Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cocaine Vaccine In the Works

Posted by kdawson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:15 PM
from the runnin-round-my-brain dept.
martyros writes "Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine are performing clinical trials of a vaccine that teaches the immune system to attack cocaine, preventing it from giving a high. The vaccine is made by attaching inactivated cocaine molecules to the outside of inactivated cholera proteins. When the immune system attacks the cholera proteins, it also 'learns' the cocaine molecules as well. The result is that the immune system 'recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain, where it normally would generate the highs that are so addictive.'" An earlier story from The Star notes that human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Anti-Smoking Vaccine Is Nearing the Market 172 comments
eldavojohn writes "Almost 6 years ago we discussed a vaccine to help people quit smoking as it entered human clinical trials. Now it looks like the finishing touches have been put on a deal that will go into effect once phase III testing of the drug now called NicVAX is completed. NicVAX was developed by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, who have agreed to license it to GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals; it is expected to complete phase III testing successfully. Others have fallen short of this goal, in pursuit of a smoking-cessation market expected to hit $4.6 billion worldwide by 2016. Nabi has also sold an experimental vaccine for staph infections; and in 2008 we discussed news of a cocaine vaccine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Analogs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:17PM (#21896590) Homepage Journal
    I hope this wundervacine will not attach to some of the body's natural painkillers.
    • Re:Analogs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pilgrim23 (716938) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:28PM (#21896842)
      Is it cocaine specific or does it effect response to a whole class of alkaloids? I would truely hate to be in the dentist chair with drill ready only to find, rather quickly, how well this vacine potentially could work.
      • Re:Analogs (Score:5, Informative)

        by Masaq (732641) on Thursday January 03 2008, @01:04PM (#21897542)
        Happily (and thankfully) we don't use a lot of pharmacologically similar compounds in medicine (or dentistry) these days. Even the medical/dental use of cocaine is rather rare these days as safer medications, or combinations of medications, can be used for similar effects. Despite their similar names, most of the "local anesthetics" that one would use in the dentist's chair (lidocaine, benzocaine, etc) have quite different chemical structure than cocaine. Cocaine has effect on both sodium channels (blocking depolarization and nerve conduction thus providing local anesthesia) as well as dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake (more responsible for its CNS effects). Lidocaine and related compounds only block fast sodium channels. Thus, it's unlikely that this vaccine is going to cause serious dental pain problems.
            • Or D (Score:5, Insightful)

              by oncehour (744756) on Thursday January 03 2008, @01:58PM (#21898562)
              It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors.
              • Re:Or D (Score:5, Funny)

                by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday January 03 2008, @02:09PM (#21898760) Homepage Journal
                "It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors."

                Speaking of..man, this vaccine will really screw up the RIAA, the MIAA...and the rest of hollywood!!

                I mean, if you are injected with this...then snorting lines off a hooker's ass, will mean you essentially are paying WAY too much.............

                to smell a hookers ass.

            • Re:Analogs (Score:5, Insightful)

              by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday January 03 2008, @02:05PM (#21898682) Homepage Journal
              "I agree with your ``It`s my body and I fuck it up if I want to'' slogan, only from the point of view of the government, the reason they ban certain substances is that abuse of it leads to either a) illegal behavior because of the cost to keep you in ``business'', b) generates a significant increase in medical care due to after (side) effects of the abuse, c) a+b"

              The thing is...if you de-criminalized drugs, you'd pretty much cut out "a", in that prices would drop as would profits currently being gained by criminal organizations. Remember prohibition on alcohol in the US? It prompted the rise of the gangs/mafia. Once it was over, well, I certainly don't see many people doing gangland violence over booze these days. Alcohol is just a drug like the others currently banned. It is a toxin that affects the brain.

              If we cut out the crime aspect of drugs, we'd save a TON of money in tax dollars each year supporting DEA, and the overcrowded prison system. We could concentrate a small portion of that money to help programs for addicts. Heck, like liquor...why not tax legal pot sales?

              Also, don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that any and ALL drugs were perfectly legal in the US. It was not the horrible effects of them that caused them to be banned either....most of them were banned in order to be able to use that to target ethnic groups in the US. Chinese - opiates, Blacks - Cocaine, Mexicans - Pot.

              Frankly, I'm still wondering where in the Constitution it gives the Feds. the right to say what drugs are illegal. At least when they tried to do it for alcohol, they did a constitutional amendment. No such thing has been done for "scheduling" of current chemicals (thanks Nixon).

      • Re:Analogs (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:53PM (#21897346)
        I'm not sure the local anesthetic effects of cocaine or procaine (which is actually more potent in that respect, but has more potential for allergic reactions in sensitive areas which is why cocaine is sometimes used) would be significantly countered by the vaccine. Local anesthetics act directly on the nerves, very quickly on application at the site. It takes significant time for an immune system response.

        But IANAD :-)
  • by unchiujar (1030510) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:17PM (#21896598)
    Would you vaccinate your child ?
    • by Daimanta (1140543) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:21PM (#21896670) Journal
      Ofcourse I won't. I wouldn't deny them the wonderful experience of highly addicting and dangerous drugs.
      • by somersault (912633) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:57PM (#21897414) Homepage Journal
        I agree that this sounds like a great thing, though I hope they don't follow this line of reasoning too far. It shouldn't be something for the parents to decide, otherwise you may get parents that decide they don't want their children to experience any kind of rush when doing dangerous sports, or decide that they block some naturally occurring highs because they don't want little eating lots of sweets, or getting knocked up. That's when the world starts to get creepy!
    • by jackharrer (972403) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:22PM (#21896692)
      No, but happily my CEO.
    • by kieran (20691) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:23PM (#21896708)
      Would you vaccinate your child ?

      Or your employees? Or your signed artists?
    • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:28PM (#21896822)
      I would if I caught her doing cocaine.
    • by Total_Wimp (564548) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:31PM (#21896882)

      Would you vaccinate your child ?

      I doubt it would matter much. There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

      It's a real comfort to know that meth, oxy and alcohol abuse will still be available to our children after we save them from the scourge of cocaine.
      • by ArcherB (796902) * on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:49PM (#21897260) Journal
        There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

        Really? Link please. According to the second TFA [thestar.com] listed, that has not been the case:

        One of the concerns with a cocaine vaccine is that once inoculated against a cocaine high, determined users will seek other drugs. But Haney's subjects did not do that.

        "On the outside, they were using less cocaine. They just stopped. None of them switched to another drug of abuse."
          • by Smidge204 (605297) on Thursday January 03 2008, @01:25PM (#21897986)
            A bit more from the article:

            At Columbia, in 2003, Haney tested a cocaine vaccine on 10 people who had no plans to quit using the drug.

            After a course of four vaccines injected over a 12-week period, half of the people produced sufficient levels of cocaine antibodies and reported a substantial decrease, up to a 70 per cent drop, in their dependence.

            One of the concerns with a cocaine vaccine is that once inoculated against a cocaine high, determined users will seek other drugs. But Haney's subjects did not do that.

            "On the outside, they were using less cocaine. They just stopped. None of them switched to another drug of abuse."

            Emphasis mine.
            =Smidge=
  • Great idea! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Funkcikle (630170) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:19PM (#21896646)
    Injecting yourself with "inactive" cocaine AND cholera! What could possibly go wrong?

    I'd like some anti-freeze to drink afterwards, please.

  • by crow (16139) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:21PM (#21896682) Homepage Journal
    How would this work as an alternative to drug testing? If the vaccines for various drugs were easily obtained (say, 10 years from now), then could potential employers, private schools, and such require the vaccines instead of requiring testing as they do now? Would this be better or worse?
  • by stevejsmith (614145) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:27PM (#21896808) Homepage
    Oh, great. Cocaine prohibition produced crack cocaine and meth, crackdowns on ingredients to make ecstacy produced PMA, heroin prohibition produces all sorts of gross things, etc., etc. Cocaine is actually one of the safer stimulants out there (compared to its main rivals, crack and meth, which emerged due to cocaine's astronomical price thanks to prohibition). This insane drug whack-a-mole game is producing even more deadly and impure drugs. While we could be ingesting small and known quantities of pure marijuana, MDMA, cocaine, opiates, shrooms, and LSD, we're instead ingesting unknown quantities of who-knows-what. Most drug deaths are caused by adulterants, not the pure drug itself.
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:34PM (#21896964) Homepage

    The anti-smoking vaccine, NicVax [corporate-ir.net], is in phase 2B clinical testing, and appears to work. Sort of: "High antibody responders (top 30%) continued to show statistically significant abstinence at nine months: 9-Month continuous abstinence rate: NicVAX=20% (12/61, p=0.0076) vs. Placebo=6% (6/100)" That's not impressive, yet it's better than most anti-smoking programs.

    Nicotine addiction is the toughest one to break. Programs for getting people off cocaine are about 40% successful. Programs for getting people off smoking are about 10-20% successful. Also, addicts tend to "age out" of cocaine and heroin addiction; after age 40, most of them eventually give it up. Not nicotine; people smoke their way to the grave.

    One problem with a vaccine approach is that encourage overdoses, to overcome the antibodies. For nicotine, this is less of a problem, because smoking has a limited intake rate. But for cocaine, it's a real issue.

    It's encouraging, though, that no side effects of this vaccine have been detected so far vs. the placebo.

    The real promise for this vaccine is as a preventative measure. The average age for a new smoker is 13. [state.il.us] Only 10% start after age 18. So if this works, a school inoculation program might be the way to prevent smoking.

    • by TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:45PM (#21897196)
      There's no need for this. Not when a whole *class* of new drugs are coming out around nicotine anyway.

      Chantix got me off of ten years of smoking in two months, experientially, not just for while i was on it, but apparently *reversed* the entire psychological and physical process from those years.

      Every other time i tried to quit i'd have to avoid bars and lounges so i didn't come in contact with ANY smoke at all. After chantix therapy, I don't have to avoid anything, *i just don't want to smoke*.

      I'll leave it to you (i'm already aware) of exactly why chantix has such a powerful effect. Given, i would never never never.. ...never never never take a "vaccine" that has a life long effect for anything other then a pathogen or bent protein. For a basic neurotransmitter mimic? youve GOT to be kidding me, scares the shit out of me. End of story
  • LD50 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HPNpilot (735362) on Thursday January 03 2008, @01:23PM (#21897954) Homepage
    If I understand this correctly, this will prevent cocaine users from getting high. But how does it affect the LD50 (dosage sufficient to kill 50% of the population)?

    A cocaine user decides to get high after being "immunized." He snorts a few lines. Huh. Nothing. So he snorts more and more... at some point I am willing to wager he will suffer cardiac arrest or some other life-threatening problem on his quest towards getting high. If the LD50 is not much changed, this may occur pretty easily.

    Also, cocaine has a very rapid onset. I am thinking it wouldn't take much to overwhelm the slower immune system response.

    This is an interesting experiment as it is always worthwhile to better understand the immune system, but I think this would be a Real Bad Idea to actually implement. Unless the objective is to kill all cocaine users.
  • wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) on Thursday January 03 2008, @02:02PM (#21898628)
    ..human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.

    Do they really think that a "vaccine" against nicotine is going to help people? If they're already addicted to nicotine for years and years, aren't they going to continue smoking and either make themselves really sick (as their immune systems attempt to fight off the nicotine) or just keep smoking away?

    • Re:Oblig Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:25PM (#21896758) Journal
      The orgasm releases neurotransmitters that are similar to cocaine. Perhaps those vaccinated against cocaine would never have orgasms, or reduced orgasms. In fact, dopamine is critical for a lot of enjoyment. Maybe this will spawn a 'deadheading' procedure. Piss off the wrong person or government and you will never enjoy anything ever again. You wouldn't even want revenge, there would be no joy in it.

      On the other hand, a sperm vaccine would be a nice alternative to having your tubes tied. Of course, there's the nightmare scenario where this treatment latches onto a live bit of cholera or whatever and spreads, neutering all humans.
      • Re:Oblig Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:43PM (#21897134) Homepage Journal
        From what I understand though, the immune system is locked out of the brain proper thanks to the blood brain barrier, so this drug shouldn't have any effect on naturally occurring opiates. My high school anatomy class never got into where the opiates are generated when someone has an orgasm (that would have made it far too interesting) but I'm guessing it's in the brain directly and not in the sex organs (where they would have to filter through the bloodstream before getting to the brain). Given how orgasms tend to be immediately gratifying, I'm guessing the production is local.