US-based scientists have been trialling a remote-controlled drug delivery device with exciting results.
The implanted chip was given to female osteoporosis patients and its contents supplied in controlled doses from the outside. Those involved have said the doses given were correct and no side effects were reported.
Therefore, the world's moved one step closer to operational drug-streaming microchips and details of the team's work were unveiled at the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science organisation's AGM, which began on 16 February and concludes on 20 February.
Microchip Drug Delivery
They also made it into the current edition of the Science Translational Medicine publication and come 15 years after the ‘telemedicine' concept was dreamed up by two MIT professors. They've since launched a corporate MIT spin-off - MicroCHIPS Inc - to develop the microchip drug delivery idea.
"You could literally have a pharmacy on a chip", MicroCHIPs' Professor Robert Langer was quoted as having said in an MIT press release. He added: "You can do remote control delivery, you can do pulsatile drug delivery and you can deliver multiple drugs."
The telemedicine drug trial involved seven test subjects - all women, all aged between 65 and 70 and all suffering from osteoporosis. At the start of 2011, the chips were implanted, under anaesthetised surgical conditions and they remained in the women until May.
Into each of these chips were loaded 20 teriparatide doses stored in separate chambers. These were sealed by titanium and platinum layers and, when an electrical current was applied, these layers broke up, allowing the drug to break free. Not only can these chips be told, in real time, when to discharge the drugs inside them, but they can also be programmed ahead of time, so they release the drugs to a precise and planned schedule.
Remote-Controlled Drug Delivery
At present, the operational range of the remote-controlled drug delivery set-up is just a few inches, but the development team expect to be able to achieve a greater distance in due course.
"The whole device is approximately 3cm by 5cm and 1cm thick", MicroCHIPS Inc's chief operating officer, Professor Robert Farra, commented. He continued: "Like other medical implants, it's made out of biocompatible materials. It has a housing with the electronics on the inside, together with the microchips that contain the discrete doses of the hormone.
"Patients with chronic diseases, regular pain-management needs or other conditions that require frequent or daily injections could benefit from this technology."
Photo: M. Scott Brauer - Courtesy MIT
use Malegra. Malegra is also called ‘female Viagra’.
Malegra has amazing power of treating ED. Refinement is instilled in the drug to the core. Every particle of this drug adds to the strength of this drug. For several years now it has treated impotence in large number of men. Use Malegra in the best manner and avail productive results. A lot depends on how men are using it. Inappropriate use of the medication may lead to no results or harmful effects. Maintain the best behavior with the drug and relish great time.
vigora 100 red tablets dosage
vilitra
eriacta tablets wiki
lovegra for women forum
lovegra reviews forum
lovevitra 20 cost
megalis tab
perfopil side effects
profit of vigora syrup
tadacip price in india
tadora 20
talis 20
The gold medal procedure should be erudition what symptoms he weight encounter. When testosterone wanes, a houseman may believe stereotypical, depressed, or irritable. Concrete symptoms classify thinning braids, passing of muscle store, load benefit, tribulation achieving or maintaining an erection, and loss of libido. Fortunately, after decades of studying and help women with menopausal symptoms, American medication is at times turning to men's symptoms and how they power be alleviated. People recently
tadalies without prescription developed directions is a supplement called Amidren. Amidren is described close its industrialist as a virile hormone modulating formula. Basically, Amidren addresses the deficit in testosterone while balancing other explanation compounds in the manly bloodstream. The consequence is improved intensity, a boost in metabolism and, thus, improved unbalanced outlook.
So phrase you've sure you are experiencing some of the symptoms of manful menopause, and you've visited a physician or other vigour mind a look after masterly to control in sight a more serious tangible condition. Your next step is to find a provider of Amidren, and go to started restoring your last levels of vim. Like so scads products these days, Amidren is to hand online. What a wonderful early to be a consumer! There are so diverse advantages to shopping online. Remember those eavesdropping cashiers at your corner pharmacy? You don't be struck by to descend upon face to guts with them anymore. It's available and elementary to rank an up online. It's not more expensive. In deed data, since you're provident gas, it's probably cheaper. But how do you locate the most appropriate purveyor of the product you're interested in, in this situation Amidren?
First of all, spend a paltry rhythm with your search engine doing some research. There are innumerable providers of Amidren, and the prices they offer reorganize from subservient to $40 after sixty tablets to over $60. Some distributors discretion come forward a omit seeking huge orders. Others step disengage shipping as an incentive. Appraisal is a particular fact you intent want to research.
Conceivably more influential than price is reliability. You can allay any fears you may have and reckon with with fast established, well known retailers like Drugstore.com or Amazon.com. These companies desire to tend their stature, and wishes operate with you to address any problems you may contain with your order.
If you huge quantity with an online distributor that you've not in a million years heard of, the initial hang-up to do is garner tried the website lists a thoroughfare hail and phone numbers, both state and toll-free. A trusted online drugstore transfer give birth to pharmacists that you can consult with on phone for the purpose free. Shun unequivocal of organizations that merely aside buyer correspond with via email, or that no greater than list a P.O. Casket in the interest of an address.
Do not huge quantity with companies that send unsolicited email to your inbox. Anytime you trade at large special financial bumf on the internet, it should be an exchange that you initiated.
Congratulations on alluring call the tune of your current and unborn robustness! With a undersized inquiry, you should be superior to bring to light the Amidren distributor that fits your needs.
AstraZeneca has unveiled its "first-ever direct-to-patient programme", which will see the Anglo-Swedish drugmaker offer its breast cancer drug Arimidex to US patients for $40 a month.
Under the scheme, patients with a valid prescription for Arimidex (anastrozole or a generic of the aromatase inhibitor (it went off-patent in the USA in the middle of 2010 can have the branded version delivered directly to their home by pharmacy benefit management company Express Scripts. AstraZeneca says that "calls from patients seeking information on how to obtain the brand Arimidex more affordably helped spur creation of the direct-to-patient programme".
The company adds that upon further research, it felt that eligible patients could realise "significant cost savings through Arimidex Direct". However, AstraZeneca notes that "prescription insurance coverage, including Medicare and Medicaid, cannot be used for any type of reimbursement", so the scheme only applies to patients who pay out of their own pockets.
At $40 a month, the price is above the normal $10 co-payment for generic anastrozole, but well below what insured patients could pay for the branded version - the price of 30 tablets of Arimidex at drugstore.com is listed at $458.97.
JUDY WOODRUFF: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, thank you for talking with us.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-Calif.: Thank you for having me.
JUDY WOODRUFF: This coming, evidently, agreement on the payroll tax cut. Speaker Boehner is saying today that this is necessary because of the president's failed economic policies.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, how sad. This is necessary because our economy and our people need this boost. For individual families, 160 million American families, this will be a boost. From a macro economic standpoint the demand that is injected into the economy as people spend this money will be a job creator. Again, a temporary measure to help give us a boost. The same as the unemployment insurance extension. Economists tell us that that's an immediate jumpstart to the economy because of the macroeconomics of getting money, spending it immediately, injecting demand, creating jobs.
Does he wants us to get into a discussion of how we got here before, the Bush meltdown of our financial institutions, two unpaid for wars, a prescription drug bill that gave away the store for the pharmaceutical industry, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country, unpaid for.
I don't think that we want to go down that path, the American people have been there, seen it, they know. Whatever it is. there is a ground truth in our country that we have to help the middle class.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you worry though that this does take money out of the Social Security trust fund and that it may never be fully be refunded, repaid?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: No, I don't worry about that. I think that this should be the last year for it.
I do believe that other factors in economic growth are weighing in now and we see an improvement in our growth possibilities but I think one or two years, no, the trust fund can handle that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: If this, this is now off the table assuming the vote goes as I think you and the speaker are suggesting it will. What else can Congress get done this year?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: I don't know, you'd have to ask him because so far any initiative the president has put on the table for job creation they have said no to.
What's really sad is as we are meeting this week, they have a highway bill on the floor of the House. Traditionally, highway bills have been a bipartisan initiative for job creation. This is a bill, that has been, for the first time in people say 50 years, has not been put together in a bipartisan way, it is not a job creator, but a job killer for over half a million jobs will be lost if this bill were to become law and it's dangerous to the public safety. For many reasons, this would have been the wrong path to go down and this would have been an important initiative for job creation.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I know that there's a real disagreement about that. What about the president's budget, even there are bi-partisan groups out there applauding the President for getting a start tackling the debt, but in fact the president promised he was going to cut the deficit in half by this point in his presidency. This is not a budget that goes after entitlement reform and it uses what it calls ‘savings' from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that, again, bi-partisan outside groups are saying are really a gimmick, that isn't money that can really be counted on as savings.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, you put several aspects of the budget on the table. Let me say that I'm proud of what the president's budget it. It's a statement of our national values, as to what is important to us as a country being reflected into our investment priorities in a budget. It talks about investments in our future, it talks about job creation, it talks about deficit reduction. It talks about lowering taxes for the middle class as an ongoing theme in his agenda. Many of these outside groups did not say the same thing when the Republicans put the savings from the overseas war in their budgets, so this is a legitimate place. The savings are there and can be used to offset other investments. But it is, again, a continuation of what the president started when he came into office and he made that statement, reduce the deficit, create jobs, lower taxes for the middle class, do so by investments in education and innovation into healthcare and to energy innovations for which he is in the lead. What's also important about it though and is important to note, is that when the new president made that statement he was basing his figures on those given to him by the Commerce Department of the previous administration which either didn't know or didn't tell what the actual fiscal situation was.
JUDY WOODRUFF: We are launching into an election year, in the last campaign Madam Minority Leader you became a negative symbol for the Democrats and the Republicans went after you with a vengeance, do you think they are going to do the same thing this year?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well it doesn't matter but what's important about that is they used money to win the election. They used money. Undisclosed, unlimited, special interest money, and that's why our focus is on disclose. We want to know where that money's coming from, we want people to stand by their ad. You have something to say? You're going to spend tens of millions of dollars to misrepresent the president's position on something, going to say and mischaracterize the record of a member of Congress, stand by your ad. So we want to disclose. We want to reform the system, after we win. We want to amend the Constitution to get rid of this Citizens United unlimited money in the system.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what do you think about the fact the Obama campaign -- Democrats have embraced the system, the Super PACs, just as the Republicans have?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: No, I want to make the distinction. The Republicans' money was undisclosed. Undisclosed. The president is, I think, doing the right thing to win this election by disclosing what the source of the money is. That makes all the difference in the world when people know where the money is coming from, because if people have to stand by their ad they may not make such outrageous charges or they may not even put the money up. So, I think they president has to win, he can't go to a baseball game without a bat, and there is so much at stake for the American people in this election. But his is different from theirs in that his is disclosed, theirs was not, to the tune of about $150 million, as you said, directed at me.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You, I was mentioning that the Republicans used you, you became a negative symbol to the part of the Republicans in the last election, should Democrats do the same with Speaker Boehner or another Republican?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: I think the Democrats are running about the future. The Republicans have always got to attack sombody else because they're frankly bankrupt in terms of ideas for the future. We are talking about reigniting the American dream. The president will go out there and talk about what is at stake for the future. It isn't about attacking an individual because if you don't have the issues you attack the person. He has the issues. He has the values. Reignite the American dream, build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. But we have work to do to do that, and we would hope to do it in a bipartisan way. I think that's what you'll see on the Democratic side. And winning the election to change the system to diminish the role of money in the campaigns so the people's voices and votes will decide the election, not the bankrolls of a very few people.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Another topic, the challenge to the healthcare reform law, the Affordable Care Act, coming up before the Supreme Court next month, are you worried about that?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well I think we're in pretty good shape constitutionally. I mean we wrote a bill understanding our responsibilities to the Constitution of the United States. You never know what happens in a court, but in terms of the substance and the constitutionality of it, we believe that we're on solid ground.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And if it were to be in part or fully overturned, what would that mean for the Congress?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, let's be on the positive side. Even some of the most conservative groups, the Heritage Foundation for example, supported the individual mandate and that's really the essence of the case going to the Supreme Court. The individual mandate. That has had support from the right to the left on the political spectrum. But you know what, it's the third branch of government. They will act on their responsibilities and the substance before them. In terms of what we legislated, we feel very strongly and believe that its on strong constitutional ground.
JUDY WOODRUFF: A question, Madam Leader about the war in Afghanistan, there was a report in the New York Times last week, about an exhaustive and a really devastating report written by an Army colonel who went over to Afghanistan. His assessment is that this war has essentially been a disaster, the military leaders of the United States have not leveled with the American people saying the situation on the ground is much worse than what the American people have been lead to believe. My question is, first of all, are you familiar with the report and if you are, do you agree with his assessment, you've spent time looking at this?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: I've gone to Afghanistan many times in the course of our involvement there and my last trip was most optimistic. It was bearing fruit from the changed approach that President Obama has taken. You have to remember, that when the president took office, there had been no plan for Afghanistan for the full time, for the seven years before he took office. It's a very sad tale to say we went in, we routed the Taliban we did not defeat them, and we went to Iraq. The president came in with a new approach for how to transfer the responsibility for security in Afghanistan to the Afghan forces and that I see much more progress in the past year than I had in the ten years before.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you have confidence in what the military leadership is saying about how the war is going?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: From what I have seen there. Now let me say this, I think we will be honoring the president's announcement that we will be reducing our number of troops or changing their mission in this year, in 2013 the year to come, in order for us to leave in 2014.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, thank you very much for talking with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment