Nanoparticle Completely Eradicates Hepatitis C Virus

Diggester writes "While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 people yearly in the U.S. since 2007 — and the numbers continue to increase as the carriers increase in age. While there is no vaccine, there is hope in nanoparticle technology. The breakthrough came from a group of researchers at the University of Florida, creating a 'nanozyme' that eliminates the Hep C 100% of the time; before now, the six-month treatment would only work about half the time. The particles are coated with two biological agents, the identifier and the destroyer; the identifier recognizes the virus and sends the destroyer off to eliminate the mRNA which allows Hep C to replicate." Reader Joiseybill adds a link to coverage in the IEEE Spectrum, and points out that the 100 percent success rate, while encouraging, is so far only in the lab.

Deadlier?

[Anonymous Coward]

"While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 ..."

The flu kills each year an average number of 25000-36000 people in the US, depending on the statistics.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm [cdc.gov]

Re:Deadlier?

[ketamine-bp]

the deal with these is that flu, pneumonia and perhaps urinary tract infection is almost always the presentation of the patient in the death episode. it's not fair comparing it to flu. Among those who died of flu, it is rather rare to find a person who enjoyed relatively good past health and is young.

Hepatitis C (and hepatitis B), on the other hand, leads to cirrhosis, hepatocellular cellular carcinoma and liver failure. It is exactly one of those diseases which will cause deterioration of the patient's health to such extent that a flu could kill.

It is rather unfair to compare Hep C to Flu in terms of mortality.

Re:A cure will never be FDA approved

[blackest_k]

That is a cynical idea, ok drug companies might prefer long term treatments to cures. But for insurance companies and nationalised health care systems cost is more important.

luckily the FDA can only rule on drugs for Americans in the USA. In Ireland I got prescribed a drug treatment here that was approved eventually by the FDA. I'm very happy for it being available to me sooner rather than later, and i am sure Americans are now seeing the benefits now they can have it too.

Success Rate

[kjshark]

The previous treatment with ribavirin and interferon for one year had a 50% success rate. The newer six month treatment with the addition of Incivek for three months has over 75% rate. Since Incivek has only been on the market for about a year, that success rate is not as precise as it will be.

Re:100% ?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would get that chemistry != nanotechnology.

Our world is filled with nanoscale molecules, including many that we designed and created, but the word "nanotechnology" was specifically coined to describe building things by the manipulation of individual atoms.

Re:It is wonderful, but it's only in mice

[gpmanrpi]

Gleevac (Imatinib) makes Ph+ CML a manageable livable Chronic Disease, instead of dying very rapidly. While it is expensive and "life-prolonging," it is very life-prolonging. And there are other TKIs that can now be taken if there is drug-resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_and_development_of_Bcr-Abl_tyrosine_kinase_inhibitors [wikipedia.org] Many of these drugs are in Phase II trials. The problem is that articles in Time about Imatinib or in TFA about a PNAS journal article, show the sensationalist nature of health and science reporting. But, you read slashdot so you already know that.

Re:Deadlier?

[durrr]

Hepatitis viral infections are also not self-limiting, hep C is pretty ugly too in that it limits transplant options(read; hep c = no transplants for you) which can be a pretty shitty situation for kidney transplant candidates that can get infected by dialysis catethers and whatnot and be excluded from the queue.

Hep B is pretty nasty too, hard to treat, survives well in the outside environment and about as virulent as a cat video on youtube.

Re:A cure will never be FDA approved

[Darkness404]

Which is why if you really want first class medical treatment you don't get it in the USA. Even routine things such as stitches at the hospital can easily run you $500 without insurance in the US at even a bottom-barrel hospital. Go to Mexico at a top-tier, first class hospital and you can get your hand stitched up for under $50 without insurance.

Not to mention that nearly every other country (even including those in Europe!) have more access to cutting edge treatments.

Unfortunately, most Americans won't think to really look abroad because they think that the US is the most advanced nation in the world and that they can really get the best care there.

Re:A cure will never be FDA approved

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here in Canada. We're taught from an early age that we have the best health care system in the world, and everyone here believes it.

I'll keep this short, but we had a baby here in Canada and then we had our second child in Mexico, both were Cesarean. The care we received in Mexico was 100 times better than what we got in Canada. No waiting, no crappy attitude from nurses and doctors.. We had complications here in Canada but not in Mexico, and I believe that's due to a better doctor doing a more careful job. Not to mention the hospital was like a 5 star hotel, with a private room, big screen tv, etc.

You pay for the service there, but it's a real eye opener to realize how crappy our health care system is back home in comparison. So much for 1st world vs 3rd world.