That's still probably a good thing, but for most animals there was no improvement in RPE structure: They show a picture of very extensive clearance of lipofuscin and improved RPE morphology from one animal from the highest-dose group (Group 4), but "In the 17 remaining eyes from groups 2–4 ... the gross morphology of the RPE cells stayed unaltered ... Moreover, the height of the RPE cell layer was the same as in untreated animals indicating that death of RPE cells did not occur." If only one animal out of 17, at the highest dose, got any morphological benefits, this may not work for many patients, esp as we have no good idea about what a safe dose will actually turn out to be, so this dose may not actually prove feasible. And, importantly, they don't offer any evidence of improved function , either of the RPE itself or of visual function, which latter they didn't evaluate at all.
Also, even if RPE export is good in the short term for the health of the RPE cells themselves and even AMD per se, I'd want to know what happpens to the exported lipofuscin: "Occasionally and only after high-dose treatment with Remofuscin (group 4), lipofuscin granules were present in heavily pigmented cells between the Bruch’s membrane [the basement membrane of the RPE] and the RPE cell layer (Fig. 2b and e )." And, "Fusion of melanosomes and lipofuscin granules was observed in the RPE (not shown)." It'd be great if it was ultimately eg. shuttled off to erythrocytes and be transported to the liver for excretion (as was hypothesized, somewhat out of the air, by PMID 15585347, cited above by steampoweredgod), but (again) most of it remained in the RPE cell layer, and only a quarter of the highest-dose animals did it even reach Bruch's membrane. RPE lipofuscin building up there could just be creating a new problem, like toxic waste exports to the developing world.
The finding, mentioned in the abstract, that "In 4 eyes, macrophages were detected which had taken up lipofuscin" is certainly promising, in that it might offer a mechanism whereby the stuff might indeed be degraded rather than just exocytosed with possibly deleterious effects, but (a) they don't really show what happens to it once engulfed, and (b)they only appeared in a minority of animals in the highest dose group: "These macrophages were filled with lipofuscin granules, melanosomes, and melanolipofuscin granules and were therefore highly pigmented (Fig. 3 a). Pigment granules of heterogenous morphology within these macrophages appeared to disintegrate into smaller units [That would be promising, I don't see how the heck they determined that, tho' I freely admit that inspection of micrographs, etc is a weak spot for me -MR]. Pigment-laden macrophages were also seen within the choroid (Fig. 3 c), and extensions of cells of unknown origin (probably macrophages) were also detected within the Bruch’s membrane (not shown). The depigmentation induced by Remofuscin is RPE-specific because the choroidal melanocytes were not affected by the treatment."
We also don't know what exactly they were clearing out, except in the small minority of high-dose eyes where export seems to have been complete. "Because of several chemically similar bisretinoid compounds of lipofuscin fluoresce in the same region, the microscopical method was not specific enough to identify specific fluorophores of lipofuscin that could be selectively targeted by Remofuscin."
Finally, there's the immediate, pharmacological mechanism: "Remofuscin [is] a potent and reversible inhibitor of the H+/K+ ATPase" -- the proton pump of the stomach. Ie, it's a proton-pump inhibitor, like omeprazole (Prilosec) and Nexium, thus explaining the fact that these monkeys were in a study whose primary purpose was to study ulcers. Well, have a look at the PPI side effects:
http://en.wikipedia....Adverse_effects
As noted, many of the favorable effects happened only in a minority within the highest-dose group (in one case only one animal); we have no good idea about safety yet, & thus dose-limiting toxicity could mean these doses are out of the question (tho' they don't say their monkeys were a mess of diarrhea, pneumonia, nephritis or C. difficile). Messing with metabolic pathways is, of course, not the approach I'd favor IAC.
Edited by Michael, 08 May 2012 - 11:50 AM.