More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Arlene Weintraub

Arlene Weintraub

Posted: December 8, 2010 03:37 PM

On December 2, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline quietly halted a clinical trial of SRT501, a concentrated form of resveratrol, which is the much-hyped substance found in red wine grapes.

The reason this matters is that SRT501 had been one of the most closely watched molecules in the Big Pharma pipeline ever since 2008, when GlaxoSmithKline snapped it up in a $720 million acquisition of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals -- the company that first suggested resveratrol might be useful for treating age-related diseases.

SRT501 was being tested in a rare form of cancer called multiple myeloma, but Glaxo had grander plans for it and similar molecules. As Sirtris discovered, resveratrol modulates a gene called sir2, which produces the enzyme sirtuin. In mice, turning this gene on extends life by as much as 30 percent. Glaxo has been studying sirtuin-modulating drugs in a range of diseases common in aging people, including diabetes, psoriasis and colon cancer.

Resveratrol will no longer be part of that research, Glaxo says. Signs of trouble first emerged back in the spring, when the company halted the multiple myeloma trial because several patients developed kidney failure. Glaxo investigated, and concluded that the kidney complications may have stemmed from the underlying cancer, but that the SRT501 clearly didn't help matters. The resveratrol formulation "was not well tolerated, and side effects of nausea/vomiting/diarrhea may have indirectly led to dehydration, which exacerbated the development of the acute renal failure," said GSK spokeswoman Melinda Stubbee in an e-mail.

What scares me most about this news is that resveratrol is an incredibly popular over-the-counter supplement among healthy people who think it will help them live longer. Sales hit $30 million in 2008 and were forecast to double this year, according to Nutrition Business Journal. Resveratrol is widely available in mega-doses online and from health food stores.

And a lot of that excitement has been generated by Sirtris. The company's co-founder, Harvard scientist David Sinclair, became something of a media darling after he discovered resveratrol's effect on sir2 in the early 2000s. Sinclair was featured on "60 Minutes" and on an ABC News television special called "Live to Be 150 ... Can You Do It?" On the ABC program, which aired in 2008, Sinclair and Barbara Walters toasted each other with red wine, and Walters asked how many glasses she would have to drink to get the anti-aging benefits. "A thousand bottles a day," Sinclair answered.

Despite Sinclair's insistence that resveratrol's utility in humans had yet to be proven, media attention spawned an entrepreneurial free-for-all. Dozens of companies popped up offering free trials of resveratrol on the Internet. Some of them featured clips of Sinclair, as if to imply he had endorsed specific resveratrol supplements. (He had not.) Thousands of consumers were scammed into signing up for monthly shipments of resveratrol for $90 or more a month.

Many people believe the natural form of the red-wine supplement is perfectly safe and maybe even a lifesaver. Some blame Glaxo for somehow adulterating resveratrol when they turned it into a drug. A patient commenting last week on a Website for multiple myeloma patients called SRT501 "a corruption of the natural resveratrol molecule created by Glaxo to allow them to patent it and control the distribution through pharmaceutical channels."

But the fact is, "SRT501 is resveratrol," Stubbee says. It's purified and concentrated, but other than that, it's no different from the molecule found in your typical vineyard. Resveratrol seems to activate the longevity gene to some extent, but it's "not selective, meaning that it does many other things," she says. In the multiple myeloma trial, those things were not so pleasant.

Glaxo is now focusing on developing far more selective compounds, Stubbee says. They have no chemical relationship to resveratrol. "There are no further plans to develop SRT501."

To me, the moral of this story is clear: Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe. Sure, you can go to your local health food store and self-medicate with huge doses of resveratrol if you're so inclined. But if your goal is to live longer, I'd think twice.

 
 
 

Follow Arlene Weintraub on Twitter: www.twitter.com/awjourn

 
 
  • Comments
  • 32
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
01:59 PM on 12/13/2010
Supplements. It cracks me up to hear all of the scare over big pharma and no one mentions the enormously profitable corporations that produce all those supplements. They're profitable because they don't have to bother with any of the silly "research" to prove any of their claims. In fact, their GMPs are so lax, good luck getting in a capsule exactly what's on the label. No watchdog is making sure, but I'm sure you can trust the corporation itself to be honest.
02:26 AM on 12/14/2010
Well put. It's very popular to attack Big Pharma but nobody seems to have noticed that the supplement industry has become Big Suppla. And it's even worse than you describe. I can literally go out to my front lawn, mow it, gather up the clippings, put them in a bottle and sell them to you with the claim that it's an all natural dietary supplement that promotes digestion. I haven't made a specific claim and I don't even have to prove that it's safe (although most of the time Big Suppla only puts out products that probably won't hurt you). But if people do get really sick, and enough of these cases are reported to the FDA, I'll stop selling the product before the FDA actually forces me to stop selling it. Maybe I will have to pay out a few million dollars in damages from civil lawsuits, but I keep the remaining hundreds of millions.

(Little know fact: most recalls are done voluntarily before the FDA actually steps in and are not for FDA approved drugs. They're usually for contaminated foods [often with labels like "natural" or "whole"], OTC remedies, and supplements. It's pretty rare for drugs that had to get FDA approval to be pulled. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm)

And many of the companies that produce dietary supplements are owned by pharmaceutical companies. They recognize a free lunch when they see it.
11:05 PM on 12/09/2010
I agree. People need to realize that being natural as in found in nature doesn't automatically mean it is a healthy choice. There is an element of quantity to be considered. Is it natural for a human being to eat tons of purified sugar which is found "naturally" in the environment? There are plenty of toxins and venoms found in nature. Should we eat those too? Natural choices can be a very good tool to picking healthy foods but it has to be natural for humans. You need to choose foods that we evolved to eat. We didn't evolve to scarf down supplements and it will take many generations for out genes to catch up to our unhealthy lifestyle.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
02:04 PM on 12/13/2010
I agree with you, but I think we need to be careful about the "evolved" argument in one area. We're not at some evolutionary peak. It's possible that that diet we evolved to eat while walking the lands 20,000 years ago was not the best possible diet for us. That is to say, it's not always a fact that we evolved to eat them. They might have simply been around, and we evolved to tolerate them so that we could partake of their nourishment.
07:22 PM on 12/09/2010
natural means not man made except in the sense that our body makes it for itself

in botanicals the socalled active " pharmacologically " active substance exists in a matrix. if it is isolated than it isnt in a natural buffer and causes an imbalance etc

the precedures for properly harvesting the right variety of herb sorting it for quality then turning it step by step many steps into a tablet or sort of like thick apple butter or liquid is detailed in 5000 year old texts [ samhitas of Ayur Veda , mainly Charaka and Sushruti ]

maharishi ayur Veda herbal medicines are natural and safe

incorporating master herbalism into MD practice requires the same process of understanding and learning another " language ' as does interfaith understanding

e.g.doctors who are athiest or agnostic or indifferent to beleif in God, might not understand [ or have considered ] that herbs and spices are god -given medicine and the knowledge of proper use and not use is also god-given [ in this sense natural pharmacologically active organic phyto"chemicals " are intelligent design ]

eventually some seperate subject matters in Living section health sections and religion section will integrate into one wholistic understanding of what Health is
02:46 PM on 12/09/2010
resort to the original made by mother nature , botanicals , the whole herb as they say in master herbalism school
ideally in synergistic herbal formulas as in Maharishi Ayur Veda rasayanas

fund more studies on the known naturally-occurring medicinal properties of herbs and spices.

anti-aging is most effectively done in conjunction with meditation: people who learned transcendental meditation (TM) after 5 years had biological age 12 years younger than chronological age

Alexander C.N., Transcendental Meditation and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 950-964, 1989.

Alexander C. N.The effects of Transcendental Meditation compared to other methods of relaxation in reducing risk factors, morbidity, and mortality. Homeostasis 35, 243-264, 1994.

Schneider R.H. Long-term effects of stress reduction on mortality in persons > 55 years of age with systemic hypertension. American Journal of Cardiology 95: 1060-1064, 2005.

Wallace R.K. The effects of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process. International Journal of Neuroscience 16: 53-58, 1982.

Transcendental Meditation reduces hypertension, obesity, and diabetes in patients with coronary heart disease
This study of 103 people with coronary heart disease found that individuals practicing Transcendental Meditation for four months had significantly lower blood pressure; improved blood glucose and insulin levels (which signify reduced insulin resistance); and more stable functioning of the autonomic nervous system compared to controls.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, M.D Preventive and Rehabilitative Cardiac Center at Cedars-Sinai,
Archives of Internal Medicine,2006
11:07 AM on 12/09/2010
"But the fact is, "SRT501 is resveratrol," Stubbee says. It's purified and concentrated, but other than that, it's no different from the molecule found in your typical vineyard. Resveratrol seems to activate the longevity gene to some extent, but it's "not selective, meaning that it does many other things," Is it realistic to believe that a drug company really wants to develop a none patentable product.? Economically what sense would it make for a drug company to make ? This result seems serendipitous.
01:22 AM on 12/09/2010
im praying for the day the FDA prohibits ALL treatments that aren't backed up by science. The worst of the pharmaceutical industry's drugs, and the million alternative "medications" invented by greedy people who want to take advantage of suckers.
07:41 AM on 12/09/2010
This won't happen because it would cause almost all pharmaceuticals to be taken off the market. The revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and the FDA would never allow this.
08:58 AM on 12/09/2010
sorry to break it to you, but every pharmaceutical treatment has to demonstrate its effect and safety, while alternative "medicines" don't. I'm no fan of big pharma, but at least they have science on their side, usually.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
09:13 AM on 12/09/2010
Really? Almost all pharmaceuticals have no scientific evidence supporting them? Can you quantify "almost all" and provide some evidence showing that such a statement is accurate?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phytoresearcher
09:07 PM on 12/08/2010
As I said almost two years ago, the dilemma for Glaxo, was always that the Sirt activation products they are developing already exist in safe effective natural, inexpensive form. Glaxo's synthetic analogs may be more potent against specific metabolic pathways and transcription factors, but there exist other stilbenes such as pterostilbene with superior such properties. biotivia transmax, the concentrated resveratrol being used in the human trials at a number of medical schools, has been extensively tested and shown to be non toxic even at a high dose and is available now, not five to seven years from now which is normal for new pharmaceuticals. Synthetic analogs historically have been shown to be somewhat unpredictable in effect and safety.

Given that Glaxo's SRT 501 was not simply a purified form of natural resveratrol, it was a synthetic form complexed with a solubility agent, if there are any lessons here at all to be learned regarding resveratrol they are to:

1. Avoid synthetic resveratrol, or any supplement with cyclodextrin or Tween 80 ( solubility agents).

2. Stay away from micronized resveratrol. There is no evidence that it is any more effective, and in bio availability studies, the AUC values are actually lower with micronized resveratrol, whereas the peak blood plasma levels spike initially and then quickly subside. This may be an undesirable property of micronized resveratrol vs non-micronized powder, which has a more even concentration in plasma over time. Avoid micronized resveratrol. There is no evidence that it is effective.
01:21 AM on 12/09/2010
no, there is limited evidence that supplementation of any kind if helpful. That goes for glaxo, and the thousands psuedoscientists selling various formulations now. As mentioned in the article, glaxo's formulations are chemically equivalent to "natural" resveratrol.
03:29 AM on 12/09/2010
Very right, squiems. This is my first post on the HuffPo and I can already tell that I will primarily be commenting on articles that delve into the arena of science. I can also already tell that folks like you and me are in the minority since we defend science-based medicine and decry pseudoscience. Phytoresearcher's post is a wonderful example of pseudoscientific jargon that sounds sophisticated and therefore credible, but is in fact filled with misleading misconceptions and falsehoods. His post seems like it was taken straight out of the Duane Gish's playbook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Debates).

Besides emphasizing the danger of the appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature), Weintraub also sets up the fact that true scientific research should be the determinant for what drugs (and supplements are drugs) can be sold. Despite Glaxo gambling almost a billion dollars, they backed out because the science indicated one very important thing: resveratrol is a bad product.

Unfortunately for Glaxo, the laws state that you can't make specific claims without providing exhaustive research that is clinically reproducible (although Big Sup is working hard to further erode those laws). Fortunately for the supplement industry, the current laws also say that as long as they don't make any specific claims, they can beat around the bush all they want about what they want us to think their product does and can put in on the shelves without even demonstrating that it's safe. Shameful.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phytoresearcher
06:26 AM on 12/09/2010
Since resveratrol became of interest to the medical community there have been over 3500 published in vitro, animal and human trials and studies of this molecule. The overwhelming concensus amongst scientists, physicians and clinicians is that this molecule possesses extraordinary health effects. In particular it has clearly been shown to have important and probably unique applications in the prevention and treatment of diabetes, many cancers, cardio-vascular disease and possibly neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s Disease and dementia. Whether it prolongs human life span is not known. It is known that it extends life span in some animals and may or may not extend it in some others. The entire life span issue is irrelevant. If it prevents you from having cancer or diabetes then obviously it extends your life span regardless of whether or not it extends the life span of a perfectly healthy person.

During the past year there have been several human clinical trials done by the most reputable and distinguished traditional medical institutions in the world, such as Albert Einstein Med College, Northumbria University, Harvard, Stanford and others which have concluded that resveratrol does in deed possess extraordinary medical applications in cancer, diabetes, vasodilation, auto immune conditions and cardiovascular disease. In two human trials at AE Medical College resveratrol demonstrated better glucose tolerance and mitochondrial function improvement that the default drug, Metformin, used by diabetics. Before you throw the baby out with the bath water you might bother to send an hour informing yourself.