Mosquitoes beware – your next meal could be your last
A drug used to treat rare genetic disorders also makes human blood lethal to mosquitoes, research has shown, raising hopes for a new weapon against malaria.
Nitisinone is already used to slow the effects of tyrosinemia type 1, a hereditary condition that can cause severe liver disease and kidney failure, and other diseases.
But it also makes any mosquitoes that ingest it unable to digest the blood they feed on, killing them rapidly, research led by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) found.
The study, published in Science Translational Medicine this week, showed that the drug blocks an essential enzyme mosquitoes need to break down their food.
Tests showed a small amount of the drug was even able to kill mosquitoes that have developed the ability to resist conventional insecticides – an increasingly widespread problem that has slowed efforts to combat malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.
'What makes nitisinone so exciting is its novel mode of action against blood-feeding insects like mosquitoes,' said Dr Lee Haines, an Honorary Fellow at LSTM and one of the authors of the study.
'Unlike conventional insecticides that target the mosquito's nervous system, nitisinone targets an entirely different biological pathway in mosquitoes, which offers a new option for managing the growing problem of insecticide resistance.'
The study followed earlier research which first validated the theory that nitisinone could be used to kill insects that feed on blood. It proved highly effective at killing tsetse flies that spread sleeping sickness.
While the drug does not prevent a feeding mosquito from infecting someone with a virus, it could provide a new tool to combat the spread of disease by thinning out their populations, the researchers believe.
Several insecticides are already widely used in this way, such as ivermectin, a medicine usually used to treat parasitic infections in animals and people and which shortens the lifespan of any insect that ingests it.
But ivermectin, while abundant, is toxic in the environment and insects can also develop resistance to it when it is overused.
'Billions of doses have been given to people for the worming campaigns,' said Professor Álvaro Acosta Serrano, another of the study's co-authors. 'Ivermectin is obviously a very popular veterinary drug, so in farms it is polluting the soil and that has some ecological issues.'
As well as being much less harmful to other insects or animals in the ecosystem, nitisinone has the added advantage of lasting much longer in the body, he told The Telegraph.
'Nitisinone, because it has a much longer half life in blood – 54 hours compared to Ivermectin which is only 18 hours max – it has much better performance.'
As well as helping to suppress mosquito populations by killing those that unwittingly feed on humans carrying nitisinone, the drug could be used against mosquitoes in numerous other applications.
It could be used in the sugar-based bait traps currently being tested around the world which lure in mosquitoes and poison them, or it could be sprayed on to bed netting and buildings to get into mosquitoes that way.
The researchers are already planning to investigate whether the drug could be given to cows and other livestock animals to turn them into unwitting reservoirs of death for the insects that feed on them.
'This is a very versatile molecule,' Prof Acosta Serrano said.
Because it was originally developed to be a herbicide, it has many properties that make it ideal for use in these kinds of applications, including good resistance to UV light, he added.
Before all this though the researchers say more work is needed, including safety studies looking at different dosages. They are also yet to study how the drug interacts with antimalarials.
Another major challenge is cost.
While ivermectin has been produced cheaply by generic drug manufacturers for decades and has been donated in vast quantities to tackle diseases like river blindness, nitisinone – despite being off-patent – remains expensive.
'We need to convince a company to drop the prices because, for vector control use, interventions have to be really cost effective,' said Prof Acosta Serrano.
And while nitisinone promises to provide another tool with which to combat mosquito-borne disease, we are still waiting for scientific breakthroughs before we will be able to beat malaria.
'It's important to know that there is not a silver bullet to control any of the vector borne diseases, especially malaria,' he said. 'We still need to come out with better drugs. There is a huge problem with parasites that become drug resistant. We still don't have a completely efficacious vaccine available.'
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Ivermectin is now available without a prescription in some places. Good luck finding it.
Boise, Idaho, pharmacist Matt Murray has no choice but to disappoint the handful of people who call him every day asking for a drug used to treat parasitic worms. He could give them the medication, called ivermectin, but only with a doctor's note. The callers aren't in the throes of an active intestinal worm infestation, Murray said. They simply want access to the pills without having to see a doctor first. 'A lot of people are calling, asking, 'Do you guys have it for sale? Can I buy it? How do I get it?'' said Murray, the director of operations for the independent Customedica Pharmacy. 'Not so much, 'How does it work? What is it for?'' The volume of such calls has increased sharply since mid-April, when Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, signed a bill into law mandating that ivermectin be available to anyone who wants it over the counter. While the law technically says that pharmacists like Murray can sell the drug over the counter, the Food and Drug Administration hasn't approved it to be used this way. 'I don't feel that we could just sell prescription ivermectin,' Murray said. 'It's not designed or packaged for retail sale.' That hasn't stopped frenzied social media claims about ivermectin's supposed 'miraculous' abilities to cure everything from Covid to cancer. 'Ivermectin eliminated the cancer on the skin of my shoulder and it only took 3 weeks,' one person wrote on X. 'It's also working wonders on my eczema,' another wrote on the platform. Ivermectin has never been formulated or labeled specifically for over-the-counter use, like aspirin or an antacid. Without proper guidance, there is concern that people could overdose on the medication. Interest in using drugs or experimental treatments in unapproved ways has gained steam with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment as head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy recently said on a podcast that people should have access to controversial alternative therapies like stem cells and chelation therapy to remove heavy metals from the body. The FDA has warned that neither should be used without oversight from a doctor. The hype has prompted lawmakers in 16 states, including Idaho, to propose and in some cases pass legislation to make the pills readily available for anyone without a prescription. While health insurance covers many prescription drugs, including ivermectin, it doesn't cover over-the-counter medicines. This year, two other GOP-led states — Arkansas and Tennessee — passed over-the-counter ivermectin laws. NBC News called 15 independent pharmacies in those states, plus Idaho, to ask whether pharmacists could provide ivermectin without a prescription. Not a single one said they'd sell the drug over the counter, despite the new laws. All, however, appeared to be sympathetic to the request. One pharmacist in Arkansas took the time to explain that he needed to wait until the FDA provided guidance on over-the-counter ivermectin. Until then, he and all the others said, over-the-counter access to ivermectin would have to wait. Pharmacists say that just because over-the-counter ivermectin is written into law doesn't mean it should be made available to anyone who asks for it. They still rely on federal health guidance. 'Most over-the-counter drugs, especially ones that were prescriptions at one point, go through some FDA approval process,' Murray said. 'In that process, it gets decided what the labeling is going to say,' including warnings and directions. Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and West Virginia have also proposed bills to make ivermectin available over the counter. Nearly all would simply permit health care providers and pharmacists to distribute ivermectin without a prescription. Most, like the one proposed in Alabama, would also protect pharmacists from any possible disciplinary action such as fines or license suspension from pharmacy licensing boards for dispensing it. Maine's proposed legislation specifically permits ivermectin to be sold to people who want to try it for Covid, cancer or the flu. Mississippi's bill would limit over-the-counter ivermectin to anyone 18 and older. The drug likely wouldn't be placed on store shelves, but be kept behind pharmacy counters, much like some cold medicines. Even if states do pass laws protecting pharmacists from disciplinary action, like the proposed legislation in Alabama, Murray said that he and his colleagues remain concerned. 'If you dispense something that doesn't have directions or safety precautions on it, who's ultimately liable if that causes harm?' Murray said. 'I don't know that I would want to assume that risk.' The Food and Drug Administration warns that taking large doses of ivermectin 'can be dangerous' and cause vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, seizures, coma and even death. The drug could also interact with other medications like blood thinners, the FDA says. A spokeswoman for CVS Health said that while its pharmacies are able to dispense ivermectin with a prescription, they are 'not currently selling ivermectin over the counter' in any state. Walgreens declined to comment. Ivermectin was discovered by Japanese biochemist Satoshi Ōmura in the 1970s, first as a veterinary drug and then as a groundbreaking treatment for dangerous and disfiguring tropical diseases such as river blindness, as well as tapeworms, scabies and other worm-related infections. Hundreds of millions of people in mostly underdeveloped countries have used it safely with minimal side effects, such as fatigue or diarrhea, for decades. During the pandemic, the true benefit of the drug got twisted and distorted amid a social media frenzy. When mainstream doctors and scientists insisted that ivermectin didn't treat Covid, mostly conservative groups embraced it in direct opposition to public health officials. Podcaster Joe Rogan told his tens of millions of followers that ivermectin worked to cure him of Covid in 2021, prompting many people to seek out the drug as a way to treat mild or moderate cases of the virus. While there was early hope that ivermectin could ease Covid symptoms, it didn't treat respiratory viruses. It still doesn't. Ivermectin has also been touted as a cancer cure. On the same podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed ivermectin had wiped out Stage 4 cancer in three of his friends. Gibson offered no proof. Some cancer patients believed the promises, with potentially devastating results. 'I tried that last year,' Scott Adams, the creator of the 'Dilbert' comic strip, wrote on X, 'to no effect.' Adams, a vocal Donald Trump supporter, revealed in May that he'd been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. 'There are claims of it working, but I am aware of no patient who benefitted from it.' Adams asked his social media followers to stop inundating him with advice to take ivermectin. Adams wrote that his 'odds of survival have probably jumped from zero to 30%' because he decided on a different treatment and will be 'working with top doctors in the field.' When one person pleaded with him in the comments not to discourage people from trying ivermectin, the cartoonist didn't play around: 'Your advice could kill people if they delay other treatments.' There's simply no evidence that ivermectin treats cancer, said Dr. Harold Burstein, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. He knows because he's looked for it, without success. Since the Rogan podcast featuring Gibson aired, Burstein has had an uptick in patients asking him about ivermectin. He scoured the medical literature looking for any shred of indication that the drug could be useful to his patients. 'There are exactly zero published clinical trials in a human being on whether ivermectin does or doesn't treat cancer,' Burstein said. 'I can assure you that if any oncologist in America had seen' a benefit to ivermectin, he said, 'they would have been eager to write it up.' Some scientists are indeed trying to figure out whether ivermectin has any impact on cancer outcomes. Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles have begun a preliminary study combining ivermectin with an immunotherapy drug for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Final results aren't expected anytime soon. Ivermectin is manufactured in the U.S. by Merck. The company said in a statement that ivermectin should only be used within the approved FDA framework. 'The use of ivermectin is not supported beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information,' a Merck spokesperson wrote in an email. Despite the growing push for over-the-counter ivermectin, there's no sales data available for how many people are buying the pills. Focusing on making ivermectin available without a doctor's prescription is the latest in a trend of mostly conservative politicians sidestepping expert medical advice. Utah and Florida, for example, recently banned community water fluoridation, despite decades of widespread evidence that it drastically reduces tooth decay. Dr. Hugh Cassiere, director of critical care services for South Shore University Hospital, part of Northwell Health in New York, said, 'This is about constituents who either heard, read or saw something on social media and now have an idea that this is something good. They're going right to their congressman or senator to demand access.' 'That's not how medicine should work,' he said. Scientists did, in fact, study whether ivermectin helped people with Covid. Dr. Adrian Hernandez, a cardiologist with the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina, led a large research project that ultimately showed ivermectin had no benefit in treating acute Covid. 'It's always great that legislators care about the health of the state,' Hernandez said. 'But ivermectin didn't help patients get better any faster.' Hernandez's study was posted on a preprint server called medRxiv in 2022. Studies posted on the site are considered preliminary because they haven't been peer-reviewed. A second 2022 paper published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that Covid patients treated with ivermectin weren't any less likely to be hospitalized than people who didn't get the drug. A third study that did suggest a benefit was later retracted because it contained fraudulent data, according to the publisher. None of this stopped many from demanding access to the drug. During the pandemic, hospitals reported a spike in patients who had been poisoned after taking veterinary-grade ivermectin intended for livestock. Two deaths in New Mexico were linked to the drug. Even the FDA warned that high doses of ivermectin can cause seizures, coma and death. 'You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it,' the FDA tweeted on Aug. 21, 2021. The controversial post was later deleted but can still be accessed through web archives. A Merck spokesperson said the drug shouldn't be used for anything other than clearing parasitic infestations. Northwell Health's Cassiere said medications, especially ivermectin, should only be used after talking with a qualified health care provider, no matter how politicians vote. 'If you're not an expert, if you did not go to medical school, nurse practitioner school, physician assistant school, and don't have the proper training, then you should not be recommending therapies outside of that expertise,' he said. 'Are you going to get a bank loan at the deli on the corner? I don't think so.' This article was originally published on
Washington Post
03-06-2025
- Washington Post
Political idiocy is going to make us, well, idiots
In today's edition: You walk into the pharmacy in Idaho and pick up the pamphlet that says 'Ivermectin and You.' You open it. Instead of information, loose pills simply tumble out. You ask the pharmacist about vaccines, and she pretends she hasn't heard you. This, my friends, is medical freedom. Leana Wen's latest column is a case study of the right's antipathy toward the medical establishment, chronicling how ivermectin — long used for deworming livestock — gained conservative cachet during the covid-19 pandemic and is now being made available over the counter in a bunch of red states; meanwhile, vaccine access is being 'sacrificed on the altar of contrarianism.' Yes, Leana says, 'proponents hail these moves as a win for the 'medical freedom' movement,' but they are in fact the manifestation of a diseased relationship with public health and science writ large. To wit: Vice President JD Vance doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on how America's space program happened, Mark Lasswell writes: Vance claims 'American talent' powered the program, with a teeny bit of help from 'some German and Jewish scientists' who came to this country from Europe. 'Some'? Mark entreats us to remember rocketry mastermind Wernher von Braun. Oh, of the Philadelphia von Brauns? Not quite. True, a lot of those contributors became Americans in the 1950s — but Vance doesn't appear too keen on the whole naturalization thing, either. All of this pairs very poorly with, as Mark writes, the White House 'working energetically to dissolve arrangements between several research universities and the government.' Max Boot characterizes it even more starkly: 'the suicide of a superpower.' That's because a lot of progress really has been the result of American ingenuity, which happens to occur largely at universities funded by the government. Examples include: the internet, GPS, smartphones, artificial intelligence, MRIs, LASIK, Ozempic, and drugs that actually prevent and treat covid. But, years hence, as our adversaries explore the cosmos, the human genome and the limits of generative AI, at least we will be worm-free. Chaser: Professor Carole LaBonne writes that it's true that colleges have benefited plenty from federal funding, but if we're looking at which way the reliance relationship really goes, it's the government that depends on universities. From Perry Bacon's essay on the way 'flyover country' conquered this basketball season, with the Indiana Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder heading to the NBA Finals. 'Is the NBA self-sabotaging? Does the league just have terrible luck?' Perry asks. 'No and no. Teams in fairly small markets will host the championships for a league that craves a massive and even international audience. And that's just fine.' The league, Perry writes, will have plenty of money no matter how many viewers tune in to this year's finals. What's more interesting is the way the NBA sorta kinda stands athwart the supercity-cization of the United States, by way of its strict rules for how much teams can spend and what Perry calls its 'socialist-y system' for paying players. It is not just not bad, Perry argues, but actively great that littler cities are able to compete. As coastal megalopolises hoover up whole industries and their workers, we all ought to have it in us to cheer on these finals. 'Courage I know we have in abundance … but [gun]powder — where shall we get a sufficient supply?' Abigail Adams, I was not familiar with your game! John Adams was, though. The future president once told his wife and pen pal: 'I really think that your Letters are much better worth preserving than mine.' The powder letter is pretty much exactly 250 years old, exchanged in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, and the resolve it displays is remarkable, writes historian Joseph Ellis, considering the overwhelming uncertainty still swirling at that point. Britain was the world's hegemon, Ellis writes, yet the Adamses 'were like poker players who were all-in before knowing what cards they had been dealt.' Even more remarkable is the couple's prescience that their correspondence would be important some day, as John noted. Ellis writes: 'They were not just writing letters to each other; they were writing to posterity — which is to say, us.' So read up on what Ellis excerpts. Then, in our own era of uncertainty, maybe start writing, too. It's a goodbye. It's a haiku. It's … The Bye-Ku. NBA reckons With remotest finals sites This side of Oort cloud *** Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!
Forbes
03-06-2025
- Forbes
Gene Therapy For Inherited Disease In The Unborn Child
Until recently, even the most advanced gene therapies could only be given after a child was ... More born—often racing against time to prevent irreversible damage. In the first part of this series, we explored how early genetic screening and gene therapy transform the lives of newborns and their families. Now, we're taking an even earlier step: treating inherited diseases in the womb before birth. Until recently, even the most advanced gene therapies could only be given after a child was born—often racing against time to prevent irreversible damage. But what if we could intervene even earlier? That's the question now being answered, with some astonishing results. A recent study published in Science Translational Medicine showed that delivering a special kind of genetic therapy directly to the fetus could prevent the onset of spinal muscular atrophy in animal models. Treating the condition before birth may be possible to preserve healthy motor function and prevent the nerve damage that usually begins in the womb. This is the first time we see molecular therapies targeting the root cause of inherited disease before birth. Another special investigational case, the first in humans, found that providing the mother with gene therapy while pregnant and continuing treatment after birth also prevented the devastating muscle weakness that usually comes with the disease. This is a true leap forward: instead of managing symptoms; we may soon be able to stop some inherited diseases before they ever begin. The journey starts with advanced prenatal genetic screening. Genetic changes in the developing fetus can be found using a simple blood sample from the mother. When a risk is found, therapy is delivered directly to the fetus, often by injecting medicine into the amniotic fluid. In the case of spinal muscular atrophy, this approach in animal models led to healthier development and longer survival. These findings suggest that intervening before birth can prevent or significantly reduce the neurological damage that begins in the womb and progresses rapidly after birth. While most of this research has been in animals, the first human steps have already begun. In February 2025, the University of California, San Francisco, reported the world's first attempt to treat a genetic disease in a human fetus using a medication called risdiplam. After learning that her unborn child was at risk, a mother began taking the medication late in pregnancy. The baby was born healthy and—now more than two years old—shows no signs of the disease, though some developmental challenges remain. Another important step was taken in a clinical trial at UCSF, where doctors successfully treated a fetus with a different rare disease using enzyme replacement therapy, showing that the technology for delivering medicine to the unborn is already here. Many inherited diseases cause the most significant harm before a baby is even born. By intervening early, we have the chance to save lives and give children the best possible start—preserving their ability to move, think, and grow. This isn't just a medical advance. It's a new way of thinking about what's possible for families facing genetic disease. Of course, there are still challenges ahead. Many are working to ensure these therapies are safe, effective, and accessible to all who need them. Ethical questions about when and how to use these powerful tools will also need careful thought. The first human applications of gene therapy before birth are expected within the next decade, pending rigorous safety and ethical evaluations. This new era also brings new questions. If we correct a genetic error in a child before birth, will that change be passed on to future generations? For now, most therapies target the body's somatic cells, not the germline, so the changes are not inherited. However, the line between somatic and germline interventions may blur as technology evolves, raising complex ethical considerations. The first human trials of in-utero gene therapy are just beginning, and more research is needed. But the direction is clear: as technology advances, we are moving from treating inherited diseases after birth to preventing them at the start of life. As I have often said, the future of medicine is being rewritten, one gene at a time. This latest breakthrough brings us one step closer to a world where prevention, rather than treatment, becomes the standard for genetic disease, where every child can live their healthiest life from the very start. As discussed in my book, the hope is that every child will soon have the chance to live their healthiest life from the beginning.
