Propofol has mechanisms of action that may be relevant in treating ALS, although the short action of the drug makes it unlikely that a single infusion could influence ALS pathophysiology in a meaningful way. On ALS.net, six patients with ALS reported wide-ranging subjective benefits coincident with propofol use. Unfortunately, none of these benefits has been verified on validated ALS outcome measures. Only one of 235 patients with confirmed ALS who received propofol for PEG at an ALS center, or in the PRO-ACT database, or in a stem cell trial, improved objectively. The improvements in this patient were much slower to begin, and longer in duration, compared to those reported by the cohort on ALS.net, suggesting that they were more likely due to other longer-acting medications the patient received (such as immunosuppression), the stem cell treatment, or an unusual reversible form of ALS (27–30). While we cannot conclusively rule out a very brief benefit from propofol in rare patients with ALS, the risks and costs involved do not appear to justify its use. We strongly discourage the off label use of propofol in ALS patients at this time. Patients with ALS who are going to have propofol on label for a procedure or surgery may wish to have their ALS neurologist measure an ALSFRS-R and FVC before and in the first few days after propofol exposure and to send these results to ALSUntangled for a possible follow-up review.
Patient case reports
Deanna Protocol
Mitochondrial dysfunction, glutamate excitotoxicity, and oxidative stress have all been implicated in ALS pathogenesis, and targeting these mechanisms individually or by a cocktail such as the Deanna Protocol could play a role in future ALS therapies. However, many of the preclinical and animal studies related to these pathways have not translated into successful treatments in patients with ALS. While there are anecdotal reports of improvements in patients with ALS on the Deanna Protocol, there is no convincing objective evidence of benefit yet. Thus, at this time, ALSUntangled does not recommend the Deanna Protocol to patients with ALS.
Before it can be recommended, a reproducible version of the Deanna Protocol should be shown to influence plausible physiologic mechanisms such as central nervous system ketone bodies, as well as clinically meaningful outcome measures such as ALSFRS-R and FVC in patients with ALS.
Sodium Chlorite Oral
The NP001 formulation of sodium chlorite acts through a plausible mechanism and preliminary data suggest that it is safe and may slow ALS progression in some PALS. The WF10 formulation of SC appears to act through this same mechanism. Although WF10 is available for off-label use, it is very expensive, may have more side-effects than NP001, and at this time has only scant anecdotal evidence for efficacy in PALS. ALSUntangled supports further carefully monitored studies of NP001 and WF10 in PALS. In contrast, oral sodium chlorite has potentially dangerous and toxic side-effects may hasten disease progression, and is not clearly absorbed from the gut. We do not recommend further use of oral sodium chlorite unless it can at least be shown to be safe and to act on mechanisms in humans that are relevant to ALS.
Sodium Chlorite WF10
The NP001 formulation of sodium chlorite acts through a plausible mechanism and preliminary data suggest that it is safe and may slow ALS progression in some PALS. The WF10 formulation of SC appears to act through this same mechanism. Although WF10 is available for off-label use, it is very expensive, may have more side-effects than NP001, and at this time has only scant anecdotal evidence for efficacy in PALS. ALSUntangled supports further carefully monitored studies of NP001 and WF10 in PALS. In contrast, oral sodium chlorite has potentially dangerous and toxic side-effects may hasten disease progression, and is not clearly absorbed from the gut. We do not recommend further use of oral sodium chlorite unless it can at least be shown to be safe and to act on mechanisms in humans that are relevant to ALS.
Apoaequorin (Prevagen)
There is a rationale by which the calcium binding protein apoaequorin could work to slow ALS progression. Unfortunately, at this time there is insufficient information available to determine whether it does. The one small case series referred to above utilized a cocktail of therapies and is further weakened by the loss of its standardized outcome measurements. Information from the manufacturer suggests that apoaequorin is reasonably safe and well tolerated but there is no independent, systematic confirmation of this; two PatientsLikeMe members reported serious adverse events while taking it and it is fairly expensive.
At this time ALSUntangled does not recommend that patients with ALS take apoaequorin. Reasonable next steps would include a controlled study of apoaequorin in an ALS animal model and/or a small series of well-characterized patients with ALS using validated outcome measures and including serum and CSF pharmacokinetics.
When ALS Is Lyme
The monograph “When ALS Is Lyme” is filled with errors in logic, misinterpretations of scientific papers, controversial statements that are either not referenced or refer to unverifiable anecdotes, and omissions of data contradicting its authors’ opinions. It fails in its attempt to argue that there is a connection between ALS and Lyme disease. At this time ALSUntangled does not recommend Lyme testing for patients with classical ALS. We sincerely hope that the Vaughters’ unqualified medical advice, baseless conspiracy theories and accusations do not alienate PALS from mainstream specialized multidisciplinary ALS clinics. Within these clinics appropriate patients with atypical motor neuron diseases (pure lower, pure upper, accompanied by rash, headache, stiff neck, photosensitivity, fever, reversible facial nerve palsy, eye movement abnormalities, dermatomal pain and sensory loss), especially those coming from Lyme-endemic areas, will be tested for Lyme according to CDC criteria, and also treated rationally according to validated guidelines if Lyme is diagnosed. More importantly for the vast majority, those who come to specialized ALS clinics will receive competent and caring healthcare teams that will work to optimize the length and quality of their lives, and facilitate their participation in research toward a cure.
Coconut Oil
Coconut oil has plausible mechanisms for use in ALS involving raising ketone bodies and lipid levels. Ketogenic and high fat diets may have helped slow motor neuron loss in small ALS animal studies with many flaws. Two online PALS have reported subjective improvements in muscle strength while taking coconut oil, while four others have not. One of these two is anonymous and described on a website promoting a book about coconut oil, and the other apparently has a very atypical slowly progressive form of ALS and takes at least one other supplement. Coconut oil at doses of 1–4 tablespoons per day appears generally well tolerated but it is not entirely clear how well these doses raise blood ketone levels. Although several large respected groups have warned against coconut oil intake in large amounts, the rationale behind these warnings has recently been called into question. Given all this, ALSUn- tangled supports further careful study of coconut oil or other methods of raising ketone bodies in patients with ALS. A reasonable next step would be a small case series of well-characterized PALS using coconut oil or other methods to raise blood ketone levels into the range found to be effective in epilepsy and possibly Alzheimer ‘ s, compared to a well-matched historical control group on objectively verifiable outcome measures.
Disclosures: ALSUntangled is sponsored by the Packard Center and the Motor Neurone Disease Association. 330 The ALSUntangled Group
Click here to download the complete review.
Bee Venom
In our opinion, BV has biological effects that could potentially be useful in ALS. Two ALS-animal studies in which BV was injected into an unusual anatomic location showed positive effects on motor preservation and inflammatory markers; one showed improved survival. However, there are some significant problems with these animal studies. They do not meet methodological standards for preclinical animal research (14, 15) for the following reasons: treatment allocation was not randomized, power arguments are not presented, sample sizes are too small, potential confounders such as gender and copy number variation are not adequately addressed, criteria for determining symptomatic disease onset are not defined, blinding is not described, outcome measures in control animals are not compared to those in other studies to demonstrate external validity, and replication of results is via the same, rather than an independent group of authors. Furthermore, it is not currently possible to replicate pre-symptomatic drug delivery in humans with sporadic ALS. Many other compounds given pre-symptomatically to ALS-animals have failed to yield any positive benefit in human patients (16); indeed one immune-modulator that worked in ALS-animals actually appeared to accelerate disease progression in patients with sporadic ALS (17). It may not be possible to replicate the dosage of BV that was used in future human studies; by one estimate, for a 70g human this would require 70,000 bee stings twice a week (18). Finally and most importantly, we found very little data of any kind on BV exposure in humans with ALS; the two anecdotal reports describe unverified, non-overlapping benefits. Given all this, and the costs and risks of BV (which include death), ALSUntangled does not support the use of BV by patients with ALS outside of a study at this time. Replication of the animal studies via an independent group following published methodological guidelines and using a dosing regimen that could eventually be translated to human studies would be a reasonable next step.