Talk:Axona

Outside of America?

Is there any information regarding this property outside of America? Also, not sure what further may help expand this stub. Der.Gray (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

More sources

This article needs to be expanded to include the following kinds of information:

• www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_alternative_treatments.asp
  • The Alzheimer's Association classifies Axona as "alternative treatment", and state that none of the alternative treatments they have reviewed have been shown to be effective
  • They are skeptical of the underlying theory that the cognitive deficits caused by Alzheimer's patients stems from an impairment of the brain's ability to use glucose
  • They also state that the Phase II trial was of a type that was too small to determine effectiveness
  • They suggest that the makers of the product ducked the more rigorous trials required by the FDA to market the product as a drug by marketing it as a "medical food" instead
• www.mayoclinic.com/health/axona/an01992
  • This Q&A from Mayo says "It's not clear what benefits, if any, Axona provides. A small study, funded by the manufacturers of the product, found that memory and cognition improved for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. However, more studies are needed to determine its safety and effectiveness."
  • Also skeptical of the underlying theory about impaired glucose use
  • States " Alzheimer's Association doesn't recommend the use of medical foods, including Axona"
• http://abcnews.go.com/Health/alzheimers-milkshake-treatment-snake-oil/story?id=14421476#.UYxP2EmYNok - this news article calls it "controversial alternative" - can't use popular press for med info but should be used for society & culture and coverage of range of views
• www.medscape.com/viewarticle/764495 - this MedScape article also says the glucose theory isn't well-accepted and that coconut oil isn't proven

Not saying these are all WP:MEDRS-worthy but they're close and pointers to the required sources. Zad68 01:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This was super helpful. All incorporated. There is a lot of confusion about "medical foods" out there and people push the claims that the company makes way too hard (which is what the company is counting on, of course!) Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Henderson as a questionable source

The most important efficacy data is sourced to Henderson, and this is a questionable source because all the authors of the study were employees of Accera, the company that makes the product, the main author invented the product, and "Accera funded the study, designed the protocol, and either conducted or commissioned the data analysis and interpretation. Accera was responsible for: collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the paper; and decision to submit it for publication." And it was published in an open-access journal. So I'm having more than second thoughts about this. Zad68 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, kept source only as a source that the trials happened. No results reported. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting complete rollback of latest content until sourcing is reviewed

I'm suggesting a complete rollback of content to this version before it was added until we can review the sourcing and get the statements from ALZ and other similar organizations into the content. Zad68 03:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary... stubs are not helpful. Pls let me know what you think now... Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine work, looks good now. I wasn't sure you were going to have time to make all those changes so quickly, but you did so no problem! Zad68 13:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! :) Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Article looks good now; quite neutral. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this and bringing it to everybody's attention, binkster. i do like to rescue good content when possible. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Finding a good compromise

An attempt was made to put in additional content and sources, but those edits were undone by Zad68 (talk). We want to be sure the information presented on Axona is fair, balanced, complete, and backed by proper references. We will incorporate your feedback and suggested sources and resubmit edits for this article that is objective, as it is not so at this time. Please advise with any feedback. In the meantime, we will be hard at work revising and improving. Thank you. AxonaForAD (talk)

Note: I am not Binksternet.

Your edit was not just an attempt "to put in additional content and sources", you (I am assuming you are the IP) reverted back the article to your initial version, and undid a lot of good edits since then that removed bad sourcing and put in good sourcing.

For future edits be sure to use WP:MEDRS as your guideline for sourcing, and be sure to pay attention to the Wikipedia policy regarding neutral point of view.

Who is "we"? Zad68 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in the process of preparing revised content that will seek to meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards. In the interim, a few things stood out upon a reading of the content posted by editor Jytdog (talk).

In the statements: "...based on the theory that the brain's ability to use its normal energy source, glucose, is impaired in Alzheimer's disease" and "It is theorized that Alzheimer’s disease is also characterized by a reduced ability of the brain to use its main energy source, glucose...," the idea of the brain's diminished ability to metabolize glucose is not a theory and is supported by several studies.

This concern is seen again in your statement and references in the following: "The theory that the brain in Alzheimer's disease patients is better able to use ketones than glucose is not widely accepted among AD clinicians and researchers.[15][16]" Neither of the references supplied support this statement. Ref 15 is a statement written by a pharmacist and in it she states "Advocates of these treatments describe AD as 'diabetes of the brain' and contend that the AD brain is better able to use ketones than glucose." You back this up with ref 16, which supports the first half of the statement, but not the second. i.e. It is right that it is not widely accepted that AD is diabetes of the brain, but there is no evidence in these refs that experts disagree that the brain is better able to use ketones that glucose. Ref 16 is an NIH report on the risk factors for AD and it doesn't mention ketones, glucose, coconut oil, or Axona at all.

Lastly, there is a small error is made in the statement that Axona is "formulated for oral administration as a beverage..." It does not have to be administered as a beverage.

I am not fluent in how to formally request edits on Wikipedia, but hope this information can be corrected in the article in the interim. Thank you, Zad68 and Jytdog (talk). 11:02, 16 May 2013 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxonaForAD (talk • contribs)

Hi AxonaforAD - as per the message I left on your userpage, I recommend that 1) if have a conflict of interest (either work directly for Accera or are under contract to work for them.. which your name implies) that you declare that conflict here and on your user page) and that 2) assuming that you do have a conflict (which at this point is not clear) if you want to suggest specific content to be included in the article, please simply post it here on Talk as you would like to appear, for editors without conflict to consider. With respect to your points above, would you please provide a secondary source, compliant with MEDRS, that there is consensus in the medical community that 1) impaired glucose is indeed (not might be) clinically relevant in AD (in other words, it is part of the pathology and that ameliorating it makes a difference); 2) the AD brain uses ketones better than glucose. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Evaluating your suggestions in order:

1. You're correct that it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Merely being supported by a few studies does not a theory make. It would be helpful if you could provide citations to the papers you have in mind.
2. I agree that the cited sources do not support that claim as written. (Full text of ref 16 available here.) A better statement would be something like "there is no consensus that dietary supplements can slow the course of AD". I will comment out this sentence pending a rewrite.
3. Makes sense; it's awkward anyway. I'll make this change.

Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs reality check

The only reason that Axona is notable in the wiki sense is that it has been called "snake oil" by the media and is fairly controversial. Only a tiny fraction of AD patients have taken it ( 30,000/ 5M = 0.6%) and there have been no idependent clinical trials or significant reviews.

We need to be clear on the issue of glucose metabolism in AD brains. It is non-controversial that some areas of the brains of people with AD (even before major symptoms show up) exhibit significantly lower glucose metabolism as measured by PET and a glucose analog than do normals. This is a fact that in some cases allows the use of PET scanning as an outcome variable in clinical trials for AD. However, the notion that this represents a metabolic defect that could be a target for AD therapy is not widely accepted. Unless someone objects, I will be making a few edits to reflect this reality. Desoto10 (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, have at it. Zad68 01:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I had at it. What thinks you? Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Better, for sure. Desoto10 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of a reality check, MCT oil works for everyone who is patient enough to train their brain over time to run on low-sugar plus ketones. The alternative is to provide more sugar in some form. Axona is just an expensive limited form of MCT oil made into a food. --IO Device (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

speaking of a reality check, the Talk page is for discussing article content. This is not a forum. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

Edgar181 tagged this article complaining that not enough was devoted to the active ingredient of Axona. While I agree that there are a lot of refs for caprylic triglyceride available, they should probably go in an article that is directly on caprylic triglyceride. The current article is about a commercial medical food product whick, as I have said before, is notable only because of its controversial usefulness. If anyone is interested and motivated, another article on ca, specifically, solves the issue, I think. In any case, I don't think the tag should stay. Desoto10 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that there already exist articles on medium-chain triglyceride, caprylic acid, and capric acid. As such, no new article need be created. --IO Device (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)