Kat Kelly is a senior program assistant at GHTC who supports GHTC's communications and member engagement activities.
Research Roundup: a promising Ebola treatment, access to drugs for NCDs, a new approach to treating a deadly bacterium, and the perception of breakthrough drugs
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is partnering with New York–based Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the development of an Ebola treatment.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is partnering with New York–based Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the development of an Ebola treatment. The treatment, developed by Regeneron, is comprised of three monoclonal antibodies that help the human immune system identify and bind to the Ebola virus, and thus prevent the virus from entering human cells and reproducing. Through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, HHS will contribute up to US$38 million over two years, which will support both the advanced development of the treatment, as well as manufacturing enough doses of the treatment to be used in clinical trials.
Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis announced a new program last week to expand access to 15 of its medicines by offering them to health care providers in low- and middle-income countries for just $1 per drug per month. The program will initially be launched in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Vietnam, but could be expanded to as many as 30 countries. The 15 medicines included in the Novartis Access portfolio treat chronic diseases including cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, diabetes, and breast cancer. Novartis will partner with governments and nongovernmental organizations to implement the program.
- Photo credit: CDC/ Melissa Dankel
Researchers at Stanford University may have discovered a way to combat Clostridium difficile (C. diff)—a deadly bacteria that affects the intestines—without using antibiotics. C. diff’s virulence relies on a specific toxin—Toxin B—it releases that is responsible for the diarrhea, abdominal pain, and damage to the intestinal wall associated with the bacteria. While broad-spectrum antibiotics combat C. diff and other bacteria by attacking all bacteria—including safe, healthy bacteria—this new approach uses a molecule called ebselen that targets and deactivates Toxin B. The team at Stanford gave mice multiple rounds of antibiotics followed by a multidrug-resistant strand of C. diff; in other words, they made the mice particularly susceptible to infection and then introduced a particularly virulent bacteria. However, the use of ebselen to treat the infection almost completely protected the mice from symptoms. Ebselen is currently being tested for use in humans to treat other conditions, and initial results suggest that it is safe and well-tolerated.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gives breakthrough designation to drugs that treat serious conditions and that have the potential to be significantly better than anything on the market. The FDA expedites the development and review of drugs deemed to be breakthroughs, but the designation is not a guarantee of safety, efficacy, or ultimate approval of the drug. However, a new study suggests that use of the word “breakthrough” could give patients “unwarranted confidence […] which could prevent them from making a fully informed decision about whether to take the drug or not,” according to the study’s coauthor Tamar Krishnamurti. The team recruited 600 online participants, each of whom were given one of five descriptions of a drug that has received breakthrough designation. The first description included just the facts, while the second and third described the drug as “promising” and “breakthrough,” respectively. The fourth and fifth clarified that continued approval of the drug depended on the results of additional clinical trials. In the subsequent survey, participants who read that the drug was “promising” or “breakthrough” were more than twice as likely to describe the drug as very or completely effective. While nearly a third of those who read the “breakthrough” description falsely considered the drug’s efficacy to be proven, compared to only 10 to 16 percent of participants who read the clarification regarding continued approval. All participants were then asked to read two descriptions of the same drug and identify which they would take. Ninety percent of respondents chose the description that used the word “breakthrough.”