All posts by jcoutinho

Gatos gordos

Esta é uma boa altura para vos contar a história dos gatos gordos… Parece que, tal como os humanos, outros mamíferos que vivem junto a nós estão também a engordar e a sofrer uma epidemia, apesar de tudo menos severa do que a nossa, de obesidade… O mais interessante é que as razões deste aumento de peso colectivpo continuam a escapar aos investigadores… Vá se lá saber porquê… Se quiserem mais detalhes é só ler a noticia original abaixo…

The fat cat cometh

It is not just human beings that are getting fatter. Animals are, too

Nov 25th 2010

IN THEIR attempts to explain the global epidemic of obesity, researchers have often taken to fingering culprits beyond people’s direct control. It is now believed that increased levels of stress, climate change and even artificial light at night may contribute to expanding waistlines. However, if such factors affect humans, they ought, in principle, to have similarly nefarious effects on other creatures. This should hold especially true for species that are physiologically similar to people and live in proximity to them. Pet owners have long fretted that this may, indeed, be happening.

Of course, anecdotal evidence carries little weight, so a group of researchers led by Yann Klimentidis, of the University of Alabama, decided to check whether animal obesity rates do in fact mirror the worrying trend among people. They published their findings this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Dr Klimentidis and his team set about their task by scouring online repositories of scientific papers, contacting fellow researchers and even petitioning pet-food companies for data on changes in animals’ bodyweights over the decades. They limited their search to mammals, whose bodies work much like humans’ do—and, specifically, to those mammals living with or around people in the rich world.

The trawl threw up information on more than 20,000 animals from 24 distinct populations covering eight species. These included cats, dogs, mice, rats and several types of monkey. Some were bred in highly controlled research environments. Others lived in people’s homes or in the wild. None had their food intake artificially limited or, as with livestock, ramped up.

For each population, Dr Klimentidis looked at the animals’ weight at an age corresponding to 35 human years. Middle adulthood was chosen to ensure the data were not fudged by the effects of either early development or old-age withering. Any animals that died within a year of this mid-life physical were also excluded.

He then proceeded to calculate each population’s average weight, as well as its obesity rate, for every decade of available data. The obesity rates were based on a bespoke indicator akin to the body-mass index that is used to gauge (roughly) whether a person is too rotund. This ploy permitted comparison between species in which weights have different meanings. (Nutritionists employ similar tricks to establish what is a healthy body-mass index for children in different age groups.)

Subsequent number-crunching revealed a statistically significant increase in bodyweight in 11 of the 24 populations. The weights of the other 13 rose too, though not to an extent that was significant for any of the individual groups. Nevertheless, the fact that all of these insignificant changes were upward was, itself, statistically significant. Moreover, the obesity-rate indices followed a similar pattern. Dr Klimentidis reckons the odds of his data having come about by chance are about one in 10m for the weight gain and three in 1m for the rise in obesity.

Most intriguingly, perhaps, the laboratory animals showed more pronounced gains than those living outside a lab. This is strange because the sorts of lab animals the researchers looked at tend to be given lots of food and left to nibble at leisure. This practice has not changed for decades. That the animals put on weight nonetheless suggests the phenomenon cannot be caused solely by pet owners appeasing their Garfields, or feral rats rummaging through refuse composed of ever larger quantities of calorie-rich processed food. Dr Klimentidis is unable to pinpoint any single mechanism that could account for his results. But this does not stop his data from lending exculpatory explanations for fat tummies more credence.

 

 

Natal digital

Com mais de dois milhões de visualizações já todos devem ter visto este vídeo… Mas além do tema natalício, o que tem ele a ver com o de ontem, e com o do dia 1 de Janeiro de 2011? Fica o videopara alegrar este dia, e a questão para ajudar a digerir os repastos natalícios… Aceitam-se respostas até ao final do ano…

Árvore de Natal

A falta de internet e o excesso de trabalho afastaram-me do blog por uns dias mas tratarei de recuperar o tempo perdido… Não queria porém deixar passar este dia sem uma mensagem para todos de Feliz Natal com a imagem que achei mais sugestiva de quantas me foram enviadas nesta quadra.

Há também um pequeno video no Youtube

Invenções de 2010

A Time fez uma lista das melhores invenções de 2010 na opinião deles. Podem encontra-la aqui.

Dentro da área que nos interessa sugeria que olhassem para as seguintes:

The Malaria-Proof Mosquito and The Mosquito Laser

NeoNurture Incubator

The (Almost) Waterless Washing Machine

Spray-On Fabric

Haveria mais uns quantos sobre explosivos e afins mas estes foram os que me interessaram mais e os primeiros teriam dados bons projectos de DPQ este ano…

A comoditização da Biotec

Com o fim do período de cobertura das patentes e muitos princípios activos a passar para o domínio público a era dos genéricos está a redefinir a industria farmacéutica que assiste à comoditização dos seus produtos tradicionalmente identificados como de elevado valor acrescentado. E como forma de contrariar este estado de coisas começa a destruir o valor da indústria biotecnológica com a criação dos biossimilares.  Não sei se estão familiarizados com o conceito mas há farmacéuticas como a Pfizer e a Sandoz que estão a apostar fortemente neste tipo de fármacos.  Fico o artigo abaixo para quem possa ter interesse neste assunto.

Attack of the biosimilars

Biotechnology drugs are the next target for cheaper versions

Oct 21st 2010 | New york | from Economist

GENERIC drugs are the scourge of the pharmaceutical industry. So it is ironic that the next great opportunity for traditional drugs firms is to do to the biotechnology interlopers exactly what the generics firms have done to them: shred their profit margins with cheaper copies.

This battle is foreshadowed in a deal announced on October 18th by Pfizer, the world’s biggest pharmaceutical firm. It will work with Biocon, India’s largest biotech company, to bring “biosimilar” insulin treatments to market. Biosimilars are generic impersonations (although not identical copies) of biotech drugs. And as if to remind the world that new ideas don’t all come from America, it is the Indian firm that will design and manufacture the original drugs; Pfizer will only market them.

This is part of a new strategy to become a “one-stop shop” for biosimilars, explains David Simmons of Pfizer. Biosimilars are a hot new area. Although biotech-based drugs account for only a fifth or so of global drugs sales they are projected to grow at double-digit rates as sales of many conventional drugs decline, especially with a large number of patent expirations coming. Add the fact that many biotech drugs produce enormous profits—some treatments cost $100,000 or more per year—and it is easy to see why the sector looks like a juicy target for generic assault.

Yet some traditional generics firms are piling in too. Sales of biosimilars at Sandoz, a generics arm of Novartis, a Swiss drugs giant, reached $118m in 2009. Jeff George, Sandoz’s boss, says they leapt 72% during the first half of 2010. William Marth of Israel’s Teva, the world’s biggest generics firm, insists that biosimilars are a “natural segue” for his company and predicts that sales will reach $800m by 2015. Cipla, an Indian generics maker, and China’s Desano Pharma are also getting into the biosimilars business.

Generics firms will do better with biosimilars than they have with conventional generic drugs, insists Viren Mehta, an industry expert. Sandoz’s Mr George says the leading generics firms have access to better technologies now and have made doctors and patients comfortable with using copies of drugs. However, he acknowledges one potential snag: complexity.

The science involved in making biosimilars is much more complicated than that in making ordinary generics, says Andrew Pasternak of Bain & Company, a consultancy. A typical generic drug may cost a few million dollars to develop, he estimates, but a biosimilar version could cost perhaps $100m-150m. And because biosimilars are not exact copies, many countries may not allow them to be automatically substituted for the pricier originals, as generic drugs often are in some countries.

This complexity hands the advantage to the old pharmaceutical giants. Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, head of Biocon, says the “easy substitution” that generics firms enjoy at the pharmacy does not work with complex biosimilars—which require a doctor’s approval to dispense.

The big drugs companies will benefit from that because they have marketing machines and large technical sales forces to persuade doctors to prescribe a drug. Michael Kamarck of Merck, an American drugs firm which moved into biosimilars in 2008, thinks the barriers to entry are so great that “only a handful” of firms will be able to pull it off.

Yet the outcome may not be so simple. As the Pfizer deal with Biocon suggests, both sides may need partners. That is because there is an obstacle to biosimilars even more formidable than cost: lawsuits. Biosimilars threaten incumbent biotech firms such as Amgen and Genentech (now part of Roche, a Swiss drugs giant), which have billions of dollars of sales at risk, argues Mr Pasternak. Big biotech will fight hard to defend its patch, he predicts.”

A morte do Walkman

Nem só do aparecimento de novos produtos trata este blog. Como sabem os produtos são com entidades vivas, nascem, crescem, multiplicam-se e morrem… Há um mês a internet zumbia com a morte de um dos ícones das últimas décadas: O Walkman desaparece ao fim de 30 anos e 220 milhões de unidades vendidas. Não necessito de explicar como esta foi uma inovação disruptiva que mudou a nossa forma de escutar e consumir música. Os ipods de hoje não são mais que os netos desta genial criação de Akio Morita e da sua luta por convencer a empresa de que a ideia fazia todo o sentido…

O Walkman é também uma enorme lição de como o enorme sucesso de um produto pode ser o início da derrocada de uma empresa se não for sendo capaz de se ir colocando em causa e ultrapassando… Acreditar que em equipa que ganha não se mexe é a tática de treinadores de bancada e empresários votados ao fracasso. Como dizia há dias aqui em Aveiro a terminar a sua apresentação Philip Kotler “uma empresa que daqui a cinco anos esteja a produzir as mesmas coisas e da mesma maneira está condenada à morte…” O sucesso da Sony impediu-a de perceber e acompanhar a revolução digital e de toda a mudança de comportamentos, consumo e tecnologia que ela acarretou… (Na verdade a história é ainda mais complexa e com mais avisos à navegação e exemplos de má gestão… Mas fica para outra vez…)