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 the nanobodies compared to full antibodies sound interesting, for sure. But this is still a paper pretty solidly in the basic research area, and quite far from clinical use.
I found an article about this research that puts it into a bit more context:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/11/scientists-create-potent...
> 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.”
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!
I can't really judge whether that approach makes sense, my experience is in the basic research area, not with clinical stuff.
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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31532354/
"McIntyre Powder (MP) is a finely ground aluminum powder that was used between 1943 and 1979 as a prophylaxis for silicosis. Silicosis is a chronic lung disease caused by the inhalation of crystalline silica dust and was prevalent in the Canadian mining industry during this time period."
It's promising early research, but it's not even in laboratory animal trials yet.
PS: again if it worked exactly as advertised, could it be a tool to stifle incubation after a know exposure?
[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/studies-...
"Hey why aren't you wearing a mask?"
"No worries I'm using inhalable protection"
rolls eyes
Viruses can enter the body more than just orally and even though we think it's primarily through the respiratory system, we aren't sure yet.
Even having expressed doubt, something is better than nothing. And if it eliminates requiring face masks it would be worth it alone for that.
Effective treatment will be much more likely to hit the market than a vaccine.
Used once a day, AeroNabs could provide powerful, reliable protection against SARS-CoV-2 until a vaccine becomes available.
But maybe that's a signal that these researchers believe much of the vaccine news has been overly optimistic hype. I guess the race is on.
One question I don't think the article addressed: if successful, would this have applications beyond Covid-19? Like against the common cold?
I also don't want to get my hopes up since research like this is bound to be overhyped. I want to see where it goes like a month or two from now.
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 bad as pack animals. So they seemed pretty normal to me and not really some cool animal.
"...inspired by nanobodies, antibody-like immune proteins that naturally occur in llamas, camels and related animals."
You did give me a good laugh though.
