Without Lucrative Market, Potential Ebola Vaccine Was Shelved for Years

[Rob L 3,811]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/without-lucrative-market-potential-ebola-vaccine-was-shelved-for-years/ar-BBaMFPM?ocid=U219DHP

GALVESTON, Tex. — Almost a decade ago, scientists from Canada and the United States reported that they had created a vaccine that was 100 percent effective in protecting monkeys against the Ebola virus. The results were published in a respected journal, and health officials called them exciting. The researchers said tests in people might start within two years, and a product could potentially be ready for licensing by 2010 or 2011.

It never happened. The vaccine sat on a shelf. Only now, with nearly 5,000 people dead from Ebola and an epidemic raging out of control in West Africa, is the vaccine undergoing the most basic safety tests in humans.

Its development stalled in part because Ebola was rare, and until now outbreaks had infected only a few hundred people at a time. But experts also acknowledge that the lack of follow-up on such a promising candidate reflects a broader failure to produce medicines and vaccines for diseases that afflict poor countries. Most drug companies have resisted spending the enormous sums needed to to develop products useful mostly to poor countries with little ability to pay for them.

Now, as the growing epidemic devastates West Africa and is seen as a potential threat to other regions as well, governments and aid groups have begun to open their wallets. A flurry of research to test drugs and vaccines is underway, with clinical trials starting for several candidates, including the vaccine produced nearly a decade ago. With no vaccines or proven drugs currently available, the stepped up efforts are a desperate measure to stop a disease that has defied traditional means of containing it.

“There’s never been a big market for Ebola vaccines,” said Thomas W. Geisbert, an Ebola expert here at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and one of the developers of the vaccine that worked so well in monkeys. “So big pharma, who are they going to sell it to?” Dr. Geisbert added: “It takes a crisis sometimes to get people talking. ‘Ok. We’ve got to do something here.' ”

Dr. James E. Crowe Jr., director of a vaccine research center at Vanderbilt University, said that academic researchers who develop a prototype drug or vaccine that works in animals often encountered a “biotech valley of death” in which no drug company would help them cross the finish line.

Up to that point, the research may have cost a few million dollars, but tests in humans and scaling up production can cost hundreds of millions, and bringing a new vaccine all the way to market typically costs $1 billion to $1.5 billion, Dr. Crowe said. “Who’s going to pay for that?” he asked.

“People invest in order to get money back,” Dr. Crowe added.

The Ebola vaccine on which Dr. Geisbert collaborated is made from another virus, V.S.V., for vesicular stomatitis virus, which causes a mouth disease in cattle but rarely infects people. It had already been used successfully in making other vaccines.

The researchers altered V.S.V. by removing one of its genes — rendering the virus harmless — and inserting a gene from Ebola. The transplanted gene forces V.S.V. to sprout Ebola proteins on its surface. The proteins cannot cause illness, but they provoke an immune response that in monkeys, considered a good surrogate for humans, fought off the disease.

The vaccine was actually produced, in Winnipeg by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The Canadian government patented it, and 800 to 1,000 vials of the vaccine were produced. In 2010, it licensed the vaccine, known as VSV-EBOV, to NewLink Genetics, in Ames, Iowa.

The Canadian government donated the existing vials to the World Health Organization, and safety tests of the vaccine in healthy volunteers have already begun.

[Curmudgeon 227]

You seem surprised? If you base all your decisions on a market model, this is inevitably the result. I don't see why this should be cause for surprise. What is good is a lot of ground work has been achieved and now that US citizens, who have disposable income to spend on preventative medicine (at least some of them anyway) are 'threatened' with exposure, however unlikely that threat of exposure actually is, someone wants to think about marketing it. Genius this isn't.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Let's see, 10 years ago, who was preznit then? Hmmmmmm, I'm think in' it was W. What does Uncle Gary have to say about this? Ebola is actually Bush's fault.

[Póg mo 1,749]

You seem surprised? If you base all your decisions on a market model, this is inevitably the result. I don't see why this should be cause for surprise. What is good is a lot of ground work has been achieved and now that US citizens, who have disposable income to spend on preventative medicine (at least some of them anyway) are 'threatened' with exposure, however unlikely that threat of exposure actually is, someone wants to think about marketing it. Genius this isn't.

Why waste time with vaccines when you can pump new versions of old drugs, so you can make top dollar?

[Karee 4,190]

Drug companies are too busy making B0ner pills. That's where the money is.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Karee

[Merle 458]

Let's see, 10 years ago, who was preznit then? Hmmmmmm, I'm think in' it was W. What does Uncle Gary have to say about this? Ebola is actually Bush's fault.

Maybe he was too busy spending billions of dollars on HIV/AIDS in Africa to worry about something that wasn't a crisis? Anything's possible.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Let's see, 10 years ago, who was preznit then? Hmmmmmm, I'm think in' it was W. What does Uncle Gary have to say about this? Ebola is actually Bush's fault.

Darn I knew it would be Bush's fault.

I wonder if it will be Bushs fault when Harry Reid loses control of the Senate and Obama just plays golf the next two years

Edited October 24, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Darn I knew it would be Bush's fault.

I wonder if it will be Bushs fault when Harry Reid loses control of the Senate and Obama just plays golf the next two years

But this vaccine shelving happened under Bush's watch, so it's his fault. Anything that happens during a President's tenure is directly attributed to him, even if it isn't. I got a speeding ticket, it's Obama's fault. I'm just following the typical VJ logic. Unless someone can trace it back earlier, then we could blame it on Clinton.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

But this vaccine shelving happened under Bush's watch, so it's his fault. Anything that happens during a President's tenure is directly attributed to him, even if it isn't. I got a speeding ticket, it's Obama's fault. I'm just following the typical VJ logic. Unless someone can trace it back earlier, then we could blame it on Clinton.

True except Obama. everything that happened on his watch is still Bush s fault

[GBCW 397]

If this bothers you, start your own pharma company and run it as a charity. Let's see how well you do. Let's see if you can even make payroll.

[Póg mo 1,749]

If this bothers you, start your own pharma company and run it as a charity. Let's see how well you do. Let's see if you can even make payroll.

Yeah right, let's completely ignore how rigged the system is.

[GBCW 397]

Yeah right, let's completely ignore how rigged the system is.

Business is rigged in favor of people who can pay. It is as it should be.

[Boiler 45,516]

Canadian Government holds the patent.

[Darnell 8,478]

But this vaccine shelving happened under Bush's watch, so it's his fault. Anything that happens during a President's tenure is directly attributed to him, even if it isn't. I got a speeding ticket, it's Obama's fault. I'm just following the typical VJ logic. Unless someone can trace it back earlier, then we could blame it on Clinton.

One of them Bush boys put a moratorium on DNA research for humans.

Since this is a cow-DNA-based medicine, I don't see the conflict, but - still, it's a money problem. [lack of] - need money to do human trials in USA. Other countries (like Cuba) would have done something differently, for 1/16 to 1/32 of the money needed in USA, and been successful.

[Rob L 3,811]

You seem surprised? If you base all your decisions on a market model, this is inevitably the result. I don't see why this should be cause for surprise. What is good is a lot of ground work has been achieved and now that US citizens, who have disposable income to spend on preventative medicine (at least some of them anyway) are 'threatened' with exposure, however unlikely that threat of exposure actually is, someone wants to think about marketing it. Genius this isn't.

No not surprised, just curious to see watch the reaction of the group. I am sure that if I posted a video of a little girl laughing while holding a puppy it would some how devolve into a discussion about guns, race, ineffective presidents, terrorism or the threat of foreign workers.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Rob L