pfizer office complex in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Statisticians in 2015 analyzed real world data, hundreds of thousands of medical insurance claims involving people with rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, according to the Pfizer PowerPoint obtained by The Post. They divided those anonymous patients into two equal groups of 127,000 each, one of patients with an Alzheimer’s diagnosis and one of patients without. Then they checked for Enbrel treatment. There were more people, 302, treated with Enbrel in the group without Alzheimer’s diagnosis. In the group with Alzheimer’s, 110 had been treated with Enbrel. The numbers may seem small, but they were mirrored in the same proportion when the researchers checked insurance claims information from another database. The Pfizer team also produced closely similar numbers for Humira, a drug marketed by AbbVie that works like Enbrel. The positive results also showed up when checked for “memory loss” and “mild cognitive impairment,” indicating Enbrel may have benefit for treating the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s. A clinical trial to prove the hypothesis would take four years and involve 3,000 to 4,000 patients, according to the Pfizer document that recommended a trial. The document said Pfizer would gain a positive public relations “halo effect” by investigating an Alzheimer’s treatment. Enbrel reduces inflammation by targeting a specific protein called TNF-a. The Pfizer claims data analysis added to a growing body of evidence that broadly targeting TNF-a in the body has the potential to prevent Alzheimer’s, said Holmes, the professor of biological psychiatry at the University of Southampton. Holmes is among the few researchers who has gained access to the Pfizer data; he won the company’s permission to use it in a grant application for a small clinical trial he is undertaking in England. “If it’s true in reality, if you did it in a clinical trial setting, it’s massive – it would be huge,” Holmes said. “That’s why it’s so exciting.” One reason for caution: another class of anti-inflammatory therapies, called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), showed no effect against mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s in several clinical trials a decade ago. Still, a long-term follow-up of one of those trials indicated a benefit if NSAID use began when the brain was still normal, suggesting the timing of therapy could be key. Pfizer said it also was skeptical because Enbrel has only a limited effect on the brain. The Enbrel molecule is too large to pass through the “blood-brain barrier” and directly target TNF-a in brain tissue, the company said. Yet Alzheimer’s researchers believe inflammation outside the brain – called peripheral inflammation – influences inflammation within the brain. “There is a lot of evidence suggesting that peripheral or systemic inflammation may be a driver of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Walker, the Johns Hopkins researcher. It is a fair hypothesis that fighting inflammation outside the brain with Enbrel will have a similar effect inside the brain, he said. “I don’t believe Enbrel would need to cross the blood brain barrier to modulate the inflammatory/immune response within the brain,” Walker said. “There is increasing evidence that peripheral inflammation can influence brain function,” said rheumatologist Christopher Edwards, of the University of Southampton in Britain. “It’s important that that’s published, and in the public domain,” Edward added of the Pfizer data. “It needs to be out there.”
05 Jun 19
The Mercury News
[dfm_iframe src=”https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/7575aa1b-0d19-4370-a71f-cf6e6976c4bf?ptvads=block&playthrough=false” width=”100%” height=”400px” allowfullscreen=”yes” scrolling=”yes” /] By Christopher Rowland | Washington Post A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent. The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually have that effect in people would require a costly clinical trial – and after several years of internal discussion, Pfizer opted against further investigation and chose not to make the data public, the company confirmed. [dfm_iframe src=”https://apps.mercurynews.com/newsletters-signup/?campaign=morning-report” width=”100%” height=”220px” allowfullscreen=”yes” scrolling=”yes” /] Researchers in the company’s division of inflammation and immunology urged Pfizer to conduct a clinical trial on thousands of patients, which they estimated would cost $80 million, to see if the signal contained in the data was real, according to an internal company document obtained by The Washington Post. “Enbrel could potentially safely prevent, treat and slow progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” said the document, a PowerPoint slide show that was prepared for review by an internal Pfizer committee in February 2018. The company told The Post that it decided during its three years of internal reviews that Enbrel did not show promise for Alzheimer’s prevention because the drug does not directly reach brain tissue. It deemed the likelihood of a successful clinical trial to be low. A synopsis of its statistical findings prepared for outside publication, it says, did not meet its “rigorous scientific standards.” Science was the sole determining factor against moving forward, company spokesman Ed Harnaga said. Likewise, Pfizer said it opted against publication of its data because of its doubts about the results. It said publishing the information might have led outside scientists down an invalid pathway. Pfizer’s deliberations, which previously have not been disclosed, offer a rare window into the frustrating search for Alzheimer’s treatments inside one of the world’s largest drug companies. Despite billions spent on research, Alzheimer’s remains a stubbornly prevalent disease with no effective prevention or treatment. Some outside scientists disagree with Pfizer’s assessment that studying Enbrel’s potential in Alzheimer’s prevention is a scientific dead end. Rather, they say, it could hold important clues to combating the disease and slowing cognitive decline in its earliest stages. Pfizer did share the data privately with at least one prominent scientist, but outside researchers contacted by The Post believe Pfizer also should at least have published its data, making the findings broadly available to researchers. “Of course they should. Why not?” said Rudolph Tanzi, a leading Alzheimer’s researcher and professor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. “It would benefit the scientific community to have that data out there,” said Keenan Walker, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins who is studying how inflammation contributes to Alzheimer’s. “Whether it was positive data or negative data, it gives us more information to make better informed decisions.” Internal discussions about possible new uses of drugs are common in pharmaceutical companies. In this case, Pfizer’s deliberations show how decisions made by industry executives – who are ultimately accountable to shareholders – can have an impact well beyond corporate board rooms. As its Enbrel deliberations ended early last year, Pfizer was getting out of Alzheimer’s research. It announced in January 2018 that it would be shutting down its neurology division, where Alzheimer’s treatments were explored, and laying off 300 employees. Meanwhile, Enbrel has reached the end of its patent life. Profits are dwindling as generic competition emerges, diminishing financial incentives for further research into Enbrel and other drugs in its class. “I’m frustrated myself really by the whole thing,” said Clive Holmes, a professor of biological psychiatry at the University of Southampton in Great Britain who has received past support from Pfizer for Enbrel research in Alzheimer’s, a separate 2015 trial in 41 patients that proved inconclusive. He said Pfizer and other companies do not want to invest heavily in further research only to have their markets undermined by generic competition. “Someone can pop up and say, ‘Look, I’ve got a me-too drug here,'” Holmes said, referring to the advent of generic versions of Enbrel. “I think that is what this is all about.” Drug also approved to treat psoriasis The broader market forces that critics say discouraged Pfizer from investing in Alzheimer’s clinical trials are rooted in Enbrel’s “life cycle,” the 20-year period of patent exclusivity when a brand manufacturer reaps monopoly profits from a drug. By industry standards, Enbrel, an injectable biologic drug, is relatively old, with FDA approval for rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. It also has been approved to treat psoriasis. Pfizer got rights to market it internationally when it acquired drugmaker Wyeth in 2009. But Enbrel, which earned Pfizer $2.1 billion in 2018, now faces generic competition. Drug companies often are criticized for extending the patent life of a drug – and winning new profits – by merely tweaking a drug’s molecule or changing the method of delivery into the body. But it is a “heavy lift” for a company to win regulatory approval to use a drug for a completely different disease, said Robert Field, a professor of law and health care management at Drexel University. “Our patent laws do not provide the appropriate incentives,” Field said. Drug therapy for early Alzheimer’s “would be a godsend for American patients, so we should be doing everything we can as a country to encourage development of treatments. It’s frustrating that there may be a missed opportunity.” As Enbrel’s life cycle winds down, Pfizer has introduced a new rheumatoid arthritis drug, Xeljanz, that works differently from Enbrel. Pfizer is putting its marketing muscle behind the new treatment. While Enbrel revenue is shrinking, Xeljanz revenue is growing. The Xeljanz patent expires in 2025 in the United States and 2028 in Europe, according to Pfizer’s public disclosures. The drug is on track to make Pfizer billions more each year for the foreseeable future. Wagering money on a clinical trial of Enbrel for an entirely different disease, especially when Pfizer had doubts about the validity of its internal analysis, made little business sense, said a former Pfizer executive who was aware of the internal debate and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Pfizer matters. “It probably was high risk, very costly, very long term drug development that was off-strategy,” the former executive said. Another former executive, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Pfizer operations, said Pfizer offered virtually no explanation internally for opting against further investigation in early 2018, when the internal debate ended. “I think the financial case is they won’t be making any money off of it,” the second former executive said. ‘I do think you have to draw some limits’ Drug companies frequently have been pilloried for not fully disclosing negative side effects of their drugs. What happens when the opposite is the case? What obligation does a company have to spread potentially beneficial information about a drug, especially when the benefits in question could improve the outlook for treating Alzheimer’s, a disease that afflicts at least 500,000 new patients per year? A medical ethics expert argued that Pfizer has a responsibility to publicize positive findings, although it is not as strong as an imperative to disclose negative findings. “Having acquired the knowledge, refusing to disclose it to those who might act upon it hides a potential benefit, and thereby wrongs and probably harms those at risk of developing Alzheimer’s by impeding research,” said Bobbie Farsides, professor of clinical and biomedical ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School in London. Another health-care ethics specialist cautioned that the demand for drug company disclosure should remain focused on information collected during clinical trials. “I do think you have to draw some limits, and say that not every piece of information they have in their files has to be disclosed with others,” said Marc Rodwin, a law professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. Pfizer markets Enbrel outside North America. Another drug company, Amgen, which holds rights to market Enbrel in the United States and Canada, says it knew of the Pfizer data and similarly decided the findings held little promise. Amgen said market factors played no role in its deliberations. “Unfortunately, our exploratory work did not yield results strong enough to warrant further studies,” Amgen said. Enbrel ‘shows promise’ Sometimes doctors prescribe drugs for uses that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But none of the experts interviewed for this story said such “off-label” use of Enbrel would be appropriate for Alzheimer’s, because of the very limited nature of the data thus far. Nor, they said, do they believe such prescribing is happening to any significant extent. The role of brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s recently has been getting closer attention among academics after the failure of multiple experimental drugs that targeted the buildup of plaques on brain tissue. In 2016, researchers from Dartmouth and Harvard universities published a study of insurance claims data – similar to Pfizer’s internal findings – that showed a potential benefit of Enbrel. Enbrel “shows promise as a potential treatment” for Alzheimer’s, the study found. Pfizer’s analysis about potential Enbrel benefits in the brain sprang from the company’s division of immunology and inflammation, based in a large Pfizer office complex in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. Statisticians in 2015 analyzed real world data, hundreds of thousands of medical insurance claims involving people with rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, according to the Pfizer PowerPoint obtained by The Post. They divided those anonymous patients into two equal groups of 127,000 each, one of patients with an Alzheimer’s diagnosis and one of patients without. Then they checked for Enbrel treatment. There were more people, 302, treated with Enbrel in the group without Alzheimer’s diagnosis. In the group with Alzheimer’s, 110 had been treated with Enbrel. The numbers may seem small, but they were mirrored in the same proportion when the researchers checked insurance claims information from another database. The Pfizer team also produced closely similar numbers for Humira, a drug marketed by AbbVie that works like Enbrel. The positive results also showed up when checked for “memory loss” and “mild cognitive impairment,” indicating Enbrel may have benefit for treating the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s. A clinical trial to prove the hypothesis would take four years and involve 3,000 to 4,000 patients, according to the Pfizer document that recommended a trial. The document said Pfizer would gain a positive public relations “halo effect” by investigating an Alzheimer’s treatment. Enbrel reduces inflammation by targeting a specific protein called TNF-a. The Pfizer claims data analysis added to a growing body of evidence that broadly targeting TNF-a in the body has the potential to prevent Alzheimer’s, said Holmes, the professor of biological psychiatry at the University of Southampton. Holmes is among the few researchers who has gained access to the Pfizer data; he won the company’s permission to use it in a grant application for a small clinical trial he is undertaking in England. “If it’s true in reality, if you did it in a clinical trial setting, it’s massive – it would be huge,” Holmes said. “That’s why it’s so exciting.” One reason for caution: another class of anti-inflammatory therapies, called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), showed no effect against mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s in several clinical trials a decade ago. Still, a long-term follow-up of one of those trials indicated a benefit if NSAID use began when the brain was still normal, suggesting the timing of therapy could be key. Pfizer said it also was skeptical because Enbrel has only a limited effect on the brain. The Enbrel molecule is too large to pass through the “blood-brain barrier” and directly target TNF-a in brain tissue, the company said. Yet Alzheimer’s researchers believe inflammation outside the brain – called peripheral inflammation – influences inflammation within the brain. “There is a lot of evidence suggesting that peripheral or systemic inflammation may be a driver of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Walker, the Johns Hopkins researcher. It is a fair hypothesis that fighting inflammation outside the brain with Enbrel will have a similar effect inside the brain, he said. “I don’t believe Enbrel would need to cross the blood brain barrier to modulate the inflammatory/immune response within the brain,” Walker said. “There is increasing evidence that peripheral inflammation can influence brain function,” said rheumatologist Christopher Edwards, of the University of Southampton in Britain. “It’s important that that’s published, and in the public domain,” Edward added of the Pfizer data. “It needs to be out there.”