| Lost password
622 users onlineYou are not loggend in.  Login
Will someone bring me up to date?
 1 2
 1 2
01/29/2005 23:52
Goofy

not registered

01/29/2005 23:52
Goofy

not registered

Will someone bring me up to date?

I last visited this forum about 2 years ago. At that time, the Stony Brook collagenase treatment was about to go into the 3rd phrase. I spoke to a secretary at Stony Brook and she said that the 3rd phase was about half-way finished at that point in time. I even asked if I might participate in the trial and was told that someone would get back to me. Well, no one did! It is two years later and they should have not only completed the 3rd phrase by now, but the product should have been on the market. A red flag was raised when I asked them to send me info on their collagenase procedure and have someone call. No call and no literature. I was a good candidate as I only live about twenty minutes from both Stony Brook and Lynbrook. It appears that the collagenase treatment doesn't work, as I can't find anything more current on it that what was published in 1999. If someone has more current information would they please fill me in. Thanks, going Goofy.

01/29/2005 23:54
Frances

not registered

01/29/2005 23:54
Frances

not registered

collagenase treatment

You are right. Collagenase treatment is dead in the water. Forget about it! Visit the good Dr. Bourland for NA and you will be delighted. He is a wonderful hand doctor. I support him as you well know. Best luck to you.

Frances

01/29/2005 23:34
Frances

not registered

01/29/2005 23:34
Frances

not registered

Get a single nickname and use it


Oh stop using my nickname and making posts about Dr. Bourland to antagonize me - you're embarassing yourself and frankly it's looking like you're obsessed with me personally.

If you want to make a genuine contribution to the topics that are here in the forum then do it - under your own nickname - otherwise - be silent out of respect for the DC sufferers who come here looking for genuine information.

Frances

01/29/2005 23:35
jim h

not registered

01/29/2005 23:35
jim h

not registered

Thank you Jim

Collagenase works, but BioSpecifics couldn't manage to get it to market. They sold the rights to Auxilium, and Auxlium seems to be only interested in Peyronie's disease. Whether Biosspecifics can or will continue to develop it for Dupuytren's, I don't know.

01/30/2005 23:28
Goofy

not registered

01/30/2005 23:28
Goofy

not registered

Thank you Jim

Thank you Jim. I was wondering what happened. Now, I know. It was a bust. I have the feeling they were on the right track, but used the wrong chemical collagenase. I am a biochemist and know that enzyme reactions can be tricky. There are many factors: purity, reactiveness, time, temperature, specificity, etc. There is a lot to developing this type of medical treatment for DC. I hope they continue with the research. If it is at all successful with any other disease, they will be back to testing it for DC.

01/30/2005 23:27
jim 
01/30/2005 23:27
jim 
My physician

From the phase II data it seemed to work quite well. The problem was that BioSpecifics couldn't seem to make things happen financially. Although I have no inside knowledge, it may be that NA cut into the potential market for collagenase as a treatment for Dupuytren's. Peyronie's is quite a different story, hence Auxilium's interest.

I think Collaganase injections where quite effecitive when used to weaken bands so they could be mechanically snapped. The thing is, that's what NA does - but without the expensive proprietary drug. In either case the skill of a hand surgeon is needed to avoid collateral damage. Recurrence remains an open queestion.




01/30/2005 23:30
davee

not registered

01/30/2005 23:30
davee

not registered

My physician

My physician says the NA is a scam, because it comes back. Yes, I know it breaks the bands, but they come back rather fast. I think that orphan drug status could have been obtained easily for the collagenase method. He thought the collagenase technique was the best bet for the long term. I have to agree and wish that they decided to continue with the testing. It is my opinion that if it was THAT good, they could have obtained funding to continue to bring the "drug" to market. They might have feared that some genetic company would cut into their market, as it is not something that can be patented. It's all about money!!

01/30/2005 23:01
jim h

not registered

01/30/2005 23:01
jim h

not registered

To Randy

I think - but don't know for sure - that Biospecifics licensed it to Auxilium for Peyronie's and retained the rights for other diseases.

Many posters on this forum seem satisfied with NA months later, and clinics in Europe - where it's been done for decades - claim long-term recurrence numbers similar to surgery; however that sort of followup data is very hard to acquire so I'm skeptical.



01/31/2005 23:08
Randy H.

not registered

01/31/2005 23:08
Randy H.

not registered

To Randy

davee brings up an interesting point.

I'm all for gaining additional options four treating our ailment. FDA approval of Bio's S. injections would do nothing but good for us as a patient group. But here is what I find so puzzling: The medical community watches the collagenase injection trials with great expectation that it could become a powerful alternative to open surgery. At the same time, these same folks maintain that NA is a waste of time because it doesn't remove diseased tissue, and therefore growth is inevitable. This sounds logical until you realize that collagenase injections only serve to chemically disrupt cords at various points, just as NA does mechanically.

At the end of the day both procedures leave most of the diseased tissues still in the hand. By what reason of logic does this support the thinking that collagenase injections are an advancement and NA is not? They both do the same thing. One does it chemically, the other mechanically. Why this medical bias toward the chemical method that essentially does the exact same thing as the mechanical? The long term outcome should be the same for both procedures. What am I missing here?

At the very least, the surgical community's interest in collagenase shows that they would *love* to have a reliable non invasive alternative to open surgery.

01/31/2005 23:33
davee

not registered

01/31/2005 23:33
davee

not registered

To Randy

I agree with most you say, Randy. However, in my mind and my hand physician's mind (hand surgeon), the collagenase technique would have a longer lasting effect than the NA method. Hopefully, with collagenase it would remove and disintegrate the collagen, as opposed to just breaking the bands mechanically. I guess it is always better to remove the problem source, than just disrupt it. Just how effective the collagenase is in removing the problem source is a mystery and might be addressed in a scientific paper by the owner of this board.

 1 2
 1 2
reactiveness   personally   financially   interesting   straightening   significantly   disintegrate   treatment   alternative   BioSpecifics   understanding   mechanically   essentially   contribution   injections   collagenase   Biosspecifics   physician   information   significanly