Showing posts with label HIV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HIV. Show all posts

Sunday, August 14, 2011

GM plant proteins can hugely reduce the cost of new drugs, says professor who has got go-ahead to test HIV antibody on humans


Julian Ma is joint head of the infection and immunity research centre at St George's Hospital Medical School in London. He specialises in genetically modifying plants to produce useful drugs, a process called pharming, which he hopes will bring cheaper drugs to the developing world. His Pharma-Planta project was recently given permission by the UK medical regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to carry out human trials of a monoclonal antibody, grown in tobacco plants, that can be used to prevent HIV infection.
How is a regular drug made?
The class of drugs we're dealing with are called recombinant proteins. What that means is a kind of protein that is made in a system that is not the host system for that original protein. Recombinant proteins have been made for decades using GM technologies – it started with GM bacterium E coli, which was used to make human insulin. Then we moved to GM yeast (an example of that is the vaccine against hepatitis B). More recently, the gold standard for making recombinant proteins, particularly monoclonal antibodies (Herceptin is a good example), is to use mammalian cells. The most commonly used one is a cell derived from the ovaries of a Chinese hamster (CHO). Those cells are grown in big fermenters as a liquid culture.
Why would using plant cells be better than these traditional methods?
These fermentation vats have to be kept absolutely sterile and the manufacturing facilities that are involved are very expensive. The thinking behind going to whole plants was: here we have a very simple and efficient protein-manufacturing system that simply uses sunlight, water and soil to make proteins. It's no coincidence that plants are at the bottom of the food chain, because it's the cheapest and most economical way of making proteins on a large scale.
How pure is the protein that comes out of your experimental plants?
There are many potential variables. The conditions under which you grow the plant inherently has some variability; daylight affects it, and there's variability of the environment around the greenhouse. And you've got soil in your greenhouse, the growth medium. What we've shown in our work is that, despite all the variations, what comes out of the plant can be made to very high quality; in fact, the quality we reached was even higher than had been previously achieved using the CHO system.
Can you use any plant for pharming?
There are some other species, such as maize, which would work very well – any plant that produces a seed would be a good target for us, because seeds are essentially dehydrated protein-storage bodies. We've chosen tobacco for several reasons: the most important is that it's not part of the food chain, and we were acutely aware that we needed to find a species that would not give us environmental issues about whether we might pass our product into the food chain. Tobacco is a major crop around the world, so, if you're looking at non-food crops, tobacco is the best-established one. And third, it produces a huge amount of biomass – if you want to create a very large-scale production system, biomass levels are important.
Where will this go in future?
One of the great areas for potential growth of plants is in making not just very complex molecules but also combinations of complex molecules, like antibodies. The product we're working on, the anti-HIV antibody, eventually will have to be used in combination with one or two antibodies: it's very unlikely it will be used by itself. The reason for that is that HIV is very good at mutating, so you need to provide two or three antibodies to prevent viral escape. That concept is applicable across the board for infectious diseases. Plants give you the option of making many molecules to add to a cocktail of pharmaceuticals, because the potential cost of making the molecules is much lower than conventional systems. You can now afford to make cocktails of two to three antibodies, whereas, up until now, we haven't been able to afford that.
Could you one day eat plants to extract the drugs, instead of processing them?
This suggestion has been around for quite a long time now and it is attractive, but there are some difficulties with that. The early suggestions of growing banana trees or tomato plants and having fresh produce as a delivery tool have been discarded, mainly because you can't control the dosage of your medicine very easily. That doesn't mean you can't take that sort of system and combine it with some simple food-processing technology. If you were able to produce a medicine in an edible fruit, like a tomato, you could do a simple food-processing step to stabilise the protein in the tomato product and also standardise the dose. That could be delivered by the oral route.
Delivering vaccines by the oral route has been the holy grail of vaccinologists for decades. There are some technical difficulties with it: some people don't respond well to oral vaccines and there are some immunological issues. But the potential is there. I think that is some way off, however, and what we've done at this stage – shown that plants are a viable manufacturing system for vaccines or antibodies – is the first step along a very long road that will ultimately lead to an edible vaccine. In the interim, this will give us many other valuable products which look much more like conventional pharmaceuticals.
Will your technique make drugs cheaper?
The real cost of pharmaceuticals is not down to the cost of the goods themselves, it's due to the many years it takes to develop a drug, and many other steps. Where I think the cost benefit does come in, though, is in the very early stages of drug development. In a plant system, the investment you have to make early on to test a new drug is much lower than if you wanted to make it by conventional systems. That could be 10- to 100-fold cheaper. We know that many drugs fail in the first few years of development, but if the cost of trialling each of those drugs is very high, very few people are able to enter the field. If you make the cost of entry into looking at new drugs much lower, using plant technologies, it allows you to bring underdeveloped countries in to look at drugs that they might find very important.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

"There was...crap in that stuff. This stuff was manky, it was filthy, it was dirty ... but they still stuck it in the arms of children"

Patients have called for the inquiry into how people were given infected blood by the Scottish NHS to have a wider remit, as hundreds of pages of evidence were published.
Campaigners hailed the release yesterday of the preliminary report by Lord Penrose, who is chairing the probe, as a milestone.
It included a list of issues that he will investigate during the next year, among them the use of commercial blood products after it was realised internationally that they carried a risk of Aids and the acceptance of blood donations from prisoners.
Hundreds of people in Scotland were given contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s either as treatment for blood clotting disorders or through blood transfusions.
The plight of those who caught HIV or hepatitis C as a result is acknowledged in the opening of the preliminary report.
It says: “It would have been impossible for any person involved in this inquiry to have been unaware of and to have remained untouched by the physical, mental and emotional suffering of the individuals and families affected by these serious and potentially fatal diseases.”
Campaign groups including Haemophilia Scotland said that after years of frustration they were pleased to have such a substantial document.
However, they expressed concern that many of the victims and their families who want to be core participants with legal representation when the inquiry progresses to oral hearings will be disappointed.
About 70 patients and their relatives applied to Lord Penrose to be core participants, but so far it is understood about 14 have been accepted.
In addition, Bruce Norval, who has hepatitis C after receiving contaminated blood, complained the inquiry would not explore other infections – in addition to hepatitis C and HIV – to which haemophiliacs given clotting agents may have been exposed.
He said: “One thing that needs to be highlighted is that haemophiliacs are due a public, truthful account of the full toxic potential of the clotting agents we were treated with from childhood. At the moment, the remit would not fully allow for that.
“What we are trying to get is an understanding why this small group of people, which was 500 strong, are now down to half that number, with more dying on a monthly basis.
“There was all kinds of crap in that stuff. This stuff was manky, it was filthy, it was dirty and they knew it, but they still stuck it in the arms of children.”
The inquiry will examine how patients affected were tested for infections and informed about the results. According to the report, almost two-thirds of patient witnesses said they did not know they were being tested for hepatitis C or HIV and a number describe finding out they had hepatitis C years after tests were carried out.
Lord Penrose has been given accounts of doctors dismissing the illness as “nothing to worry about”, while one witness with HIV said the doctor who told his family was “quite blase”.
The report was released after the inquiry team analysed more than 80,000 documents and took more than 100 statements from patients and relatives.
Solicitor Advocate Patrick McGuire, of Thompsons solicitors, the recognised legal representative of families and sufferers, welcomed the report.
He said: “The document … is clearly very well reasoned and therefore a clear measure of the amount of work that has been put in by Lord Penrose and his team and for that I would personally like to thank him.”
He added that it was subject to consultation and he would be discussing some issues with Lord Penrose.
Lord Penrose said: “It is important to emphasise that I have not reached any conclusions on matters of fact or provided any recommendations at this stage and the list of topics that I have included for further investigation at the public hearings is not definitive.
“I am now inviting comments on these topics from interested individuals and organisations by the end of October.”

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Cutting back on blood use could halt infections, illness — and even death

SEATTLE — As a doctor and a patient, Dale Reisner knows the value of donated blood. But when the Seattle obstetrician had to have heart surgery four years ago, she did everything possible not to get a single drop.
“I don’t have any religious problems with it. If I was near death, I definitely would have taken blood, no question,” said Reisner, who is fine now at age 62. “But if I could avoid a transfusion by better pre-op preparation, then I was interested.”
Dr. Dale Reisner actively avoided a blood transfusion during surgery to repair a mitral valve in her heart.
Long dominated by Jehovah’s Witnesses — whose faith forbids blood transfusions — bloodless surgeries and blood conservation programs are now attracting mainstream patients worried about what some experts say are clear risks, including more infections, longer recuperation, increased illness and even death.
"The best blood is in your own veins,” said Dr. Lori Heller, medical director of the blood management program at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, where Reisner had her surgery — without any transfusion. “We want to think before we transfuse.”
Decades of experience with Jehovah’s Witness patients, including 1.5 million members in the United States, has helped propel the new emphasis on blood management, said Sherri Ozawa, clinical director of the Institute for Patient Blood Management at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in New Jersey.
“In the early days, it was, ‘We have Witness patients, what in the world do we do with them?’” she recalled. “Now we believe it should be the standard of care.”
More doctors, from cardiac surgeons to orthopedists, are offering patients ways to conserve their own blood and avoid transfusions. From drugs that boost blood levels before surgery to cell salvage and blood diversion techniques during operations and lower thresholds for giving blood at all, the techniques are a sea change in the attitude that more blood is always better.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Animal Products


Following on from the Bleeding Calf Syndrome posting available HERE and other postings available Here regarding risks of animal sourced products.
I have provided further info above provided by DEFRA. To the best of my knowledge only the UK and Scotland are acting to investigate?

I expect manufacturers will focus efforts on recombinant, plant-based technologies.
While our industry battles achieving financial success in the market with the ideal of creating an agent that is:

  • of minimized risk
  • efficaious
  • cost effective,
  • easily deliverable
  • and applicable to multiple surgeries
The removal of King Pharmaceuticals crown as leader in the multi- $million Thrombin market by Zymogenetics is
a sure indicator as to market preference and acceptance of these benefits. J&J have a human sourced Thrombin following theirpurchase of Omrix.
Certainly reconstituted animal based technologies are facing severe threats currently as the link between zoonotic diseases (animal/human transfer) become more widely known. While BNP (Bleeding Calf Syndrome) transmission is far from clear it should be of concern. The lack of reporting and individual Government action highlight the inadequacies of public protection even with a cursory investigation.
While Bleeding Calf Syndrome may not pose infection risks via medical devices it exemplifies the public vulnerabilities to weak protection measures from their Governments. This is weak response and is exactly the response delivered that saw vCJD, and Prion borne infections escalate. Harvesting Bovine Materials HERE