Showing posts with label treatment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treatment. Show all posts

Thursday, 28 November 2013

Science: The Future Of Antivirals In Medicine - Curing The Incurable?

The Future Of Antivirals In Medicine - Curing The Incurable?

(Please Note: Yes, I have touched on D.R.A.C.O. antiviral in a previous article but as D.R.A.C.O. remains my most popular post I decided to expand on this theme. This article covers a far wider array of anti-virals in greater depth)

Antibiotics have called a "magic bullet" in the fight against infectious diseases. This is because a single antibiotic may be capable of destroying a wide variety of bacterial infections, alleviating symptoms of illness complete in many cases. Antivirals have traditionally seen less success in combatting viral infections than their bacterial counterparts. Primarily this is a result of the specificity of typical anti-virals which means that most may only inhibit a single viral infection for as long as the treatment is prescribed. In addition, despite the media hysteria surrounding the potential threat of total antibiotic resistance, viruses mutate at a much faster rate than even bacteria, resulting in anti-virals losing their effectiveness in a very short period of time. In recent years, however, scientists have started to lay the foundations for the emergence of a new generation of broad-spectrum anti-virals capable of inhibiting (or even eradicating!) a variety of viral infections.

One of these broad-spectrum anti-virals currently under development by M.I.T. is D.R.A.C.O. (Double-Stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer), a bioengineered microscopic super protein that "can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection" [1]. Under laboratory conditions D.R.A.C.O. has already proven to be "non-toxic in 11 mammalian cell types and effective against 15 different viruses, including dengue flavivirus, Amapari and Tacaribe arena viruses, Guama bunyavirus, and H1N1 influenza" [2] [2] D.R.A.C.O. “selectively induces apoptosis in cells containing viral dsRNA, rapidly killing infected cells” [3], it is important to note that dsRNA is present in almost all virally infected cells but its absent in healthy cells making it a perfect marker. However, some scientists have noted that D.R.A.C.O. is still a long way off from being developed into an actual therapy, detailing how “several sets of trials in larger animals (and eventually humans) will have to meet with success between now and then” [4]. It is important to note that D.R.A.C.O. has only been trialled and successfully eradicated 15 viral infections in vitro and only 2 viral infections in mice and is thus still very much in its early stages towards becoming a viable therapy. Furthermore, D.R.A.C.O. is made up of large super-proteins and as a result oral delivery is unlikely and will likely have to be administered in injection form. This would mean that D.R.A.C.O. would only be used for serious viral infections, as opposed to more common infections such as the rhinovirus, which M.I.T. have mainly trialled D.R.A.C.O. against to date.
    
   Another potential broad-spectrum antiviral, which has demonstrated encouraging results in laboratory testing, is Squalamine. Squalamine is “a compound previously isolated from the tissues of the dogfish shark (Squalus acanthias) and the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), [which] exhibits broad-spectrum antiviral activity against human pathogens, which were studied in vitro as well as in vivo.” [5] The scientist’s began looking for molecules with antiviral properties in sharks, as they are remarkably resistant to viral infections despite having no rapidly responsive adaptive immune system. Squalamine works by displacing proteins associated with electrochemical interactions and the cell membrane without causing “obvious structural damage to the cell membrane as measured by changes in permeability” [6]. The displacement of these proteins associated with such chemical interactions and the cytoplasmic membrane is believed to have the potential to effect the “entry, protein synthesis, virion* assembly, virion budding or other steps in the viral replication cycle” [7]. Squalamine has proven to be 85% effective in combating MCMV, EEEV, HBV and HDV in vitro, it has been shown to completely eradicate Dengue fever in vitro and inhibit Yellow Fever by up to 95% in hamsters during in vivo tests. As a result of Squalamine’s effects in humans already having been studied in numerous pre-clinical trials for cancer it has a known safety profile for therapeutic use in humans. However, Squalamine's effectiveness in in vivo in inhibiting viruses is still under investigation as scientists “have not yet optimized Squalamine dosing in any of the animal models [investigated]” [8].  

One of the most anticipated of these new broad-spectrum antivirals is LJ001. LJ001 is an incredibly potent antiviral that works by preventing membrane fusion in viruses, essentially allowing LJ001 to inhibit all enveloped viruses provided it is administered prior or during the viral infection. Despite LJ001 also affecting healthy mammalian cells, researchers detail,  it is only the viral membrane whose function appears to be impaired” [9]. The scientists studying LJ001 hypothesize “that this is due to the fact that host membranes are continually remodeled and can repair themselves by metabolizing or extracting membrane-active agents” [10]. LJ001 has proven effective against a range of viral infections including “Influenza A, filoviruses, poxviruses, arenaviruses, bunyaviruses, paramyxoviruses, flaviviruses, and HIV-1” [11]. However, unlike other broad-spectrum antivirals pretreatment with LJ001 reduces mortality rates from some of the worlds most serious diseases, including “prevent[ing] virus-induced mortality from Ebola and Rift Valley fever viruses” [12]. However, the lack of specificity in the function of LJ001 it also has its drawbacks, in order to be effective in vivo it would have to be in concentrations too high to be feasible in its current form. 
     Scientists have made significant advances in the treatment of viral illnesses, discovering (or in some cases even engineering) antivirals effective against a whole spectrum of different viral infections. However, it is important to know that despite this, such developments are still in their infancy. Indeed many of the most promising broad-spectrum antivirals have only just begin in vivo testing and will be unlikely to emerge as potential therapeutic treatments which will be widely available for our own use. Indeed, the lack of specificity among such treatments, which makes them such enticing treatments when compared to specific antivirals, may actually be their downfall. As highlighted by researchers studying LJ001, such a lack of specificity may mean that required concentrations of antivirals for them to be effective would be unfeasible in vivo, a potential obstacle as such antivirals progress towards human trials.  
  
*Virion: An entire virus particle consisting of an outer protein shell called a capsid and an inner core of nucleic acid 

[1] Anne Trafton, “New Drug could cure nearly any viral infection”, M.IT. Press Release: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html. 

 [2] [3] Todd H. Rider,* Christina E. ZookTara L. BoettcherScott T. WickJennifer S. Pancoast, and Benjamin D. Zusman, “Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Therapeutics”, PNAS(2011). 

[4] Peter Livermore, “Novel method for apoptosis induction may lead
to development of broad-spectrum antiviral agents”, Future Microbiology. 
[5] [6] [7] [8] Michael Zasloff,a,1 A. Paige Adams,b Bernard Beckerman,c Ann Campbell,d Ziying Han,e Erik Luijten,c,f Isaura Meza,g Justin Julander,h Abhijit Mishra,i Wei Qu,c John M. Taylor,e Scott C. Weaver,b and Gerard C. L. WongI, “Squalamine as a broad-spectrum systemic antiviral agent with therapeutic potential”, PNAS (2011) 

[9][10] Jason A. Wojcechowskyj* and Robert W. DomsA Potent, Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Agent that Targets Viral Membranes”, PNAS (2010) 

Thursday, 1 August 2013

Politics: The Liverpool Care Pathway and End of Life Care in the NHS


The Liverpool Care Pathway and End of Life Care in the NHS


The way in which the NHS and Hospice’s look after terminally ill patients has faced much criticism in recent months. In particular the Liverpool Care Pathway has been the main victim of the majority of this criticism being branded as “a license to kill” by the Daily Mirror and the tabloid press.
So what exactly is the Liverpool Care Pathway?
    The Liverpool Care Pathway is a framework for end of life care in the NHS. To be placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway the medical team of the dying patient, including a senior doctor, must recognise signs that a patient is close to death. If a decision is made to place the patient on the LCP, all medical treatments, which do not alleviate their suffering and are deemed no longer of benefit to the patient are withdrawn. This frequently involves the removal of I.V. drips, although patients are still encouraged to ingest food and water orally whilst on the pathway as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention. 

     The pathway aims to provide a form of hospice care inside a hospital environment to prevent unnecessary suffering in the patient’s final hours. It is estimated that around 130,000 patients who die in hospital per year are on the Liverpool Care Pathway, therefore making up around 29% of the total number of deaths inside hospitals each year. The medical profession’s view of the Liverpool Care Pathway is that it is an extension of one of the NHS’s key principles granting patients autonomy over their own care. However, recent failings in the use of the Care Pathway, most notably doctors failures to secure the necessary consent from patients needed to be placed on the Care Pathway warrants debate as to the appropriateness and the effectiveness of the supposed best practice and its use in the NHS.
     
Controversy

        The first major criticism of the LCP is that doctors have no objective, or 'tick box' way of determining death in a patient. As a result it seems counterintuitive to withhold a patients medication when they may have months or even years of life left ahead of them. However it is important to realise that sufferers of certain medical conditions experience similar trends in the decline of their function. Contrary to popular opinion death from cancer is relatively easy to predict due to the very sudden and rapid decline in a patients health. Similarly, the decline in a patients health from lung or cardiac failure, whilst occurring over up to 5 years also experience a fairly rapid decline with noticeable symptoms over just a few short months, although intermittent declines in health may result in some time in hospital. In contrast death from dementia or frailty is substantially more difficult to predict. For this reason patients are monitored prior to being placed onto the pathway and then monitored to an even greater extent afterwards in order to reduce the chance of an incorrect diagnosis. Patients should only be placed on the LCP when within one or two weeks of death.
       
      To be placed onto the Liverpool Care Pathway there is a moral obligation on the part of to doctors acquire the permission of the patient or of a competent family member. However, although doctors have a moral obligation to ask for permission, Marie Curie states that “the LCP is not a treatment but a framework for good practice, therefore, written consent is not requiredbut details that plans “SHOULD be discussed with the patient where possible and deemed appropriate and ALWAYS with the relative or carer”. However, it is estimated 65,000 patients a year are placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway without their consent being given. Such figures are shocking. However, many supporters of the LCP argue that it is not the failing of the concept behind the LCP in these matters but that of the hospital providing the care. In the words of the BMJ, in practice the LCP can only be as effective as the clinicians who provide it”



    Sadly, the knock-on effect of the tabloid press’ rhetoric attacking the LCP has lead to a marked drop in the number of patients consenting to being placed on the LCP and has created a PR scandal in the NHS. This is despite evidence increasingly demonstrating that the hospice care which the LCP aims to provide, is superior to more traditional methods of end of life care. In the recent VOICES survey (the only current national survey performed) 96% of individuals experienced pain when dying. However, over 60% of patients in hospices found such pain completely relieved as opposed to only 33% in hospitals. 

    As a result of  public backlash against the LCP and following a six month independent review, the government has decided to phase out the LCP over the next 6-12 months. The LCP is to be replaced by"individualised care plans and condition specific guidance" under recommendation of the review panel. This is because although the review panel and numerous nursing and medical professional bodies acknowledge that the LCP can be used to provide a model of best practice too many patients have received poor care as a result of failings in the implementation of the Care Pathway.

-Adam