Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

ucsf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#21

Post by mcintyre1994 »

fabian2k wrote: post #15
Kwantuum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you seem well informed: does the research mention anything about use as an aerosol and why that might be considered before internal use?

They wrote that regular antibodies have to be given intravenuously. These nanobodies are smaller and more stable, so they argue that it is possible to use them as aerosol. The idea seems to be to use them as prevention, which would not be feasible if you have to inject them. I can't really judge whether that approach makes sense, my experience is in the basic research area, not with clinical stuff.

Is the hypothesis of an aerosol as prevention that you could spray eg. an indoor area and prevent infected people who come into that area being able to infect others in an airborne way?

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#22

Post by peeters »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #21
fabian2k wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wrote that regular antibodies have to be given intravenuously. These nanobodies are smaller and more stable, so they argue that it is possible to use them as aerosol. The idea seems to be to use them as prevention, which would not be feasible if you have to inject them. I can't really judge whether that approach makes sense, my experience is in the basic research area, not with clinical stuff.

Is the hypothesis of an aerosol as prevention that you could spray eg. an indoor area and prevent infected people who come into that area being able to infect others in an airborne way?

> In an aerosol formulation they tested, dubbed “AeroNabs” by the researchers, these molecules could be self-administered with a nasal spray or inhaler.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#23

Post by jmvoodoo »

prepend wrote: post #6

“Llama inspired design” is quite amazing for being a conscious design choice. It does look like a llama, but is that a good thing? Are llamas in the UX toolkit as an animal that is both semi-exotic yet familiar enough to elicit positive reactions. I encountered a bunch on Peru trails and they were pretty ornery (compared to yaks or sheep) and the 30 or so different Quechua locals I talked with said they were pretty b…

This almost seems like someone testing a gpt-3 bot on HN...

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#24

Post by Duller-Finite »

fabian2k wrote: post #9

It's really annoying that press releases tend to overhype research so much. As far as I understand from skimming the paper, they created a synthetic antibody against the Spike protein of SARS-CoV2 that binds very tightly. There is no clinical data in the paper, they measured how tightly the nanobody they designed binds to the Spike protein and they did some neutralization assays against SARS-CoV2. The advantages of t…

Normally I agree that press releases way oversell the research, but I don't think that was the case here. Their camelid nanobody approach seems to be a fairly novel idea with some nice benefits over traditional antibodies, and most of the linked article actually does a nice job of walking you through the figures in the preprint.

Sure there's not any clinical data, but they actively admit that and I'm sure that's something they're working on. Furthermore, there have been multiple Nature papers published on SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and antibody cocktails that use the same experiments (e.g. Vero cells) without testing in animal models or in humans. One step at a time!

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#25

Post by michieldotv »

As far as I know, there's only one nanobody-based drug on the market today, caplacizumab, and it isn't administered through aerosols, but rather subcutaneously.

I know Ablynx was working on an inhaled one as a treatment for RSV, but I don't think it made it to the market (yet). This noveldelivery method probably needs lots of scrutiny from regulators before it can enter the market.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#26

Post by jvm_ »

fabian2k wrote: post #9

It's really annoying that press releases tend to overhype research so much. As far as I understand from skimming the paper, they created a synthetic antibody against the Spike protein of SARS-CoV2 that binds very tightly. There is no clinical data in the paper, they measured how tightly the nanobody they designed binds to the Spike protein and they did some neutralization assays against SARS-CoV2. The advantages of t…

> While the lab results look promising, experts in the field advise caution because important work has not been done to test the compound in animals. “The critical thing is animal data. We’ve found things that are very potent in vitro that do nothing in vivo,” said Dimiter Stanchev Dimitrov, a professor of medicine who directs the Center for Antibody Therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh and has created antibody-based therapeutics for numerous viruses including SARS and MERS, two other coronaviruses. He said it can take months to collect the needed data in animals. “Once these are tested in animal models, then I can get excited.”

https://xkcd.com/1217/

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#27

Post by usrusr »

elil17 wrote: post #5
mc32 wrote: post #3

Looks interesting but so far only talks about using it as prophylactic via inhalation; however the virus is known to enter via mouth, eyes and anus as well (breaks in skin probably). Even so inhalation and touching to mouth are likely the most common vectors of infection, so seems promising.

It doesn’t have to be 100% effective for it to end the pandemic - it just has to be effective enough that it blocks most transmissions and gets the viruses reproduction rate under 1.

Even if it worked exactly as advertised, how could permanently chuffing the Llama oil vape be more practical than masks?

PS: again if it worked exactly as advertised, could it be a tool to stifle incubation after a know exposure?

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#28

Post by vikramkr »

Duller-Finite wrote: post #24
fabian2k wrote: post #9

It's really annoying that press releases tend to overhype research so much. As far as I understand from skimming the paper, they created a synthetic antibody against the Spike protein of SARS-CoV2 that binds very tightly. There is no clinical data in the paper, they measured how tightly the nanobody they designed binds to the Spike protein and they did some neutralization assays against SARS-CoV2. The advantages of t…

Normally I agree that press releases way oversell the research, but I don't think that was the case here. Their camelid nanobody approach seems to be a fairly novel idea with some nice benefits over traditional antibodies, and most of the linked article actually does a nice job of walking you through the figures in the preprint. Sure there's not any clinical data, but they actively admit that and I'm sure that's some…

Camelid nanobodies aren't that new, but this is still overselling stuff. I don't like reporting on preprint in general, and this article really doesn't explain the complexities of actually getting some early stage technology like this approved and developed. That's where you end up with the constant barrage of "oh look, another biomedical technology we'll never hear about again" comments, and the amount that this article tries to sell the tech in the headline and article really overstated the readiness of the tech and the near term impact it could have

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#29

Post by Duller-Finite »

vikramkr wrote: post #28
Duller-Finite wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I agree that press releases way oversell the research, but I don't think that was the case here. Their camelid nanobody approach seems to be a fairly novel idea with some nice benefits over traditional antibodies, and most of the linked article actually does a nice job of walking you through the figures in the preprint. Sure there's not any clinical data, but they actively admit that and I'm sure that's some…

Camelid nanobodies aren't that new, but this is still overselling stuff. I don't like reporting on preprint in general, and this article really doesn't explain the complexities of actually getting some early stage technology like this approved and developed. That's where you end up with the constant barrage of "oh look, another biomedical technology we'll never hear about again" comments, and the amount that this art…

The article reports on the in vitro results and says they're going to be doing further validation in vivo. As I mentioned before, the same has been true for basically every other antibody being developed (monoclonals and ones isolated from patients), which were also initially published in Nature/Science/etc with only in vitro and structural data.

There are multiple aspects that are novel here: their size, the trimer (rather than a cocktail), and their stability/delivery. All of these seem worthy of reporting. They say they're about to start clinical trials to see if they could be efficacious; they don't say that they will.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#30

Post by HumblyTossed »

prepend wrote: post #6

“Llama inspired design” is quite amazing for being a conscious design choice. It does look like a llama, but is that a good thing? Are llamas in the UX toolkit as an animal that is both semi-exotic yet familiar enough to elicit positive reactions. I encountered a bunch on Peru trails and they were pretty ornery (compared to yaks or sheep) and the 30 or so different Quechua locals I talked with said they were pretty b…

This has to be a bot, right?
Post reply on HN