Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Webmaster

By Webmaster
in This aint sports talk!

 Share

Recommended Posts

Glen

Glen

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Excellent news.

I just read the article and they claim positive data, don’t further go into said data, and the rest of the article states the issues surrounding it.

Maybe I missed something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ramssuperbowl99

ramssuperbowl99

Posted
Posted
Just now, Glen said:

I just read the article and they claim positive data, don’t further go into said data, and the rest of the article states the issues surrounding it.

Maybe I missed something 

They'll have a larger brief, but "positive news" in a Phase 3 trial means they think they have enough data to suggest that it works. It won't be formal statistical proof, but the first portion of the data they got was positive enough to be considered worthy of a press release. 

Nothing official, but very good signs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shanedorf

Shanedorf

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ET80 said:

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/chicago-hospital-successfully-treats-struggling-covid-19-patient-with-plasma-from-virus-survivor

This sounds good - a possible countermeasure that can be replicated? Or is this a case by case sort of thing?

The way I see it, I'll breathe easy when we can establish a countermeasure that is both scalable and repeatable, and using plasma from people who have beat the virus sounds like it checks both boxes...

convalescent plasma has been used for decades in various diseases, its passive immunity- you're taking somebody else's antibodies and giving them to a patient. It works in the short term and is used for people with moderate - severe disease

On the plus side - its quite useful, its a proven technique and it is already helping many people - but its probably not the scalable magic bullet
However - If you're the one who needs it, you'd be damn glad to have that option available.

Stat News has been doing a great job in their coverage and here's their article on it

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/05/how-blood-plasma-from-recovered-patients-could-help-treat-coronavirus/

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ramssuperbowl99

ramssuperbowl99

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/4/gilead-announces-results-from-phase-3-trial-of-investigational-antiviral-remdesivir-in-patients-with-severe-covid-19

Lot of speculative stuff in here, but we can start looking at it:

Quote

Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: GILD) today announced topline results from the open-label, Phase 3 SIMPLE trial evaluating 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe manifestations of COVID-19 disease. The study demonstrated that patients receiving a 10-day treatment course of remdesivir achieved similar improvement in clinical status compared with those taking a 5-day treatment course (Odds Ratio: 0.75 [95% CI 0.51 – 1.12] on Day 14). No new safety signals were identified with remdesivir across either treatment group.

No new safety issues was expected, but good. We take that.

Quote

Patients were required to have evidence of pneumonia and reduced oxygen levels that did not require mechanical ventilation at the time of study entry. Clinical improvement was defined as an improvement of two or more points from baseline on a predefined seven-point scale, ranging from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Patients achieved clinical recovery if they no longer required oxygen support and medical care or were discharged from the hospital.

In this study, the time to clinical improvement for 50 percent of patients was 10 days in the 5-day treatment group and 11 days in the 10-day treatment group. More than half of patients in both treatment groups were discharged from the hospital by Day 14 (5-day: 60.0%, n=120/200 vs.10-day: 52.3% n=103/197; p=0.14). At Day 14, 64.5 percent (n=129/200) of patients in the 5-day treatment group and 53.8 percent (n=106/197) of patients in the 10-day treatment group achieved clinical recovery.

Clinical outcomes varied by geography. Outside of Italy, the overall mortality rate at Day 14 was 7 percent (n=23/320) across both treatment groups, with 64 percent (n=205/320) of patients experiencing clinical improvement at Day 14 and 61 percent (n=196/320) of patients discharged from the hospital.

So these are the sickest group of COVID-19 patients, and the mortality rate here was 7%. I don't have the data in front of me and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think once you were hospitalized the mortality was in the 15-20% range from previous data right?

If so, this is a gamechanger.

Quote

In an exploratory analysis, patients in the study who received remdesivir within 10 days of symptom onset had improved outcomes compared with those treated after more than 10 days of symptoms. Pooling data across treatment arms, by Day 14, 62 percent of patients treated early were able to be discharged from the hospital, compared with 49 percent of patients who were treated late.

Oh baby. This is evidence that it's really working, and it's not just people fighting it off for a few weeks.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ET80

ET80

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Oh baby. This is evidence that it's really working, and it's not just people fighting it off for a few weeks.

I'MMA GET RICH! I'MMA BUY THE TEXANS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seriously27

seriously27

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ET80 said:

@Shanedorf you're my cure viability guy. @ramssuperbowl99 is my agent/lawyer/medicine guy, so it behooves me to include you too.

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/chicago-hospital-successfully-treats-struggling-covid-19-patient-with-plasma-from-virus-survivor

This sounds good - a possible countermeasure that can be replicated? Or is this a case by case sort of thing?

The way I see it, I'll breathe easy when we can establish a countermeasure that is both scalable and repeatable, and using plasma from people who have beat the virus sounds like it checks both boxes...

The problems with using the convalescent plasma is that you can't use it for everyone for a couple reasons. 

First: Not everyone's immune system will accept the mABs. The antibodies will basically be seen as foreign bodies and will be destroyed by their immune system.

Second: The antibodies have to have specific receptor interactions to be successful(specifically the effector cells) and if there are not enough antibodies available in the persons donated blood to really make enough of these interactions with the sick patients immune system, it will not be effective. And there lies the 'main problem, there is no way to test a person's donated plasma for the actual amount of antibodies present, so each different plasma transfusion is a toss up to the amount of "good" plasma a person is getting. You would basically be shooting wildly and hoping you hit enough targets to make it matter.

Third: The people who are the most effected by the virus will still be at the most risk. With this treatment you are still relying on your own immune system to fight the virus, with some help from antibodies produced from someone else who already succeeded in fighting the virus off. The people who are older and have much weaker immune systems will still be at a high risk because their immune systems will not be able to use the plasma efficiently to be able to clone their own antibodies fast enough. This is why a vaccine will always be the best option. 

Still, at this point, it's something that can help its a good thing and the people who fall in the middle area of sickness could benefit from this treatment. I know I'm late to this party but this is what I do. I currently work for a company who has three vaccines in different phases of clinical trials. The vaccine is coming. It's going to take some time but it's coming. 

Edited by seriously27
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ramssuperbowl99

ramssuperbowl99

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, seriously27 said:

Still, at this point, it's something that can help its a good thing and the people who fall in the middle area of sickness could benefit from this treatment.

I think this is the takeaway. For most people it won't be a relevant option, but this potentially in combination with other treatments can help get people out of the hospital it could help with capacity issues and help mitigate the risk of opening things up.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistakey

mistakey

Posted
Posted
On 4/20/2020 at 9:33 PM, mission27 said:

This is the MoL's position:

1. There is overwhelming evidence that the virus is seasonal like any other viral upper respiratory infection 

2. Given how other similar viruses work + other evidence, we think the impact is somewhat significant (i.e. if you could separate out other factors it would be measurable) 

3. This virus is 2-3x more contagious than the flu, so even if R0 is reduced by seasonality, that alone likely is not enough to get an R0 below 1 and prevent outbreaks

4. Unlike the flu or common cold we are mounting an aggressive public health response to the coronavirus that is likely to have an equal or bigger impact when compared to seasonality and combined these two factors are likely to slow spread significantly over the summer of 2020

5. There will still likely be outbreaks over the summer but hopefully the clusters will be much smaller

6. There is a real risk of another huge wave next winter and that makes finding a vaccine or therapeutics ASAP very important 

so either seasonality is responsible for everything, or seasonality is at least half as important as the aggressive public health response, so which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...