Last fall, a small California biotech company began extolling the benefits of its new ALS drug. An early trial with a dozen patients had produced results that were "statistically significant," "very robust" and "dramatic," it said.
In February, Genervon applied to the Food and Drug Administration for "accelerated approval," which would allow it to take the drug directly to market, bypassing costly, large-scale efficacy trials.
ALS patients responded by pleading with the FDA, in emotional videos and e-mails, to grant broad access to the experimental drug. Online forums lit up. A Change.org petition attracted more than a half-million signatures.
"Why would anyone oppose it?" ALS patient David Huntley, a former triathlete who can no longer speak or travel, asked in a letter his wife, Linda Clark, read at a rally on Capitol Hill last week. "[ALS] doesn't just kill you; it takes away everything that you care about, one at a time, then it kills you. Tell me how some as-yet-to-be-detected side effect is going to degrade my quality of life?"
But others argue that the drug hasn't been adequately tested and it is too soon to release for wide usage.
The FDA must now weigh its mandate to ensure new drugs are safe and effective against the demands of patients such as Huntley, who say they should be allowed to try experimental treatments and are willing to accept the risks.
The campaign for FDA approval of the drug, called GM604, echoes a push around the nation for broader access to experimental drugs for seriously ill patients. More than a dozen states have enacted "right to try" laws aimed at allowing such patients to get drugs that have passed only initial safety tests.
The campaign has left the ALS community starkly divided, with some advocates and researchers questioning the company's tactics.