“The annals of ALS clinical trials is strewn with failed studies. Only two out of more than 70 clinical trials have been positive, and even these showed only very modest benefit. Is this dismal record strictly due to the extraordinary complexity of neurodegenerative disease in general, and ALS in particular? Or is it due to methodological flaws that could be repaired?”
Robert G Miller, Professor of Neurology, Stanford University
Although there is not much we can do about disease complexity, improving the way treatments are trialed is something that can be achieved. Imagine a world without clinical trials, where independent companies or individuals would be allowed to sell their self-made ‘drugs’ without any evidence that they were ever used on anyone with the disease, let alone that they would improve one’s condition. No one would know what the drug is (which could simply be a water solution), how it works and whether as soon as the drug is taken, we would be poisoned.
Thankfully, this is not the case and clinical trials, although not perfect, are considered the gold standard for approving any treatment. However, there are still some improvements that can be done to make trials easier to access and provide more accurate estimates of drugs’ effectiveness much faster.