Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday August 05 2014, @07:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the Khan's-Blood dept.

CNN reported Monday that the two US citizens who were flown back to the states after contracting the Ebola virus were given an extremely experimental treatment, one that's still undergoing animal testing. While the treatment involves antibodies, it's not a vaccine, and it can work effectively even after an infection has started. The process that produced it is a testament to the impressive capabilities developed in the field of biotechnology.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday August 05 2014, @08:43AM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @08:43AM (#77519) Journal

    Mapp has been pursing that testing, starting in mice and working its way up to primates. The company has also been shifting steadily later into the infection process. Its first tests showed that the treatment could be used prophylactically, given to monkeys prior to infection

    Doesn't that make it a Vaccine? The Ars story says its not a vaccine.

    Notably, that paper had members of the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases among its authors, suggesting that further development had a party with deep pockets willing to back the research through human trials.

    Ebola was always something that would pretty much tend to weaponize itself if it ever got into large population centers, with or without human assistance. One wonders why the army was so heavily involved. Were they expecting this outbreak?
    Was there "chatter"?

    So did the writers/producers of The Last Ship get advanced knowledge of this? Or did they get lucky with the timing of their series.?

    We've seen this played out in B movies for decades.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by tathra on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:02AM

      by tathra (3367) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:02AM (#77530)

      Doesn't that make it a Vaccine?

      not necessarily. as i understand it, a vaccine basically primes the body and allows it to fight off the pathogen long after its administration, but prophylactic medication is used for prevention, and only works as long as its in your system. glancing through the ars article it seems this treatment involves injecting the patient with antibodies produced elsewhere, so as soon as they're metabolized the infection will resume.

      once they have a treatment that causes the body to make its own antibodies, then we'll have a vaccine, but externally-produced antibodies are just a different type of drug.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:10AM (#77547)

        Doesn't that make it a Vaccine?

        not necessarily. as i understand it, a vaccine basically primes the body and allows it to fight off the pathogen long after its administration, but prophylactic medication is used for prevention, and only works as long as its in your system.

        Exactly so. Vaccines, you inject a patient with a weakened, killed, or fragmentary virus, and hope his immune system creates T-cells capable of producing antibodies to that target. This treatment provides the antibodies directly, bypassing the time required for the body to 'figure out' the infection. Actually, since the development of one's own memory cells is what provides immunity to future infection, it's possible that people treated with antibody therapy will not develop immunity.

        Such serum treatments are actually quite old technology. What these folks have added is to identify the most important antibody in the serum and transfect it into tobacco (of all things...) It's a very cool option for combating new pathogens, because you're leveraging the body's own defenses, rather than trying to find a chemical take kills the pathogen without harming the host cells. It's also extremely specific, because the Ebola antibodies won't recognize any other hemorrhagic fever.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:02PM

          by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:02PM (#77656) Journal

          It's a very cool option for combating new pathogens, because you're leveraging the body's own defenses, rather than trying to find a chemical take kills the pathogen without harming the host cells. It's also extremely specific, because the Ebola antibodies won't recognize any other hemorrhagic fever.

          So which is it, "leveraging the bodies own defenses", or "antibody therapy will not develop immunity".

          Seems like you want it both ways.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:49PM (#77704)

            I think his comment was just badly worded, and he didn't mean what he wrote. What I assume he meant was "the treatment is like the bodies own defenses", but since the body isn't being encouraged to produce its own defenses the patient's immune system may not develop antibodies of its own to fight a future infection, although I think there is a distinct possibility that they will. However I am not anywhere near being any sort of expert.

            • (Score: 2) by Joe on Tuesday August 05 2014, @07:40PM

              by Joe (2583) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @07:40PM (#77726)

              You are correct that the patient will still mount their own immune response. The immune system will still recognize that there is tissue damage that is associated with a virus (RIG-I mediated dsRNA recognition for EBOV) and there are plenty of antigens that would be generated.
              Even if you inject an inactivated virus (this is what many vaccines are), there will often be enough tissue damage (a needle piercing the skin) to get the immune system excited enough to start generating an adaptive response that will be specific to foreign molecules.

    • (Score: 2) by geb on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:15AM

      by geb (529) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:15AM (#77534)

      I'm having a hard time imagining why any nation would want ebola as a weapon. Its only real use would be to cause panic and civilian casualties. You can do that more easily with conventional weapons.

      Even if for some reason you wanted to indiscriminately kill a load of people, it would only work against poor nations anyway.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:08PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:08PM (#77660) Journal

        I'm having a hard time imagining why any nation would want ebola as a weapon.

        If you had immunity, and/or wide separation from your enemy (continent away), and/or you had a martyrdom mentality then
        none of your objections would matter.

        Panic and civilian casualties are the desired outcome of flying airplanes into buildings.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday August 06 2014, @12:17AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 06 2014, @12:17AM (#77826) Journal

        Even if for some reason you wanted to indiscriminately kill a load of people, it would only work against poor nations anyway.

        In other words, it has great promise as a tool for eugenics or population control. You just don't know the right group of crazies. Not every disease has erm, "promise" as such tools, but those that do can be surprisingly effective.

        For example, HIV infection slowed the population growth rate of Africa by a substantial amount. Zimbabwe is a notable example [un.org]:

        AIDS will have important effects on the annual rate of population growth in many countries. In the 29 African countries considered, the rate of growth is projected to decline from about 2.4 per cent today to 2.1 per cent by 2015. Without AIDS it would have declined from 2.8 today to 2.4 per cent in 2015. In the most severely affected countries, the impact of AIDS will be dramatic. In Zimbabwe the annual rate of growth is estimated to have fallen to 1.5 per cent today instead of being the 2.4 per cent expected if there were no AIDS, and it is projected to drop to just under one per cent by 2000 -2005. In South Africa, the annual rate of growth is expected to decline to 0.4 per cent by 2005 -2010 instead of the 1.5 per cent expected in the absence of AIDS. Although AIDS clearly will have a serious impact on population growth rates, it is not expected to lead to negative population growth in any country.

        According to Wikipedia, Zimbabwe currently has [wikipedia.org] a 0.5% natural growth rate (births per 1000 minus deaths per 1000, ignores migration). Without HIV, I gather it would be around 1.5%, three times as high a natural growth rate. So substantially less of "them" relative to "us" especially if it continues over time.

        There are plenty of places where such conflict could create incentive to develop some sort of biological weapons. For example, Israel and the Palestinian state are a pretty stark example.

    • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:43AM

      by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:43AM (#77540)

      Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreak_(film) [wikipedia.org] considered a B movie?

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:10PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @05:10PM (#77661) Journal

        Outbreak received mostly mixed reviews. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 59% of 44 film critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 5.6 out of 10

        So yeah, Pretty much.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @01:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @01:21PM (#77583)

      Yes, this seems all to contrived.
      Hollywood must have had a hand here.

      You see the ending?
      Doctors survive, are heros, US has both weapon and cure, everyone is happy.

    • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday August 05 2014, @01:41PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @01:41PM (#77588)

      One wonders why the army was so heavily involved. Were they expecting this outbreak?

      As entertaining as conspiracy theories may be, the Army has had special forces operating in West Africa quite recently (it's been in the news if you read closely). They know there's a good possibility of new or continuing missions in the region, so probably they want to be prepared to treat US soldiers who get exposed to ebola.

      As to expecting an outbreak, there have been ebola outbreaks in West Africa in the past. There is no cure or vaccine, so it does not take an expert to predict there will be another outbreak in the future. So yeah, the Army was expecting this outbreak, and that doesn't imply anything other than they're paying attention.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Tuesday August 05 2014, @09:04AM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @09:04AM (#77521)

    Based on two cases? How about they ship some of that medicine to Africa to see if it really has any impact. I think this hype has more to do with stock prices and less to do with actual proof of anything.

    • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:58AM

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:58AM (#77557)

      a) they don't have very much of it yet - remember initially there was only one dose and the doctor insisted it be given to the other US patient

      b) using untested drugs in places where life is so cheap you can pay compo out of petty cash, and test subjects are insufficiently educated to understand what they are signing up for, is a morally bankrupt strategy for which first world pharma cos have been heavily criticised in the past:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_experimentation_in_Africa [wikipedia.org]

      Giving it to two US medical workers means there is zero chance of any (un)informed consent or other legal issues coming back to bite them in future. I am not clear from the news reports where/when they were treated - possibly only once they were on the plane and arguably in US, rather than african, legal jurisdiction.
       

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:28PM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @06:28PM (#77693)

        " using untested drugs in places where life is so cheap you can pay compo out of petty cash, and test subjects are insufficiently educated to understand what they are signing up for, is a morally bankrupt strategy for which first world pharma cos have been heavily criticised in the past"

        What I hear you saying is let the poor people die. Only educated Americans qualify for "testing".

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:12PM

          by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:12PM (#77793)

          No, what I am saying is in effect "be careful what you wish for".

          The pharma cos (in this case) are just doing what they are allowed / what they have been told - the poor people countries need to get their collective act together and decide what they want, because they didn't want 1st world pharma coming over and using them as cheap guinea pigs for untested new drugs, but now they are upset that they won't come over and use them as cheap guinea pigs for untested new drugs.

          • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday August 06 2014, @01:19AM

            by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday August 06 2014, @01:19AM (#77849)

            IF this medication is at all effective, it would be unethical NOT to give Ebola patients that chance. At least that's the kind of ethics we get taught at medical school. Pharmacologists seem to miss the ethics classes completely, I think it got substituted for business 101.

            • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:24AM

              by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:24AM (#77961)

              If and when it is proven to be effective, then you are right. But right now this stuff is not out of the lab, and has not even reached the stage of testing for safety in humans let alone testing for efficacy. There is also no production process for it yet, appears they are making one dose at a time, which means you have no real idea of exactly what is in each vial.

              Survival rates for this epidemic are being quoted at 40% overall, and that is with the level of availability and standard of medical care in some of the poorest countries in Africa. With early diagnosis and faster access to high quality treatment (and better isolation), we could improve that survival chance considerably, _without_ resorting to untested lab concoctions of unknown safety. Are we doing that (with the exception of MSF) ? No, well er maybe, far too little far too late.

              But sending ordinary doctors and nurses and lots of fluids, and building isolation units, just doesn't make good headlines like a new "miracle drug".

              There are lots of new "miracle drugs" in the lab for all sorts of diseases, most turn out to be useless or outright dangerous. Thalidomide was once a miracle drug in the media, and in fact it worked really really well against morning sickness...

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @12:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @12:29PM (#77568)

      Similar treatments have been effective in the past. See http://www.wbur.org/npr/337188425/treating-ebola-with-an-experimental-serum-why-it-might-help [wbur.org]

      The trouble with the old form of serum treatment is finding people (or horses) who'd survived Ebola to provide immune serum. The new scheme raises the antibodies in petri dishes, as is done for research antibodies (ELISA, Western blot, immunohistochemistry). A horse produces liters of serum; an incubator full of petri dishes produces milliliters. They should be able to scale up, eventually, but they're currently working with what amounts to a prototype. A 70 kg human needs a lot more drug than a 300g rat (or even a 10kg Macaque).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @01:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @01:01PM (#77573)

        > or even a 10kg Macaque

        Oh the ladies must love you.

    • (Score: 1) by citizenr on Tuesday August 05 2014, @07:52PM

      by citizenr (2737) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @07:52PM (#77727)

      as soon as Africa is ready to pay $1K per pill

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:08AM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:08AM (#77531) Homepage

    Bio-high-tech Treatment for Ebola may have Saved Two US Citizens

    If you're going to stick with this (in my opinion) rather old-fashioned and annoying tradition of capitalising every word in a headline, at least do it on every word (or whatever the silly and arbitrary rule is for headlines).

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @10:22AM (#77536)
    Did anyone else see WHOs statement on twitter [twitter.com]?
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:36AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:36AM (#77551) Journal

      Which says?

      • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:55AM

        by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:55AM (#77556) Homepage

        It is a warning not to use homeopathy, but real medicine instead.
        It seems the quacks have found some new victims and are peddling magic pills again.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe on Tuesday August 05 2014, @03:39PM

    by Joe (2583) on Tuesday August 05 2014, @03:39PM (#77631)

    I'm not really sure what the article means by extremely experimental. Monoclonal antibody therapy isn't new and it is no surprise that there hasn't been clinical trials on a disease that affects so few.
    It is interesting that the antibodies are targeted against the glycoprotein, since EBOV has some capability to evade antibody defenses (by secreting a fraction of its glycoprotein - depleting available antibody). Maybe the dosage or the timing of the treatment is able to get around this problem. I'll have to get around to reading about it.