Nanologix Incorporated
New write up that will be posted on our new website soon for our patented diagnostic. Comments and interest welcomed:
Nanologix' N-Assay offers an innovative solutions to a major problem that has plagued physicians over the years.
In medicine, nothing gets a clinician's attention like sepsis. When one has seen a patient who had previously been doing just fine suddenly take a turn for the worse, management decisions must be made without hesitation. In the case of a septic patient, seconds mean the difference between life and death, and minutes are a luxury that neither the clinician nor the patient may afford. The post-operative patient, the post-partum patient, the ICU patient... any patient is at risk of encountering a virulent pathogen in the hospital, and without an astute clinician ready to respond, serious consequences will occur. It's not surprising that the Infectious Disease Society of America estimates just this year that treating infections cost 21 to 34 billion dollars annually, in the US alone.
Clinicians currently have two techniques at their disposal when treating a presumed infection -culture, and PCR. The traditional technique of culture is labor intensive, requires laboratory-trained personnel, and correctly obtained, viable material. Although this method is relatively inexpensive, it is incredibly time-consuming. Patients often find it hard to believe that obtaining a culture result and antibiotic sensitivity profile may take 5 days! While the clinician is waiting for the results, they are throwing everything they've got at the possible infection. This is truly an empiric approach, and here it pays to have an experienced clinician by your side.
The alternative method, PCR, is much faster, much more sensitive, but also much more expensive. This newer technique also costs a great deal more, and requires highly trained personnel to operate the devices. These machines also incur a large capital investment by the hospital, as well as annual maintenance. In spite of the strengths of PCR, it also has weaknesses -it is unable to differentiate the difference between live/dead bacteria, and can not provide estimates relating to the degree of the inoculum. This information is essential for the clinician in directing targeted therapy, so again, they are ultimately forced to rely on their experience when treating the patient.
Regardless of one's opinion as to whether culture or PCR is the better option, the data over the last few decades shows the depressing truth -neither option is offering us any real advantage. This is made clear when one looks at the development of antibiotic resistance. These bugs have continued to grow and evolve, and a few years ago, a gonorrhea "super-bug" was isolated -showing resistance to every antibiotic available. We are clearly losing the war against these single-cell enemies!
In answer to this major problem, we have developed and patented an approach that takes all of the advantages of both culture and PCR (specificity, sensitivity, speed, and accuracy as well as ease of use), and none of the disadvantages. This technique, termed the N-Assay, is an antibody-based assay that targets potentially any bacterial pathogen (and has also been seen to detect yeast), in as little as 30 minutes. In addition, when incubated for 6 hours, this test not only provides a bacterial identification, but also allows the clinician to determine which antibiotic will work in treating the infection. This test will dramatically shorten the amount of time required for a clinician to wait when treating the ill patient, and should ultimately save billions in healthcare spending. Furthermore, by more accurately targeting the right bacterium with the correct antibiotic, we should drastically reduce the incidence in antimicrobial resistance.
We have already used a pilot version of this test in detecting group B streptococcus colonization in pregnant women, and have won an award at an OB GYN conference when presenting our data. The clinicians see that this test has tremendous potential, and are eager for it to be available, as they simply need better methods to more accurate diagnose infection. With the right resources, we will be able to expand this test to additional bacterial pathogens, such as E. coli, Enterococcus, MRSA, and any other clinically relevant pathogen.
New write up that will be posted on our new website soon for our patented diagnostic. Comments and interest welcomed:
Nanologix' N-Assay offers an innovative solutions to a major problem that has plagued physicians over the years.
In medicine, nothing gets a clinician's attention like sepsis. When one has seen a patient who had previously been doing just fine suddenly take a turn for the worse, management decisions must be made without hesitation. In the case of a septic patient, seconds mean the difference between life and death, and minutes are a luxury that neither the clinician nor the patient may afford. The post-operative patient, the post-partum patient, the ICU patient... any patient is at risk of encountering a virulent pathogen in the hospital, and without an astute clinician ready to respond, serious consequences will occur. It's not surprising that the Infectious Disease Society of America estimates just this year that treating infections cost 21 to 34 billion dollars annually, in the US alone.
Clinicians currently have two techniques at their disposal when treating a presumed infection -culture, and PCR. The traditional technique of culture is labor intensive, requires laboratory-trained personnel, and correctly obtained, viable material. Although this method is relatively inexpensive, it is incredibly time-consuming. Patients often find it hard to believe that obtaining a culture result and antibiotic sensitivity profile may take 5 days! While the clinician is waiting for the results, they are throwing everything they've got at the possible infection. This is truly an empiric approach, and here it pays to have an experienced clinician by your side.
The alternative method, PCR, is much faster, much more sensitive, but also much more expensive. This newer technique also costs a great deal more, and requires highly trained personnel to operate the devices. These machines also incur a large capital investment by the hospital, as well as annual maintenance. In spite of the strengths of PCR, it also has weaknesses -it is unable to differentiate the difference between live/dead bacteria, and can not provide estimates relating to the degree of the inoculum. This information is essential for the clinician in directing targeted therapy, so again, they are ultimately forced to rely on their experience when treating the patient.
Regardless of one's opinion as to whether culture or PCR is the better option, the data over the last few decades shows the depressing truth -neither option is offering us any real advantage. This is made clear when one looks at the development of antibiotic resistance. These bugs have continued to grow and evolve, and a few years ago, a gonorrhea "super-bug" was isolated -showing resistance to every antibiotic available. We are clearly losing the war against these single-cell enemies!
In answer to this major problem, we have developed and patented an approach that takes all of the advantages of both culture and PCR (specificity, sensitivity, speed, and accuracy as well as ease of use), and none of the disadvantages. This technique, termed the N-Assay, is an antibody-based assay that targets potentially any bacterial pathogen (and has also been seen to detect yeast), in as little as 30 minutes. In addition, when incubated for 6 hours, this test not only provides a bacterial identification, but also allows the clinician to determine which antibiotic will work in treating the infection. This test will dramatically shorten the amount of time required for a clinician to wait when treating the ill patient, and should ultimately save billions in healthcare spending. Furthermore, by more accurately targeting the right bacterium with the correct antibiotic, we should drastically reduce the incidence in antimicrobial resistance.
We have already used a pilot version of this test in detecting group B streptococcus colonization in pregnant women, and have won an award at an OB GYN conference when presenting our data. The clinicians see that this test has tremendous potential, and are eager for it to be available, as they simply need better methods to more accurate diagnose infection. With the right resources, we will be able to expand this test to additional bacterial pathogens, such as E. coli, Enterococcus, MRSA, and any other clinically relevant pathogen.
2
