US army spent close to $1m on untested snakebite drugs
Illustration: Aba Marful
The US Army spent nearly $1m last year on two drugs that appear to have undergone no independent testing for safety or effectiveness, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) can reveal.
The TBIJ has tested the civilian version of one of the drugs and found it to be alarmingly weak. Neither the army nor the government agency that recommended the military drug has tested it to verify the manufacturer's claims.
The drugs are not among those that have been assessed and recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and because they are not intended for use in the US, they have not been fully assessed by the Food and Drug Administration.
Both drugs are versions of a snakebite antivenom called Polyserp and cost the army a combined $880,000 last year. One covers Middle Eastern, North African and Central Asian regions, and the other covers sub-Saharan Africa — where a recent TBIJ investigation found a 'wild west' of antivenoms that are badly made, marketed and regulated.
The company promoting the sub-Saharan African version of Polyserp (called Polyserp-P) demonstrates the drug's credentials with studies relating to another drug, Inoserp Pan-Africa. Both drugs are from the same manufacturer.
But Inoserp is itself hugely problematic. The sub-Saharan African version of that drug featured in the TBIJ's recent investigation into useless antivenom, where testing revealed that, compared to its competitors, a vial of Inoserp contained a fraction of the active ingredient needed. Test results suggested that more than 70 vials would be needed to treat bites from certain snakes.
One Kenyan doctor with more than two decades' experience treating snakebite told the TBIJ he refuses to use Inoserp. The drug failed in a bid to get WHO approval in 2017.
A spokesperson from Inosan Biopharma, which produces both drugs, and Polyserp Therapeutics, which markets Polyserp, said the companies questioned the validity of the testing done by the TBIJ. (The testing methodology follows WHO guidelines for test tube assessment of snake antivenoms.)
The spokesperson said: 'Polyserp-P is an updated version of Inoserp with higher potency and expanded indication exclusively produced and approved for distribution to US military customers.'
Inosan Biopharma and Polyserp Therapeutics also said that 'both Inoserp and Polyserp have proven effectiveness in robust pre-clinical and clinical trials' and that a panel of independent experts reviewed the clinical, preclinical and safety data.
But neither company responded to the TBIJ's repeated requests to provide evidence to back up these claims.
The lack of clarity raises questions. If the two drugs are effectively the same, then the army is buying something shown to be poor quality. If Polyserp is a different and more potent product, why are ordinary people in sub-Saharan Africa not able to access it?
Unanswered questions
Antivenom experts have described the purchase as 'naive' and 'surprising'. The findings raise questions about the military's protocols for evaluating critical medicine before deploying it to troops.
Juan Calvete, of the Instituto de Biomedicina de Valencia, whose lab conducts antivenom tests for the WHO, was denied access to Polyserp-P when he tried to obtain samples in 2021. He was told by Polyserp Therapeutics that it was 'only available to US military customers'.
Instead, he was sent three studies that purported to show the 'safety and efficacy' of Polyserp but in fact related to the other drug, Inoserp.
David Williams, a leading snakebite expert at the WHO, said extrapolating data from one product to another 'is not consistent with the WHO guidance'.
He said some manufacturers might use broad claims about the effectiveness of its antivenom 'as a marketing tool' but that 'it is essential that any such claims be supported by data'.
Only three antivenoms for sub-Saharan Africa carry a WHO recommendation. Ten more are undergoing assessment, of which Inoserp is one. But Polyserp has never been assessed by the WHO.
David Lalloo, a clinical researcher at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said the regulation of antivenoms 'has just not been as tight as it should be' for patients around the world.
He said any new version of an antivenom should, by any normal standards, be tested in proper clinical studies. Speaking generally, he added: 'You cannot rely on previous studies, and particularly previous studies that relate to safety, to assure yourself of this being a safe and efficacious antivenom.'
Both Inosan Biopharma and Polyserp Therapeutics did not respond to the TBIJ's questions about why they had used clinical study data for one drug to promote the safety and effectiveness of another.
A US Army spokesperson told the TBIJ that the army 'does not conduct independent testing of medical products and does not have a third-party testing for snake antivenom'.
Different products?
Polyserp-P was recommended by the US Defence Health Agency's Joint Trauma System (JTS) in 2020. The JTS told the TBIJ: 'The recommendations were based off subject matter experts who evaluated peer-reviewed medical literature and the manufacturer's recommendations.'
The literature it references does not mention Polyserp but did test Inoserp. The companies did not provide the TBIJ with any evidence that Polyserp had been part of this research.
The JTS said it 'will always do our best with best evidence and [expert] input', and added that it will review the relevant guidelines and update them as necessary.
It remains unclear exactly how comparable Inoserp and Polyserp are. Certainly the prices that have been disclosed suggest two very different products. Calvete was initially quoted $6,300 for six vials of Polyserp-P in 2021, while a TBIJ reporter bought a single vial of Inoserp-P for $66 (£50) in Tanzania in 2024.
The US Army did not respond to TBIJ's requests for comment or to make samples available to test. In response to previous questions, it said it 'was not aware of any uses' of Inosan by army personnel.
This article was produced by
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
21 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Motsoaledi's big HIV treatment jump: Is it true?
How close is South Africa to meeting its HIV treatment goals? We look at the numbers. (NIAID/Wikimedia) Numbers are powerful. They can also be dangerous if not used correctly. When the The health department's goal is In his words, the department has reached 'more than 50% of the target' they set out to achieve by the end of the year. If that gap is closed, South Africa would have met two of the three But knowing exactly how much the gap is closing is tricky, because people who know they have HIV may start and stop and then restart treatment again later — sometimes several times — during the course of their care. So, many of the 520 700 previously diagnosed people Motsoaledi says are now on medication could, at least in theory, very well be people who are counted repeatedly as they cycle in and out of treatment. But because the patient information system isn't digitally centralised — most clinics still keep track of their clients on paper, which means different facilities can't easily access one another's records — someone who stops treatment at one clinic can easily be counted as a new start at another, rather than a restart. The set of UN targets aim for 95% of people in a country with HIV to know their diagnosis, 95% of those being on treatment and 95% of those taking medication having such low levels of virus in their bodies that they can't infect someone through sex. 'The reason that we [were] able to reach half a million within a short space of time, was because of weekly check-in meetings with provinces, where reports that come from the ground are verified in the presence of all provincial colleagues before they are regarded as final figures for reporting,' said the minister. But simply counting better isn't the same as doing better, and critics called the reported progress Why? Because for the past few years, the number of people with HIV who have gone on treatment has Moreover, that was while treatment programmes had funding and US-backed money for HIV projects was in place. So now, at a time of We dive into the data to get a sense of what the numbers really mean. Mind the gap In 2021, South Africa was about 1.2-million people short of its 95%-treatment goal; by 2025 the shortfall will likely be 990 000. That means that the gap — that is, the difference between where the country actually is and where it wants to be when it comes to HIV treatment — has closed by about 210 000. So there's been progress, but it's been slow: in total, only about 700 000 more people are on HIV medication today than five years ago. 'Getting that last one million or so people on treatment is not simple,' says Kate Rees, public health specialist at the Sometimes people miss an appointment to get a refill of their medicine because they can't afford to take time off work to go to the clinic or they might have moved to another province or district and so they don't go back to the facility where they first got their prescription, she explains. The longer the interruption lasts, the more hesitant people are to go back, says Rees, because they dread Says Rees: 'The health service expects people to be very rigid with their appointments, but life just is not like that.' Slow progress To get a sense of the progress towards meeting the UN's second target in its 95-95-95 cascade, it's best to look at the difference in the total number of people on HIV treatment from year to year, says Leigh Johnson, one of the lead developers of the Although the number of people on medication is increasing, the number grows less and less each year. For example, in 2020, about 291 000 more people were on treatment than in 2019. By 2021, though, the number had grown only by about 225 000. Current forecasts from the model are that the total number of people on treatment will grow by only about 160 000 this year. But that's based on programmes running like they have up to now — and with recent upsets because of US funding cuts, it may be an unreasonable assumption, Johnson says. Part of the reason for the small net gain every year, is that although many people sign up for medication in a year, many also stop coming back to get their scripts refilled. Of those who drop out of treatment, some might choose to restart within a couple of months again, while others may pause their treatment for more than a year. In 2023, for example, roughly 793 500 people who had been on treatment before weren't any longer, but about 728 000 who received medication were restarters, Thembisa numbers show. So even though some people who stop taking their medication might not restart — or restart quickly — the total number who are on treatment still grows; it's just slow-going. This means getting a handle on how close to — or far from — the 95%-treatment mark South Africa is, is more dynamic than simple addition. Stops, starts and restarts 'There will always be people who interrupt their treatment,' says Rees. 'It's not possible to keep everyone perfectly in the system all the time — that's life.' But what's important, she says, is to make those pauses as short as possible by helping people to get back on medication quickly and easily — without judgment. Gesine Meyer-Rath agrees. She's a health economist at Data in the Thembisa model shows that over the years, the number of people starting medication for the first time — in other words, those who have never been on treatment before — has shrunk, but at the same time counts of restarters have grown. Her group's analyses have shown that honing in on keeping people on HIV treatment is the best way to go — But to plan sensibly, she explains, policymakers should know how many people are first-time starters, how many pause treatment but then restart, and how many stop and don't come back at all. 'The more detail programme planners have in the data, the better,' she says. 'The [government's] This is exactly where things can become tricky in future if the holes left by the US funding cuts aren't plugged. Because of the US's aid withdrawal, about 40% of South Africa's HIV data capturers will likely have lost their jobs by September, Says Meyer-Rath: 'The less data we have, the more we're flying blind, which leaves space for bickering over the data that is still there.' This story was produced by the . Sign up for the .
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
Fake medicines: South Africa's silent epidemic
The sale of fake medicine goes beyond sugar pills; it includes antibiotics and cancer drugs. In the midst of South Africa's ongoing healthcare problems — rising drug prices, medicine shortages and a strained public health system — there is a quieter, more insidious crisis unfolding: the proliferation of counterfeit and substandard medicines. These fake drugs are not just a nuisance; they are a public health emergency. They kill, they disable and they erode trust in our healthcare system. Despite the growing threat, our national response remains dangerously inadequate. The World Health Organisation estimates that up to 10% of medical products in low- and middle-income countries are either substandard or falsified. In Africa, that figure might be even higher. These are not just harmless sugar pills. They are antibiotics with no active ingredients, cancer drugs diluted to ineffectiveness and painkillers laced with toxic substances. In South Africa, where millions rely on both public and private healthcare systems, the consequences of counterfeit medicines are devastating — especially for the most vulnerable. The problem is compounded by our country's heavy reliance on imported pharmaceuticals. Most active pharmaceutical ingredients come from India and China. While many of these imports are legitimate, the lack of robust border controls and regulatory oversight creates fertile ground for counterfeiters. Once these fake medicines enter the supply chain — whether through informal markets, unregulated online pharmacies or even poorly monitored wholesalers — they are nearly impossible to trace. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has made commendable progress in recent years, particularly in clearing the backlog of medicine registrations and improving regulatory transparency. But SAHPRA cannot fight this battle alone. The trafficking of counterfeit medicines is a multibillion-rand criminal enterprise, often linked to organised crime and transnational networks. It requires a coordinated, multi-agency response — one that includes customs, law enforcement, the department of health and international partners. Yet there is no dedicated anti-counterfeit medicine policy. There is no national task force. And there is no real-time tracking system to monitor the movement of pharmaceuticals from port to patient. In the absence of these safeguards, fake medicines slip through the cracks — into our hospitals, our pharmacies and our homes. The consequences are not theoretical. In 2022, SAHPRA issued multiple alerts about falsified antibiotics and antiretrovirals circulating in the country. In some cases, these drugs contained no active ingredients at all. In others, they were contaminated with harmful substances. Patients who rely on these medications — often for life-threatening conditions like HIV, tuberculosis or cancer — are left vulnerable to treatment failure, drug resistance and even death. Moreover, the economic impact is staggering. Counterfeit medicines undermine legitimate pharmaceutical companies, discourage investment in local manufacturing and place additional strain on an already overburdened healthcare system. They also contribute to the erosion of public trust. When patients cannot be sure that the medicine they receive is genuine, the entire healthcare system suffers. So what can be done? First, the government must tighten border controls and invest in forensic testing at ports of entry. Customs officials need the tools and training to detect counterfeit medicines before they enter the country. This includes portable testing devices, laboratory support and access to international databases of known counterfeit products. Second, South Africa must implement a national track-and-trace system for pharmaceuticals. Using barcodes, QR codes or blockchain technology, every medicine sold in the country should be traceable from manufacturer to end user. This would not only deter counterfeiters but also allow for rapid recalls in the event of contamination or fraud. Third, we need a public awareness campaign to educate consumers about the dangers of buying medicines from unregulated sources. Many South Africans, particularly in rural or underserved areas, turn to informal markets or online sellers out of desperation or convenience. They must be empowered with the knowledge to make safer choices — and given access to affordable, legitimate alternatives. Fourth, SAHPRA must be empowered with greater enforcement authority and resources. This includes the ability to conduct surprise inspections, seize counterfeit products and prosecute offenders. It also means expanding SAHPRA's capacity to monitor the post-market safety of medicines and collaborate with international regulatory bodies. Finally, we must address the root causes that make counterfeit medicines so appealing in the first place: high drug prices, medicine shortages and weak supply chains. Policies like the single exit price system have helped standardise medicine pricing, but they have also led to unintended consequences, such as product withdrawals and reduced availability of certain drugs. A more flexible, responsive pricing system is needed — one that balances affordability with sustainability and ensures a stable supply of essential medicines. We must also invest in local pharmaceutical manufacturing. South Africa has the scientific expertise, industrial capacity and regulatory framework to produce high-quality medicines domestically. What we lack is the political will and financial investment to scale up production and reduce our dependence on imports. By supporting local manufacturers, we can create jobs, strengthen our supply chains and reduce the risk of counterfeit infiltration. The fight against fake medicines is not just a regulatory issue, it is a moral imperative. Every South African has the right to safe, effective and affordable healthcare. That right is meaningless if the medicines we rely on are compromised by greed, negligence or criminal intent. We cannot afford to wait for a tragedy to spark action. The cost of inaction is measured not just in rand, but in lives lost to preventable harm. South Africa must take a stand against counterfeit medicines — before the silent epidemic becomes a national catastrophe. Fentse Maseko works for the pharmacy and pharmacology department at the University of Witwatersrand and is a PhD applicant.
The Herald
a day ago
- The Herald
Groundbreaking study finds new genes in black women causing breast cancer
All participants were from the Soweto region, with 2,485 population cases and 1,101 control cases. The South African BC cases and controls were well-matched and clustered, while the non-South African samples and West African populations were distinct from South African populations. The Genome-Wide Association study (Gwas), which is the first to focus on black women on the continent, was published in the journal Nature Communications . It brings to the fore the importance of deepening knowledge about the genetic basis of the disease. In the past, most breast cancer genetics research has focused on European and Asian populations, with studies of African ancestry limited primarily to African-American women, who largely descend from West African populations. A tool that estimates lifetime cancer risk based on DNA, the polygenic risk score (PRS), performed poorly in distinguishing South African women with breast cancer from those without. Dr Jean-Tristan Brandenburg, also in the SBIMB and a lead author, said this was a result of the mechanism not being tailored for the black population. 'This is because most PRSs were developed in European populations, and their inaccuracy in African populations highlights the urgent need for ancestry-specific tools in cancer risk prediction,' Brandenburg said. African populations have more genetic variation than any other population in the world, but they have been significantly underrepresented in genomic research. This means the global understanding of disease risk and the tools and treatment developed from it are limited. 'The study reveals that more people can benefit from genetic discoveries. It proves that new risk factors are still out there, waiting to be found,' says Hayat. TimesLIVE
