Slashdot Mirror
Experimental Drug Stops Ebola-like Infection
sciencehabit writes: An experimental treatment against an Ebola-related virus can protect monkeys even when given up to 3 days after infection, the point at which they show the first signs of disease. The virus, known as Marburg, causes severe hemorrhagic fever—vomiting, diarrhea, and internal bleeding. In one outbreak, it killed 90% of people it infected. There are no proven treatments or vaccines against it. The new results raise hopes that the treatment might be useful for human patients even if they don't receive it until well after infection. The company that makes the compound, Tekmira, based in Burnaby, Canada, has started a human safety trial of a related drug to treat Ebola virus disease, and researchers hope that it, too, might offer protection even after a patient has started to feel ill.
In other Ebola news, the two American aid workers who were infected with the virus while in Liberia have now recovered and been released from the hospital.
After death??! ZOMBIES!!!
Success in a test tube and/or monkeys doesn't mean much as far as hope for a drug viable for humans. After all, the trials for Tekmira's drug are on hold by the FDA due to safety concerns ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ho... ).
Also, Tekmira is NOT the company that manufactured the drug used to treat Dr. Brantly and his coworker - that was Mapp Pharmaceutical's ZMapp
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
May include "sleeplessness, resistance to cold weather effects, dry mouth, and a hankering for maple syrup."
Zombie-like symptoms may arise for patients craving a trip to Tim's for a double-double...
Shhh. It's a recently completed study and it's "topical". That's better than most science news manages.
Dr. Mbogo approves
Success in a test tube and/or monkeys doesn't mean much as far as hope for a drug viable for humans. After all, the trials for Tekmira's drug are on hold by the FDA due to safety concerns ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ho... ).
I don't know how to ethically do human trials for this. With monkeys, they infect them with the virus, then give the vaccine and see if the animal develops symptoms. Would we knowingly and purposefully infect humans with Ebola? Or are there enough people out there who have been exposed within three days and are as of yet symptom free? The particular strain of Ebola they tested with has a mortality rate of 90% - too high to responsibly give someone.
I'm assuming that the two U.S. aid workers were not treated with this - is anyone exploring a broader application of whatever was used in their cases?
This depends only on three factors:
1. Skin colour
2. The expected profit
3. The expectation to get away with it
Strictly speaking it is a complete different virus that is only based on similar construction principles (Filoviridae) *and* unfortunately has similar symptoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
ummm... this sounds awful sciency and hurts my head to think about. Wouldn't it just be easier to listen to Donald Trump and just ban anything we fear/do not understand?
> Or are there enough people out there who have been exposed within three days and are as of yet symptom free?
Well that number seems to be increasing every day. So that is a positive um right?
Actually I think the way you do it is with a double blind in a population that is already likely to be exposed, or likely to be exposed soon.... then watch for whether the people vaccinated with the real deal vs the placbo get infected at higher rates.
Since you don't even know if it works, its not like you are actually withholding treatement on those with the placebo, and its a population you expect to have some cases anyway. So if it works, it could protect some of the population and allow for others.... if it doesn't work, any new risks they are exposed to are only from the drug itself, as long as you can weigh that against the risk and outcomes of ebola infection.....
Essentially I think the only viable population is medical professionals themselves who work with Ebola patients, and family of patients who just recently brought their family member to the clinic. That is mostly because any cases that are found have to be isolates asap and so there is no possibility for any real control group outside the clinics/centers.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
All we need is for white people to be at risk and the investment will be there:
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Experimental... Ya Right...
Medical trials have two stages. First you give the drug to healthy people to determine if there are any side effects. Then you give the drug to unhealthy people and see if it makes their condition better (actually, it's more complicated than this, and there are stages within those stages, and I'm generalizing wildly but you get the idea.)
So, you do the first stage first and determine the health risks. Assuming it's safe-ish (again, generalizing) you use it to treat ebola cases.
Of course, here's the real ethical minefield. Do you do double blind trials (realistically the only way to know if the drug truly works) despite knowing you're giving 50% of the infected no treatment what-so-ever?
I saw the news conference of the doctor who was cured of Ebola and it's a great example of how religion twists the mind. The guy stood there in front of the cameras and spent ages thanking God for his recovery, then gave a long description of how people who had prayed for him also helped. Right at the end the doctors who had done the ACTUAL WORK keeping him alive got a passing mention.
Crazy.
The "drug" is based on siRNA which means that it has to be exactly matched to the virus RNA sequence, it uses a sophisticated delivery system (liposomes I gather) and needs storage infrastructure (deep freezers capable of maintaining -80C for long term storage). Considering all of the above, it is a safe bet that mostly rich white people can afford the luxury.
In your case it would help if you simply had read the article. So you had figured how the drug actually works.
And hence had not written that nonsense.
The drug is based on siRNA, which works the exact same way in every warm blooded animal/human. So your "fear" (comment?) it might not work in humans is moot.
Also, Tekmira is NOT the company that manufactured the drug used to treat Dr. Brantly and his coworker - that was Mapp Pharmaceutical's ZMapp
That is correct.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Success in a test tube and/or monkeys doesn't mean much as far as hope for a drug viable for humans. After all, the trials for Tekmira's drug are on hold by the FDA due to safety concerns ( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ho... ).
I don't know how to ethically do human trials for this. With monkeys, they infect them with the virus, then give the vaccine and see if the animal develops symptoms. Would we knowingly and purposefully infect humans with Ebola? Or are there enough people out there who have been exposed within three days and are as of yet symptom free? The particular strain of Ebola they tested with has a mortality rate of 90% - too high to responsibly give someone.
Then I'd say they need to move their ass and get down to Liberia where we likely have plenty of test subjects.
And ethics have little to do with it when you're facing a 90% mortality rate. Anyone with sense enough would likely sign up for the drug no questions asked if they tested positive for Ebola.
The "drug" is based on siRNA which means that it has to be exactly matched to the virus RNA sequence, it uses a sophisticated delivery system (liposomes I gather) and needs storage infrastructure (deep freezers capable of maintaining -80C for long term storage). Considering all of the above, it is a safe bet that mostly rich white people can afford the luxury.
So, in other words, we haven't found a cure yet.
At all.
It's another step in trial.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
to go back to Africa and help fight the outbreak.
Since they are now immune and being health care professionals they are uniquely qualified to handle the treatment of Ebola patients without fear of dying from it.
-- Mean People Suck
For the period of time in which the ebola everyone is getting is the same ebola they got.
Any idea how long their immunity is likely to last? I've not seen anything really clear about it.
So, in other words, we haven't found a cure yet. Correct, strictly speaking it is not a "cure".
It interferes with the assembly of the final virus, that means the transport mechanisms moving virus particles around get blocked by those siRNA particles.
Imagine it as a bus which is full with siRNA, so the "bad guys" who like to jump on it can not get into it.
Regarding prices as our parent complains, that technology is not really that expensive (to use and cure). However the development likely was.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You don't get immune with the new treatments. They are not vaccines. They are "medicine". Just like Quinine was given against Malaria. (And strictly speaking: vaccines don't cure anyway ... giving an ordinary vaccine when you are already ill does not help, in fact it makes things worse)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They are married. They have wives.
The carry the virus in bodily emissions for up to 61 days after infection.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/
We should watch and see if their wives get infected.
So your "fear" (comment?) it might not work in humans is moot.
Unless of course, it doesn't work in humans. Then his "fear" is somewhat appropriate.
Just because two organisms have something in common with respect to this drug doesn't mean that their differences won't matter.
And if God weren't such an asshole, he wouldn't have infected you in the first place. Or are the bad things that happen strictly the devil's fault and the good things all about god?
Troll fail.
Imagine it as a bus which is full with siRNA, so the "bad guys" who like to jump on it can not get into it.
I'm still a little lost. Can you change it from a bus analogy to a car analogy?
Just because two organisms have something in common with respect to this drug doesn't mean that their differences won't matter.
It is not a 'drug'.
It is a short 20 - 25 bases long RNA strand. (You know what DNA and RNA is?)
That works exactly the same in every life form based on cells with a nucleus. No idea how the exact english name for it is, as I don't know the proper spelling of the german/latin word and can mot google it. Something like Eukariots.
So: there are no differences that 'could matter'. Can be easy read up and googled, but as we saw in the other discussion, you are definitely not a science guy.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It is not a 'drug'.
It is a short 20 - 25 bases long RNA strand. (You know what DNA and RNA is?)
Let's actually look at the definition of drug:
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body
Sure, we could come up with a new phrase every time we do anything slightly differently, but there's no point to it. It just makes communication overly complex.
That works exactly the same in every life form based on cells with a nucleus. No idea how the exact english name for it is, as I don't know the proper spelling of the german/latin word and can mot google it. Something like Eukariots.
The human body is not a cell nucleus. For example, if this drug triggers an allergy response, then you have both harm and the destruction of the drug before it can do something useful.
Well, arguing with you makes no sense.
First it is not a drug but a kind of "gene therapy" (actually it is not, but it is much closer than a 'drug')
The human body is not a cell nucleus. For example, if this drug triggers an allergy response, then you have both harm and the destruction of the drug before it can do something useful.
Good point, now you made perfectly clear why the treatment we are talking about: is not a drug.
And you emphasize that you are not interested in science, otherwise you would not write such nonsense.
Hint: reading up about how this stuff works is less then 8h, you can read every day 1h and after a week you perhaps know more than me about DNA/RNA, mRNA, siRMA etc.
But unless you invest at least some basic "reading up" you simply don't qualify for topics like this.
For example, if this drug triggers an allergy response how should an siRNA particle trigger an allergic response? Hu? Science Fiction? Note: it is not a drug, regardless how retarded you like to define it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Even if siRNA works by the same mechanism in all vertebrate cells there are many steps were a difference between species can make it a failed treatment. For example there are many RNA viruses that can encapsulate replication machinery in certain types of cells, that helps avoiding innate immunity mechanism, if this happens in target cells in humans (may not be the same in monkeys) then the encapsulation would interrupt also the siRNA binding to viral RNA making it useless. also there is a posibility of interference of the siRNA against normal human mRNA important for cell life cycle hence toxicity and so on. Even the lipid nanoparticles could work less efficiently in the human body (sequestration by non target cells, lack of proper integration with cell membranes, activation of unusual immune responses not seen in 20 monkeys but maybe fatal in a fair percentage of humans, etc.)
Yes, it is most likely that the treatment can be useful according to their results until now, but there are literally hundreds of reasons why this could be not the case, it would not be the first nor the last time when a perfect treatment for monkeys proved to be useless in humans.
how should an siRNA particle trigger an allergic response?
By the same mechanisms any other molecule triggers an allergy response.
The FDA has -safety concerns- testing a drug that might be effective against a -contagious disease with a 90% fatality rate-?
Somebody's priorities are in the wrong order.
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
All we need is for white people to be at risk and the investment will be there:
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
Being White doesn't cut it; you need to be rich. BTW, why don't people give rich Blacks as much grief as they give rich Whites?
As someone who actually does gene therapy, I'd like to make a few points here. First, legally speaking (in both the US and the EU), it is a drug. It's not a small molecule drug like you're used to, but it is a drug, as is Glybera, the only approved gene therapy in the Western Hemisphere (although not a very good one). siRNA treatment is not gene therapy, but I'll grant you that it's closer than small molecules are.
Now, for the technical aspects, there are some reasons why siRNA might work in mice or non-human primates (NHPs) but not humans. Extra non-endogenous RNA of any sort can trigger an immune response, although it's true that we normally don't see that with siRNA - it's not unheard-of though. Furthermore, anything odd (like exogenous RNA) can be recognized as dangerous if the body is already responding to something - in this case, Ebola. That's why a relatively high proportion of the Western population has neutralizing antibodies against AAV - a small virus that needs help from other viruses to replicate. By itself, it can't replicate and doesn't set off the immune system. If there is a HSV or adenovirus infection in the same cells that have AAV, however, the body thinks AAV is dangerous and forms antibodies.
In addition, the human siRNA processing complexes - notably Dicer, though we're finding out now that there are more non-canonical ones - differ from NHP and mouse versions. It's possible that their siRNA-based drug won't load onto the human Dicer complex as well. It's also possible that humans have a protein that shares the target sequence(s) in Ebola (remember siRNA goes after very short sequences, so off-target effects are quite common); this might not apply to mice or NHPs.
Overall, human testing needs to be done, but it's more likely to work than other therapies that are just tested in animals. So both of you are partly correct.