Relief arriving in the Philippines, challenges for delivery persist

13 November 2013 | MANILA, Philippines - WHO and partners are getting people and supplies into the Philippines, but reaching those in need remains challenging.

Teams of WHO and other emergency responders have been positioned or are en route to the areas hardest hit by Typhoon Haiyan. Medicines and healthcare supplies have arrived in Cebu and are now waiting to be sent to areas in highest need.

WHO is supporting the Government of the Philippines in coordinating the deployment of international medical teams. To date, nine teams (from Australia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States of America) have confirmed that they are on their way or have arrived in the country. Two are positioned in Tacloban. The teams are self-sufficient – bringing their own hospital tents, supplies to perform surgeries, essential medicines and water, food and fuel.

“We’re working with the government to get the right people, medicines and supplies into the areas that have been hit hardest by the typhoon,” says Dr Julie Hall, WHO’s Representative in the Philippines. “But logistics still remain challenging, with airstrips, ports and roads badly damaged.”

Many people suffered cuts, wounds, and broken bones during the typhoon and others will have sustained injuries in subsequent flooding. People with chronic diseases have been without access to medication. Other vulnerable people such as children and those with disabilities may require medical attention.

With an outpouring of support from the international community, WHO has developed guidance for partners on donations of medicine and healthcare equipment, so that the Philippines receives the appropriate supplies for their emergency response.

For more information or interview requests, please contact:

Nyka Alexander (Manila)
Communications Officer
Telephone: +63 906 493 5097
E-mail: alexandern@wpro.who.int

Christy Feig
Director of Communications
Telephone: +41 79 251 7055
E-mail: feigc@who.int

Gregory Hartl
Coordinator, News and Social Media
Telephone: +41 79 203 6715
E-mail: hartlg@who.int

View the original article here

Tackling large challenge for new modes of drug delivery

Nov. 12, 2013 — Research being carried out by academics at the University of Lincoln, UK, could result in new more effective drug treatments for prostate cancer, Multiple Sclerosis and cystic fibrosis.

Currently only 15 per cent of protein targets in human cancer cells can be 'targeted therapeutically', rendering the remaining 85 per cent of proteins out of reach of traditional small drug treatments. Academics are finding new pathways to deliver medicinal 'biologics' to these diseased cells.

Dr Ishwar Singh, from the School of Pharmacy, University of Lincoln, UK, is looking to develop a platform technology for tumor-specific delivery of biologics -- large molecule drugs based on nucleic acids, proteins and peptides with a potent and highly therapeutic effect.

He said: "Large molecule drugs are just that -- too big to pass through to the diseased cells. The challenge is to find a way to deliver these large molecules to the cells. Cell penetrating peptides (CPPs) are known to facilitate the delivery of therapeutic biologics into target cells. Unfortunately current CPPs are highly toxic, which has prevented their widespread use. The aim of our project is to develop a non-toxic drug delivery method which enables CPPs to selectively pass through cell membranes of cancer cells, delivering the drug to the target site without causing toxicity.

"In the long-term we will be able to use this approach to treat conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis, cystic fibrosis and even some forms of cancer that are currently resistant to available drugs. We are developing a platform technology which could then be applied to a range of conditions."

Biologics differ from small drug molecules not only in terms of size, but also in how they are made, how they behave, their mode of action in the body and their suitability for certain drug forms.

Small, chemically manufactured molecules are the classic active substances and still make up more than 90 per cent of drugs on the market today. However, therapeutics based on large molecules, such as antibodies, are becoming increasingly important.

Small molecules can be processed into easily ingestible tablets or capsules. When the tablet dissolves in the gastrointestinal tract, the dissolved active substance is absorbed into the bloodstream via the intestinal wall. Small drugs can then reach the site of action in the body because of their tiny size. Their small structure and chemical composition also helps them to penetrate cell membranes.

Large molecule drugs, which are created by biological or synthetic processes, are made up of proteins, nucleic acids, sugars or a complex combination of these substances, or may be living entities such as cells. Delivery of these therapeutics to target sites is therefore a more complex process.

Dr Singh has been awarded a Royal Society Research Grant which will facilitate his research with colleague Dr Driton Vllasaliu for the next year.

View the original article here

A New Delivery for Cancer Drugs

May 7, 2013, 1:47PM

By Jennie Bragg

Posted in: cancer | nanotechnology

Scott McNeil, director of the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research

The protein tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) is a powerful weapon in the arsenal to control cancer. Unfortunately, as is the case with many potent cancer therapies, the use of TNF-alpha as an anti-cancer therapy has been severely limited. “It was so toxic that it caused death,” and researchers gave up on it, explains Scott McNeil, director of the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research.

That was back in the 1990s. Today, TNF-alpha is a prime example of how to safely and effectively deliver toxic substances to cancer cells through the use of nanotechnology.

McNeil’s lab, part of the federally funded research and development center operated by SAIC-Frederick for the National Cancer Institute, worked with a drug company to reformulate TNF-alpha by coupling it with gold nanoparticles. Using the nanotechnology-enhanced protein, it appears possible to safely inject up to three times the amount that had been lethal with previous versions. The modified drug has been through a Phase 1 clinical trial and is entering Phase 2.

In McNeil’s lab, and for other scientists using nanotechnology for drug delivery, stories like this one are increasingly common. Researchers are looking to accelerate the development of potential nanotechnology drugs for cancer by exploring ways to reduce side effects and make treatments hit their targets more effectively. This can mean using nanotechnology to reformulate drugs that may have failed in previous clinical trials. In some cases, by attaching a nanoparticle to an existing drug, researchers may not only be able to lower its toxicity, but they may also see significant life expectancy gains for patients.

Many cancer drugs are approved based on how long they delay the progression of disease. Some drugs on the market “only improve life expectancy by maybe five weeks,” says McNeil. He sees nanomedicine as a potential game-changer for cancer drugs in the future.

McNeil, both a chemist and biologist, has spent the majority of his career working in nanotechnology, but when he was asked to apply his expertise to find better drugs for cancer, he was skeptical. “My professional career was mostly military,” says the former Army officer. “I was using nanotech for military applications at SAIC, using quantum dots to see if you scatter things, where they land. I got a call out of the blue in December of 2003 and the message was, ‘We want to use nanotech for cancer applications.’ I thought, ‘What are they thinking? You are going to put a cadmium quantum dot in a human? There is no way!’ I discounted it at first and I actually ignored the emails, hoping it would go away.”

But it did not go away.? In fact, much has changed in the last 10 years. Now, nanopharmaceuticals are beginning to demonstrate their capacity to place the drugs directly in the tumor, where they will do the most good, rather than let them roam freely in the body. A drug is attached to a nanoparticle, which is often a tiny little sphere. To put it in perspective, a nanometer is one billionth of a meter; the width of a single strand of hair is about 10,000 nanometers. The nanoparticle is small enough to flow through blood vessels and into a tumor, where the particle dissociates, and the drug is released. In the end, the goal of nanomedicine is that the only part of the body affected by the drug is the tumor, the area of need.

McNeil’s Nanotechnology Characterization Lab was founded in 2004 in collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There is one thing the lab does not do: develop nanotechnology drugs. Instead, researchers there—ranging in expertise from cancer biology and toxicology to chemistry, immunology, and physics—help investigators from around the world create the best drugs possible. “We help investigators get from proof of concept, where they are generating a few tens of milligrams of material and get into clinical trials, where they are going to need kilograms of materials,” say McNeil. “That translational research, as we call it, is absolutely germane to getting into clinical trials.”

The majority of scientists who apply for assistance from the NCL are seeking FDA approval for their nanotech drugs but they don’t have the resources to optimize their formula. The NCL can help. “We help them understand what is involved with their particle because they don’t have the tools that we have to be able to characterize,” says McNeil. “They may have a nice picture or cartoon of it but until they see our electron micrographs, they don’t know what it looks like.”

The Nanotechnology Characterization Lab serves two purposes. After a molecule has been through the NCL’s assay cascade which consists of a set of tests that evaluate the preclinical toxicology, pharmacology, and efficacy of nanoparticles, the NCL is able to offer an evaluation. “The investigator is going to need $40 million dollars to get into Phase 2 trials. Investigators need to justify the investment. We help them generate data they need to further their work and then we serve as a third-party evaluation.” That is crucial, McNeil says, for an investigator seeking funding. “A venture capital company can come to us and say, ‘Well, what do you really think of this? Let’s see your data, and explain it and defend it.’ We, obviously, cannot endorse it but we can discuss the data in the context of what they are trying to do. That really holds a lot of weight.”

Consider the example of Abraxane (paclitaxel), which was approved for use by the FDA in 2005. Abraxane, a variably toxic but widely prescribed cancer drug, has been enhanced by attaching it to a nanoparticle, thereby creating a new, targeted treatment. “Because of the size and the binding to a different receptor, that drug now has decreased toxicity compared to the former drug. For the nanoparticle-Abraxane conjugate toxicity is very marginal, at least for immunotoxicity and hypersensitivity,” says McNeil.

Since 2005, the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab has characterized nearly 300 different particles. Six of them are in clinical trials. “Depending upon what community you are from, either that is a terrific ratio or that is a poor ratio,” explains McNeil. “We view it as a super terrific ratio. A pharmaceutical company can make hundreds of thousands of different drugs and only about one out of 100,000 gets into clinical trials.”

Nanotechnology’s place in the cancer treatment arsenal also appears secure. A new report from Infiniti Research Limited, a marketing research firm specializing in pharmaceuticals and health care, forecasts that the nanotechnology drug delivery market is on track to double within the next five years.

For more information about NCL, visit: http://ncl.cancer.gov/.

?Print This Post

View the original article here

A New Delivery for Cancer Drugs

May 7, 2013, 1:47PM

By Jennie Bragg

Posted in: cancer | nanotechnology

Scott McNeil, director of the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research

The protein tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) is a powerful weapon in the arsenal to control cancer. Unfortunately, as is the case with many potent cancer therapies, the use of TNF-alpha as an anti-cancer therapy has been severely limited. “It was so toxic that it caused death,” and researchers gave up on it, explains Scott McNeil, director of the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab at the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research.

That was back in the 1990s. Today, TNF-alpha is a prime example of how to safely and effectively deliver toxic substances to cancer cells through the use of nanotechnology.

McNeil’s lab, part of the federally funded research and development center operated by SAIC-Frederick for the National Cancer Institute, worked with a drug company to reformulate TNF-alpha by coupling it with gold nanoparticles. Using the nanotechnology-enhanced protein, it appears possible to safely inject up to three times the amount that had been lethal with previous versions. The modified drug has been through a Phase 1 clinical trial and is entering Phase 2.

In McNeil’s lab, and for other scientists using nanotechnology for drug delivery, stories like this one are increasingly common. Researchers are looking to accelerate the development of potential nanotechnology drugs for cancer by exploring ways to reduce side effects and make treatments hit their targets more effectively. This can mean using nanotechnology to reformulate drugs that may have failed in previous clinical trials. In some cases, by attaching a nanoparticle to an existing drug, researchers may not only be able to lower its toxicity, but they may also see significant life expectancy gains for patients.

Many cancer drugs are approved based on how long they delay the progression of disease. Some drugs on the market “only improve life expectancy by maybe five weeks,” says McNeil. He sees nanomedicine as a potential game-changer for cancer drugs in the future.

McNeil, both a chemist and biologist, has spent the majority of his career working in nanotechnology, but when he was asked to apply his expertise to find better drugs for cancer, he was skeptical. “My professional career was mostly military,” says the former Army officer. “I was using nanotech for military applications at SAIC, using quantum dots to see if you scatter things, where they land. I got a call out of the blue in December of 2003 and the message was, ‘We want to use nanotech for cancer applications.’ I thought, ‘What are they thinking? You are going to put a cadmium quantum dot in a human? There is no way!’ I discounted it at first and I actually ignored the emails, hoping it would go away.”

But it did not go away.? In fact, much has changed in the last 10 years. Now, nanopharmaceuticals are beginning to demonstrate their capacity to place the drugs directly in the tumor, where they will do the most good, rather than let them roam freely in the body. A drug is attached to a nanoparticle, which is often a tiny little sphere. To put it in perspective, a nanometer is one billionth of a meter; the width of a single strand of hair is about 10,000 nanometers. The nanoparticle is small enough to flow through blood vessels and into a tumor, where the particle dissociates, and the drug is released. In the end, the goal of nanomedicine is that the only part of the body affected by the drug is the tumor, the area of need.

McNeil’s Nanotechnology Characterization Lab was founded in 2004 in collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There is one thing the lab does not do: develop nanotechnology drugs. Instead, researchers there—ranging in expertise from cancer biology and toxicology to chemistry, immunology, and physics—help investigators from around the world create the best drugs possible. “We help investigators get from proof of concept, where they are generating a few tens of milligrams of material and get into clinical trials, where they are going to need kilograms of materials,” say McNeil. “That translational research, as we call it, is absolutely germane to getting into clinical trials.”

The majority of scientists who apply for assistance from the NCL are seeking FDA approval for their nanotech drugs but they don’t have the resources to optimize their formula. The NCL can help. “We help them understand what is involved with their particle because they don’t have the tools that we have to be able to characterize,” says McNeil. “They may have a nice picture or cartoon of it but until they see our electron micrographs, they don’t know what it looks like.”

The Nanotechnology Characterization Lab serves two purposes. After a molecule has been through the NCL’s assay cascade which consists of a set of tests that evaluate the preclinical toxicology, pharmacology, and efficacy of nanoparticles, the NCL is able to offer an evaluation. “The investigator is going to need $40 million dollars to get into Phase 2 trials. Investigators need to justify the investment. We help them generate data they need to further their work and then we serve as a third-party evaluation.” That is crucial, McNeil says, for an investigator seeking funding. “A venture capital company can come to us and say, ‘Well, what do you really think of this? Let’s see your data, and explain it and defend it.’ We, obviously, cannot endorse it but we can discuss the data in the context of what they are trying to do. That really holds a lot of weight.”

Consider the example of Abraxane (paclitaxel), which was approved for use by the FDA in 2005. Abraxane, a variably toxic but widely prescribed cancer drug, has been enhanced by attaching it to a nanoparticle, thereby creating a new, targeted treatment. “Because of the size and the binding to a different receptor, that drug now has decreased toxicity compared to the former drug. For the nanoparticle-Abraxane conjugate toxicity is very marginal, at least for immunotoxicity and hypersensitivity,” says McNeil.

Since 2005, the Nanotechnology Characterization Lab has characterized nearly 300 different particles. Six of them are in clinical trials. “Depending upon what community you are from, either that is a terrific ratio or that is a poor ratio,” explains McNeil. “We view it as a super terrific ratio. A pharmaceutical company can make hundreds of thousands of different drugs and only about one out of 100,000 gets into clinical trials.”

Nanotechnology’s place in the cancer treatment arsenal also appears secure. A new report from Infiniti Research Limited, a marketing research firm specializing in pharmaceuticals and health care, forecasts that the nanotechnology drug delivery market is on track to double within the next five years.

For more information about NCL, visit: http://ncl.cancer.gov/.

?Print This Post

View the original article here