Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday November 21 2016, @05:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the stars-in-their-gut dept.

A medical research team has created a prototype of a new type of pill which unfolds inside the stomach so it can release a drug slowly over ten days or more.

The new device, which has been tested in pigs, could be a potential solution not only for patients with chronic diseases, but also as a way to treat conditions in third world countries that require long-term therapies, such as malaria. The researchers published the results of their proof-of-concept study in the journal Science Translational Medicine on Wednesday.

The pill had to overcome some major hurdles. The stomach contains extremely strong muscles that ensure every last drop of food makes its way out into the small intestine, so it's hard for pills to have staying power. To combat this, the researchers designed the drug so that when swallowed, the capsule opens up into a sort of star. This shape prevents the pill from leaving the stomach and entering the small intestine.

[...] Once the pill releases the last dose, it breaks apart and can finally pass out of the stomach and into the small intestine.

It's still in early stages of development, but this could be a life-saving development for the up to 50% of patients who do not take their medications as prescribed.

Full paper at this link.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Francis on Monday November 21 2016, @09:12PM

    by Francis (5544) on Monday November 21 2016, @09:12PM (#430836)

    Or we could just admit that the bacteria theory is so hopelessly wrong that it needs to be scrapped.

    Most uses of antibiotics are inappropriate, and as a consequence by the time somebody actually needs antibiotics, the ones available don't work well and the patient's immune system is already somewhat compromised by the destruction of the helpful bacteria strains that normally crowd out the more dangerous ones.

    And that doesn't even take into consideration the agricultural abuse of antibiotics to either improve the meat or to deal with infections that come about because of the unsanitary living conditions that the animals are being raised in.

    There are times when using antibiotics makes sense, but most of those involve the possibility of death or serious consequences from bacteria that are running amok. certain strains of E. Coli are a good example of that. There's not much that can be done about that other than antibiotics.

    Blaming bacteria and then genociding the entire biome out of fear just leads to future health problems. Do yourself a favor, be nice to the helpful bacteria and you'll probably have fewer health problems than having a doctor force unnecessary antibiotics into the treatment plan.

  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday November 21 2016, @09:43PM

    by Aiwendil (531) on Monday November 21 2016, @09:43PM (#430851) Journal

    Actually had mycoplasma pneumoniae a few months - two courses of antibiotics (had to stop the first one early due to allergy) fixed it.

    I tend to avoid antibiotics due to a _very_ sensitive gut. (Also, as I often point out, I live in sweden - use of antibiotics are very low here [both in humans and livestock])

    But I agree that using antibiotics as a first line (outside of surgery, emergencies or without a cellculture) is batshit crazy.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:34AM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:34AM (#431710)

      Even in emergency situations, the doctors ought to be including in the treatment plan some way of preserving the bacteria that weren't causing problems, using the antibiotics that target the most narrow range of bacteria possible and recommending some method of repopulating any useful bacteria that were missed.

      In the US we have a pathological fear of microbes, but there's no scientific evidence to support the use of antibiotics for the things we're using them for. In many cases, we'll use them on viruses, bacteria "just in case" and in our foods. We'll over chlorinate our water and wipe down every single surface we can find and it does nothing helpful. Our health is getting worse and conditions that never used to exist relating to the immune system are getting common enough that people know about them.

      Personally, I've had a great deal of success by laying off the excessive cleanliness. I try not to shower more than every other day, I generally avoid using soap unless I'm planning on working with food or have just used the restroom and whenever possible, I rinse my hands rather than actually scrubbing them. I rarely get sick anymore. I might get sick once a year, but I don't even get sick that much any more as I'm pretty good about getting ahead of it and make sure that the bodily fluids are flowing appropriately, so that nothing can breed in my sinuses.

      It's astonishing to me that so many people still believe that bacteria cause diseases when there's basically no evidence that it's true. There's a small number of bacteria that do, but in the vast majority of cases, it's not the bacteria, it's that they're growing where they don't belong and in numbers that aren't appropriate because we've gone in and laid waste to the ecosystem they were living in. This whole notion of keeping things sterile and killing germs to solve disease is usually not the correct course of action and even when it is, there's too little attention paid to the other bacteria that get killed in the cross fire.

      Narrow band antibiotics like phages will likely have a place in future medicine as they bring balance back to the body where it's been lost, but the ones we're currently using are a bit like using nuclear weapons to deal with organized crime. It works, but it does so much damage that you're usually worse off than just ignoring it.

      • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:37PM

        by Aiwendil (531) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:37PM (#431902) Journal

        Even in emergency situations, the doctors ought to be including in the treatment plan some way of preserving the bacteria that weren't causing problems, using the antibiotics that target the most narrow range of bacteria possible and recommending some method of repopulating any useful bacteria that were missed.

        Well, if it is the post-treatment I agree with that a probiotic diet warrants more research - but that is _after_ the emergency (and pretty much anything to preserve the stomach flora would involve stressing the body more - often when time is of essence)

        In the US we have a pathological fear of microbes, but there's no scientific evidence to support the use of antibiotics for the things we're using them for. In many cases, we'll use them on viruses, bacteria "just in case" and in our foods. We'll over chlorinate our water and wipe down every single surface we can find and it does nothing helpful. Our health is getting worse and conditions that never used to exist relating to the immune system are getting common enough that people know about them.

        I agree, I am a hypocondriac (to the point I'm in therapy for it) and even I find the city-centric USA a bit extreme.

        However chlorination and UV of drinking water makes sense unless the original watersource is _very_ clean as long as it is fed to people with a stressed immune-system as well (one place I frequent has cholera in its main source of water - you _really_ want the UV and chlorine for that water)

        The wiping down makes sense if it is once or twice a week (to avoid bacterial buildup) - or put another way, about as often as you clean the floor in an enviornment where you don't wear shoes indoor.

        On that note - most of my health-issues (sans asthma) tend to disappear when I get more than about 10km (6mi) outside of a city and stay there for a day or two, and I get sick (including feber) within 2hrs of getting back to a city, I suspect I am allergic to something common in the air (other than the perfume)

        Personally, I've had a great deal of success by laying off the excessive cleanliness. I try not to shower more than every other day, I generally avoid using soap unless I'm planning on working with food or have just used the restroom and whenever possible, I rinse my hands rather than actually scrubbing them. I rarely get sick anymore. I might get sick once a year, but I don't even get sick that much any more as I'm pretty good about getting ahead of it and make sure that the bodily fluids are flowing appropriately, so that nothing can breed in my sinuses.

        Other than when being near crowds of humans, pigs (zoonotic diseases) or during the flu-season I kinda agree on that washing hands only after toilet and food-related (and post, in case of poulty, pigs, cannibalism) unless visibly (or taste/smell) dirty makes sense.

        However, actually living like you do would end me up in surgergy within a decade (I have an autoimmume-disorder that requires some extra care to delay the time between surgeries)

        It's astonishing to me that so many people still believe that bacteria cause diseases when there's basically no evidence that it's true. There's a small number of bacteria that do, but in the vast majority of cases, it's not the bacteria, it's that they're growing where they don't belong and in numbers that aren't appropriate because we've gone in and laid waste to the ecosystem they were living in. This whole notion of keeping things sterile and killing germs to solve disease is usually not the correct course of action and even when it is, there's too little attention paid to the other bacteria that get killed in the cross fire.

        Actually - bacteria causes a shitload of issues, the main issue is that people focus on taking care of the wrong thing (antibiotics against viruses being the prime example of stupidity). So I agree overall but not in detail with you.

        Keeping stuff sterile works wonders as long as you never leave the sterile area, problem is that there always is one schmuck who insist on not coughing in the elbow and/or not disinfect his hands after coughing in it/blowing his nose.

        Narrow band antibiotics like phages will likely have a place in future medicine as they bring balance back to the body where it's been lost, but the ones we're currently using are a bit like using nuclear weapons to deal with organized crime. It works, but it does so much damage that you're usually worse off than just ignoring it.

        Ehm, if you think a phage is an antibiotic you really need to review your understanding of biology [but I agree that from a non-technical point it is about at the same level as mistaking the OS for the computer].

        Outside of surgeries (have had a few - not all scheduled) I don't think I've ever gotten anything broader than heracillin against bacteria - as stated we tend to pinpoint just what we have before chosing antibiotics here.

        The issue rather is that people tend to insist on just "getting some meds" instead of actually getting well.. (pretty much the same fallacy as going to work and infecting coworkers is seen as "soldering on")

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @07:16AM (#431109)

    Or we could just admit that the bacteria theory is so hopelessly wrong that it needs to be scrapped.

    Or not. Shut up, Francis! You are so hopelessly wrong that, well, that you are hopelessly wrong!

    There are times when using antibiotics makes sense,

    Oh, really! Amazing! What times would these be, oh font of infinite medical wisdom? Shut up, Francis!!!

    you'll probably have fewer health problems than having a doctor force unnecessary antibiotics into the treatment plan.

    Or, you will fucking die because you were stupid enough to listen to Francis, who has a medical degree from where? Or studied Pre-med, where? Or read some stuff on the internets. . . oh sweet Ethanol_fueled fucking Jesus!!! Francis! Just admit you know nothing about this topic! It is easy to do, especially when it is true! [Disclaimer: Francis is not a real medical doctor, he only plays one on the internets. Side effects may include: instant stupefication, "WTF am I reading" syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, Lyme Disease, Pariethicalifornesis, and Sudden Death Syndrome. Consult your person physician before following any of Francis' advice. Seriously. Or you might die.]

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:26AM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:26AM (#431701)

      I'm not hopelessly wrong, if you want to endanger your health through unnecessary use of antibiotics, then go ahead, I'm not going to stop you, but you're foolish to suggest that wiping out bacteria all through and on the body isn't going to have serious consequences. Why do you think we have so many bacteria in our digestive track or our mouths or on our skin? Here's a hint, most of those bacteria have an established relationship with us and we need them. Bacteria help greatly when it comes to digesting things like milk and various grains.

      It's bad enough that we kill the bacteria with antibiotics that are poorly targeted, but we don't do anything at all to repopulate the strains that are helpful.

      Just because you choose to believe superstitions with no medical basis, doesn't make me wrong. Be nice to your bacteria or you will suffer the consequences of it.