Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Economic Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic’ Category


Black doctors’ group creates panel to vet Covid-19 vaccines

Reporter : Irina Robu, PhD

A group of black physicians have been working on creating their own expert task force to vet regulators’ decisions about COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, due to the fact that the trust in federal agencies has weakened over the last few months.

According to the president of NMA, Leon McDougle, the new task force will address the suspicion around COVID-19 vaccines. The fear is that the vaccines might not be safe or properly tested before they are approved which makes it the reason some patients of color are wary about taking part in the clinical trials.  The task force will evaluate how well the clinical trials participants characterize demographic breakdown of American population and the fairness of the federal plans to distribute a vaccine to Black, Latino and Native American communities.

The leaders of the black community task force are still figuring out how it will work and what happens if FDA authorizes the use of product without releasing the full data to support it. As past president of the NMA, Dr. Rodney Hood knows that the organization has in its ranks the kind of expertise that could analyze clinical trial data along with expertise in epidemiology and infectious disease.

The black community task force hopes that they are able to tell their patients about the scientific findings regarding COVID-19 vaccine with full transparency and disclosure.

SOURCE

https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/21/black-doctors-group-creates-panel-to-vet-covid19-vaccines/?utm_source=STAT+NewslettersTop of Form

Read Full Post »


Did FDA Reverse Course on Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19?

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

 

Starting with a timeline of recent announcements by the FDA on convalescent plasma therapy

April 16, 2020

FDA STATEMENT

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Encourages Recovered Patients to Donate Plasma for Development of Blood-Related Therapies

 

As part of the all-of-America approach to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been working with partners across the U.S. government, academia and industry to expedite the development and availability of critical medical products to treat this novel virus. Today, we are providing an update on one potential treatment called convalescent plasma and encouraging those who have recovered from COVID-19 to donate plasma to help others fight this disease.

Convalescent plasma is an antibody-rich product made from blood donated by people who have recovered from the disease caused by the virus. Prior experience with respiratory viruses and limited data that have emerged from China suggest that convalescent plasma has the potential to lessen the severity or shorten the length of illness caused by COVID-19. It is important that we evaluate this potential therapy in the context of clinical trials, through expanded access, as well as facilitate emergency access for individual patients, as appropriate.

The response to the agency’s recently announced national efforts to facilitate the development of and access to convalescent plasma has been tremendous. More than 1,040 sites and 950 physician investigators nationwide have signed on to participate in the Mayo Clinic-led expanded access protocol. A number of clinical trials are also taking place to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma and the FDA has granted numerous single patient emergency investigational new drug (eIND) applications as well.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-encourages-recovered-patients-donate-plasma-development-blood

August 23, 2020

 

Recommendations for Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

 

  • FDA issues guidelines on clinical trials and obtaining emergency enrollment concerning convalescent plasma

FDA has issued guidance to provide recommendations to health care providers and investigators on the administration and study of investigational convalescent plasma collected from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma) during the public health emergency.

The guidance provides recommendations on the following:

Because COVID-19 convalescent plasma has not yet been approved for use by FDA, it is regulated as an investigational product.  A health care provider must participate in one of the pathways described below.  FDA does not collect COVID-19 convalescent plasma or provide COVID-19 convalescent plasma.  Health care providers or acute care facilities should instead obtain COVID-19 convalescent plasma from an FDA-registered blood establishment.

Excerpts from the guidance document are provided below.

Background

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) plays a critical role in protecting the United States (U.S.) from threats including emerging infectious diseases, such as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.  FDA is committed to providing timely guidance to support response efforts to this pandemic.

One investigational treatment being explored for COVID-19 is the use of convalescent plasma collected from individuals who have recovered from COVID-19.  Convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is being studied for administration to patients with COVID-19. Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic.

Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe and effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Therefore, it is important to study the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical trials.

Pathways for Use of Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

The following pathways are available for administering or studying the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma:

  1. Clinical Trials

Investigators wishing to study the use of convalescent plasma in a clinical trial should submit requests to FDA for investigational use under the traditional IND regulatory pathway (21 CFR Part 312). CBER’s Office of Blood Research and Review is committed to engaging with sponsors and reviewing such requests expeditiously. During the COVID-19 pandemic, INDs may be submitted via email to CBERDCC_eMailSub@fda.hhs.gov.

  1. Expanded Access

An IND application for expanded access is an alternative for use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 disease who are not eligible or who are unable to participate in randomized clinical trials (21 CFR 312.305). FDA has worked with multiple federal partners and academia to open an expanded access protocol to facilitate access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma across the nation. Access to this investigational product may be available through participation of acute care facilities in an investigational expanded access protocol under an IND that is already in place.

Currently, the following protocol is in place: National Expanded Access Treatment Protocol

  1. Single Patient Emergency IND

Although participation in clinical trials or an expanded access program are ways for patients to obtain access to convalescent plasma, for various reasons these may not be readily available to all patients in potential need. Therefore, given the public health emergency that the COVID-19 pandemic presents, and while clinical trials are being conducted and a national expanded access protocol is available, FDA also is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections through the process of the patient’s physician requesting a single patient emergency IND (eIND) for the individual patient under 21 CFR 312.310. This process allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization, if the applicable regulatory criteria are met.  Note, in such case, a licensed physician seeking to administer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to an individual patient must request the eIND (see 21 CFR 312.310(b)).

To Obtain a Single Patient Emergency IND  

The requesting physician may contact FDA by completing Form FDA 3926 (https://www.fda.gov/media/98616/download) and submitting the form by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

FACT SHEET FOR PATIENTS AND PARENTS/CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF COVID-19 CONVALESCENT PLASMA FOR TREATMENT OF COVID-19 IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS

  • FDA issues fact sheet for patients on donating plasma

August 23, 2020

 

FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Convalescent Plasma as Potential Promising COVID–19 Treatment, Another Achievement in Administration’s Fight Against Pandemic

 

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to fight COVID-19. Based on scientific evidence available, the FDA concluded, as outlined in its decision memorandum, this product may be effective in treating COVID-19 and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

Today’s action follows the FDA’s extensive review of the science and data generated over the past several months stemming from efforts to facilitate emergency access to convalescent plasma for patients as clinical trials to definitively demonstrate safety and efficacy remain ongoing.

The EUA authorizes the distribution of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the U.S. and its administration by health care providers, as appropriate, to treat suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Alex Azar, Health and Human Services Secretary:
“The FDA’s emergency authorization for convalescent plasma is a milestone achievement in President Trump’s efforts to save lives from COVID-19,” said Secretary Azar. “The Trump Administration recognized the potential of convalescent plasma early on. Months ago, the FDA, BARDA, and private partners began work on making this product available across the country while continuing to evaluate data through clinical trials. Our work on convalescent plasma has delivered broader access to the product than is available in any other country and reached more than 70,000 American patients so far. We are deeply grateful to Americans who have already donated and encourage individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 to consider donating convalescent plasma.”

Stephen M. Hahn, M.D., FDA Commissioner:
“I am committed to releasing safe and potentially helpful treatments for COVID-19 as quickly as possible in order to save lives. We’re encouraged by the early promising data that we’ve seen about convalescent plasma. The data from studies conducted this year shows that plasma from patients who’ve recovered from COVID-19 has the potential to help treat those who are suffering from the effects of getting this terrible virus,” said Dr. Hahn. “At the same time, we will continue to work with researchers to continue randomized clinical trials to study the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma in treating patients infected with the novel coronavirus.”

Scientific Evidence on Convalescent Plasma

Based on an evaluation of the EUA criteria and the totality of the available scientific evidence, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research determined that the statutory criteria for issuing an EUA criteria were met.

The FDA determined that it is reasonable to believe that COVID-19 convalescent plasma may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients. The agency also determined that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to treat COVID-19, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product and that that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternative treatments.

 

August 24, 2020

Donate COVID-19 Plasma

 

  • FDA posts video and blog about how to donate plasms if you had been infected with COVID

 

https://youtu.be/PlX15rWdBbY

 

 

Please go to https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/donate-covid-19-plasma

to read more from FDA

 

 

August 25, 2020

 

CLINICAL MEMORANDUM From: , OBRR/DBCD/CRS To: , OBRR Through: , OBRR/DBCD , OBRR/DBCD , OBRR/DBCD/CRS Re: EUA 26382: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Request (original request 8/12/20; amended request 8/23/20) Product: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Items reviewed: EUA request Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers Fact Sheet for Recipients Sponsor: Robert Kadlec, M.D. Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP), an unapproved biological product, is proposed for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act),(21 USC 360bbb-3) as a passive immune therapy for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a serious or life-threatening disease. There currently is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to CCP for treating COVID-19. The sponsor has pointed to four lines of evidence to support that CCP may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: 1) History of convalescent plasma for respiratory coronaviruses; 2) Evidence of preclinical safety and efficacy in animal models; 3) Published studies of the safety and efficacy of CCP; and 4) Data on safety and efficacy from the National Expanded Access Treatment Protocol (EAP) sponsored by the Mayo Clinic. Considering the totality of the scientific evidence presented in the EUA, I conclude that current data for the use of CCP in adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 supports the conclusion that CCP meets the “may be effective” criterion for issuance of an EUA from section 564(c)(2)(A) of the Act. It is reasonable to conclude that the known and potential benefits of CCP outweigh the known and potential risks of CCP for the proposed EUA. Current data suggest the largest clinical benefit is associated with high-titer units of CCP administered early course of the disease.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/141480/download

 

And Today August 26, 2020

  • A letter, from Senator Warren, to Commissioner Hahn from Senate Committee asking for documentation for any communication between FDA and White House

August 25, 2020 Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, M.D. Commissioner of Food and Drugs U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Dear Commissioner Hahn: We write regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) troubling decision earlier this week to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for convalescent plasma as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1 Reports suggests that the FDA granted the EUA amid intense political pressure from President Trump and other Administration officials, despite limited evidence of convalescent plasma’s effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment.2 To help us better understand whether the issuance of the blood plasma EUA was motivated by politics, we request copies of any and all communications between FDA and White House officials regarding the blood plasma EUA.

Source: https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.08.25%20Letter%20to%20FDA%20re%20Blood%20Plasma%20EUA.pdf

…….. which may have been a response to this article

FDA chief walks back comments on effectiveness of coronavirus plasma treatment

 

From CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/25/fda-chief-walks-back-comments-on-effectiveness-of-coronavirus-plasma-treatment.html

PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 25 202010:45 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, AUG 25 20204:12 PM EDT

Berkeley Lovelace Jr.@BERKELEYJR

Will Feuer@WILLFOIA

KEY POINTS

  • The authorization will allow health-care providers in the U.S. to use the plasma to treat hospitalized patients with Covid-19.
  • The FDA’s emergency use authorization came a day after President Trump accused the agency of delaying enrollment in clinical trials for vaccines or therapeutics.
  • The criticism from Trump and action from the FDA led some scientists to believe the authorization, which came on the eve of the GOP national convention, was politically motivated.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn is walking back comments on the benefits of convalescent plasma, saying he could have done a better job of explaining the data on its effectiveness against the coronavirus after authorizing it for emergency use over the weekend.

Commisioners responses over Twitter

https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1298071603675373569?s=20

https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1298071619236245504?s=20

August 26, 2020

In an interview with Bloomberg’s , FDA Commissioner Hahn reiterates that his decision was based on hard evidence and scientific fact, not political pressure.  The whole interview is at the link below:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-25/fda-s-hahn-vows-to-stick-to-the-science-amid-vaccine-pressure?sref=yLCixKPR

Some key points:

  • Dr. Hahn corrected his initial statement about 35% of people would be cured by convalescent plasma. In the interview he stated:

I was trying to do what I do with patients, because patients often understand things in absolute terms versus relative terms. And I should’ve been more careful, there’s no question about it. What I was trying to get to is that if you look at a hundred patients who receive high titre, and a hundred patients who received low titre, the difference between those two particular subset of patients who had these specific criteria was a 35% reduction in mortality. So I frankly did not do a good job of explaining that.

  • FDA colleagues had frank discussion after the statement was made.  He is not asking for other people in HHS to retract their statements, only is concerned that FDA has correct information for physicians and patients
  • Hahn is worried that people will not enroll due to chance they may be given placebo
  • He gave no opinion when asked if FDA should be an independent agency

 

For more articles on COVID19 please go to our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

Read Full Post »


Clustering of Country-Based Data in COVID-19 Infections by Coronavirus outbreak features – First wave, Data up to date 28/5/2020

Authors: Akad Doha, Markman Ofer and Lefkort Jared

 

This study investigated connections between the infection cycles of countries around the world. Utilizing factors such as the Day of Maximum Infections, the Total Infections and the Day of Maximum Infections, and Deaths and Recoveries per Million. In addition, countries that have completed the infection cycle were compared to understand similarities and differences amongst the aforementioned factors and others.

Note: All variables are reportedly up to date 28/5.

The variables:

Country

State / status – The state of the outbreak

Daily_peak – Maximum number of new daily infections

Total_at_daily_peak – The number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day of the new infections.

Death_per_m – The deaths per million people

Recovered_per_m – The recovery cases per million people

Continent – Continent

Time_to_peak- Time from day to the maximum day of new infections.

Break_time – Time in days from the maximum day for new infections until fading (only in countries that have significantly decreased the number of infections, which means that they can be considered in the end)

Total_time- Time from the day of first outbreak to the end.

 

 

Clustering:

Figure 1. Classification 1, Clustering Based on the variables – the number of new daily infections , the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day of infections , the deaths per million people , the recoveries per million people , the time to the maximum day for new infections.

Cluster 1 – red – characterized by:

  • The number of new daily maximum infections below average
  • The number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum daily infections below average
  • Deaths per million persons below average
  • Recoveries per million less than the number of deaths and below average.

Cluster 2 – blue – characterized by:

  • The number of new daily infections usually above average Deaths per million people above average
  • Recoveries per million above average yet less than deaths
  • Time to the maximum day for new infections less than average.

 

Figure 2. Classification 2, Clustering Based on the variables – the number of new daily infections, the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day of infections, the deaths per million people , the recovery cases per million people.

Cluster 1 (red): The number of new daily infections is less than average, the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day of the new infections is almost average, deaths to one million people on average, recovery cases per million people above average

Cluster 2 ( green): the number of new daily maximum infections above average, the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum daily infections most often above average, yet less than the maximum daily new infections, the deaths per million above average, the recoveries per million above average, but less than deaths.

Cluster 3 (blue): maximum number of new daily infections smaller than average and smaller than cluster 1 , the number of infections since the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum new infections below the average, deaths per million people below average, recoveries per million people under the average and lower than deaths.

 

Figure 3. Classification 3, Cluster (clustering) Based on all variables for countries that have already completed the outbreak cycle.

Cluster 1 (red): maximum number of daily new infections above average, number of infections from the initial outbreak to the maximum day of new infections above average, recoveries per million people below average, the fading time below average, and total time to completion of outbreak circle below average.

Cluster 2 ( blue ): maximum number of daily new infections below average, number of infections from the initial outbreak to the maximum day of new infections less than average, fading time usually above average and not necessarily over cluster 1, and the total time to the end of the outbreak cycle above average.

This classification is done based on a small number of countries since there are a lack of countries who have completed the outbreak circle, so we will use it only to understand what kinds of classifications we receive if there is a fading time and total time.

Figure 4. World map by classification 1:

The map shows that the countries of Asia, Northeastern Europe, Africa, Central America and South America, and some of North America are classified by Cluster 1, which means that they have Cluster 1 characteristics.

Western Europe, Eastern South America, part of North America belongs to Cluster 2. (Please refer to Cluster properties in explanation of Figure 3)

 

Figure 5. World Map by Classification 2:

Northern North America, South America, the Middle East, parts of Europe, and North Asia are classified as Cluster 3.

Western Europe, Southeastern America, and some of North America are classified as Cluster 2.

East Asia, Africa, parts of Northern Europe, parts of South America and Central America are classified into Cluster 3. (Please refer to Cluster properties in explanation of Figure 2).

 

Figure 6. Summary Classification – Combining the two classifications 1 and 2:

Cluster 1 (red) is characterized by a maximum number of new infections larger than average (highest number of maximum daily infections), the number of infections since the beginning of the outbreak to the day of maximum new daily infections more than or equal to the average, deaths above average and above cluster 4, recoveries per million people over the average, yet less than deaths.

Cluster 2 (green) is characterized by the maximum number of daily new infections close to average and tends to be above average in most cases, the number of infections since the beginning of the outbreak to the day of maximum new daily infections almost average, deaths mostly at or above average, but below cluster 1, recoveries per million above average and greater than the deaths.

Cluster 3 (blue) is characterized by a maximum number of new infections below average, the number of infections since the beginning of the outbreak to the day of maximum new daily infections less than or equal to the average, deaths below average (lowest deaths) , recoveries per million people below average and less than deaths.

Cluster 4 (Purple) is characterized by a maximum number of new infections below average, the number of infections since the beginning of the outbreak to the day of maximum new daily infections below average, deaths above average and above clusters 2 and 3, recoveries per million above average and above deaths (greatest amount of recoveries)

 

Figure 7. Distribution of time until the maximum day of New infections by the summary classification.

Cluster 3 has the highest average time up to the maximum day for new infections, followed by Cluster 1, then Cluster 2 and Cluster 4 with the lowest average.

 

Figure 8. The world map is classified according to the summery classification:

Southern South America, parts of North America, and Western Europe are classified as Cluster 1.

Table 1. countries in first cluster:

Status Country
Ongoing USA
Subsiding Belgium
Subsiding UK
Subsiding Italy
Ongoing Brazil
Subsiding France
Subsiding Spain

 

Western South America, parts of North America, the Middle East, North Asia and some parts of Europe are classified as Cluster 2.

Table 2. countries in second cluster:

status country status country
ongoing Panama ongoing Russia
completed Norway subsiding Turkey
subsiding Germany reemerged Iran
ongoing Peru ongoing Canada
subsiding Netherlands ongoing Saudi Arabia
ongoing Sweden ongoing Chile
completed Israel subsiding Portugal
completed Austria subsiding Ecuador
    subsiding Denmark

 

Parts of America, Africa, East Asia and parts of Europe are classified into Cluster 3.

Table 3. countries in second cluster:

status country status country
ongoing South Africa ongoing Poland
ongoing Philippines ongoing Mexico
ongoing Dominican Republic ongoing India
ongoing Egypt ongoing Pakistan
completed South Korea ongoing Bangladesh
subsiding Czechia ongoing Ukraine
ongoing Argentina ongoing Indonesia
ongoing Algeria subsiding Romania
subsiding Finland completed Japan
subsiding Hungary ongoing Colombia
    completed China

 

Small parts of Western Europe are classified into Cluster 4. (Please refer to Cluster properties in explanation of Figures 6 and 7)

Table 4. countries in second cluster:

status country
completed Switzerland
completed Ireland

 

Interesting discovery:

While searching the variables that contribute to a clearer picture of the world situation, some countries were found to have a day that repeats every week, characterized by the minimum number of deceased from coronavirus. These countries include: The United States, Brazil, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Israel.

In addition, India had a day characterized by a maximum number of new infections that repeats every week.

Peru had a devoted day that repeats every week characterized by a minimum number of new infections.

Statistical insights appendix:

 

Figure 9. The quantum of the quantitative variables

We can see that:

  1. The maximum number of new daily infections in most countries is less than 10000 people. In individual cases over 10000.
  2. The number of deaths from the virus in most countries is less than 200 people per million.
  3. The number of people who have recovered from the virus in most countries are under 2000 people per million.
  4. The maximum time to date for new infections varies by country and there is no common reservation for a number of days, but from the chart it can be assumed that most countries are below 80 days for maximum full outbreak.
  5. The number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day for new infections in most countries does not exceed 250000 infections.

 

Relationships and adjustments between variables:

 

Figure 10. Correlation between the different variables

The most prominent correlations between the variables are:

  1. The number of new daily infections in the maximum day for new infections and the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day for new infections. Indicates a strong positive correlation.
  2. Between the number of deaths and the number of recoveries a moderate positive correlation exists.
  3. Between the number recoveries per million and the time to maximum day of new infections a moderate negative correlation exists.

 

Figure 11. Correlation of all variables Countries that completed the outbreak cycle:

The most prominent correlations between the variables are:

  1. The number of new daily infections in the maximum day for new infections and the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day for new infections. Indicates a very strong positive correlation.
  2. Between the number of deaths and the number of recoveries correlates strong positive.
  3. The number of infections that have healed, the maximum number of new daily cases and the number of infections from the beginning of the outbreak to the maximum day of new infections has a negative medium correlation.
  4. Between the time of the outbreak fading and the time of the complete outbreak cycle there is a very strong positive correlation.
  5. The maximum number of daily new infections and outbreak fading time and all the time of outbreak cycle has a strong negative correlation.
  6. Between the number of infections from the onset of the outbreak to the maximum day for new infections, the time of outbreak fading and the whole time of the complete outbreak cycle has a very strong negative correlation.

* consider that the correlations are based on a small number of countries, so there may be biases in the correctness of adjustment with the true situation. If there were more countries that have completed the outbreak cycle would have been more precise – recommends future research.

 

Figure 12. Diagram of the correlation between variables by PCA analysis (For all countries)

 

The diagram shows the relationships between all variables, they can be interpreted as follows:

  • As the total number of infections from the onset of the outbreak to the maximum day for new infections increases, the number of maximum new daily infections increases.
  • As the number of deaths increases, the number of recovered patients also increases.
  • As the time to the maximum day for new infections decreases, the number of recovered patients increases.
  • The variables depicted in red represent those that are significant to understanding the world data, and conversely, the variables in blue are less significant, but are also necessary in understanding the data. Therefore, subsequently, one analysis was performed including the maximum day for new infections variable, and one was performed without it.

 

Figure 13. Diagram of the correlation between variables by PCA analysis (Countries that have completed the outbreak cycle)

Chart is prepared to show the connections of the variables with two variables that were found only in countries that have completed the outbreak cycle, 1. Fading time 2. The total time to completion.

  • As the time between the reduction of infection rates and the day of maximum infections increases, so does the total length of the infection cycle. And it seems that a negative relationship exists between this relationship and time to the maximum day of new infections.
  • As the fading time and time to end decreases, the total number of infections in the maximum day of new infections and new daily infections number increases (very interesting).

Reference:

The data was collected from:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths

 

Read Full Post »


Online Event: Vaccine matters: Can we cure coronavirus? An AAAS Webinar on COVID19: 8/12/2020

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams. PhD

Source: Online Event

Top on the world’s want list right now is a coronavirus vaccine. There is plenty of speculation about how and when this might become a reality, but clear answers are scarce.Science/AAAS, the world’s leading scientific organization and publisher of the Science family of journals, brings together experts in the field of coronavirus vaccine research to answer the public’s most pressing questions: What vaccines are being developed? When are we likely to get them? Are they safe? And most importantly, will they work?

link: https://view6.workcast.net/AuditoriumAuthenticator.aspx?cpak=1836435787247718&pak=8073702641735492

Presenters

Presenter
Speaker: Sarah Gilbert, Ph.D.

University of Oxford
Oxford, UK
View Bio

Presenter
Speaker: Kizzmekia Corbett, Ph.D.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH
Bethesda, MD
View Bio

Presenter
Speaker: Kathryn M. Edwards, M.D.

Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program
Nashville, TN
View Bio

Presenter
Speaker: Jon Cohen

Science/AAAS
San Diego, CA
View Bio

Presenter
Moderator: Sean Sanders, Ph.D.

Science/AAAS
Washington, DC
View Moderator Bio

Read Full Post »


Recent Grim COVID-19 Statistics in U.S. and Explanation from Dr. John Campbell: Why We Need to be More Proactive

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

In case you have not been following the excellent daily YouTube sessions on COVID-19 by Dr. John Campbell I am posting his latest video on how grim the statistics have become and the importance of using proactive measures (like consistent use of facial masks, proper social distancing) instead of relying on reactive measures (e.g. lockdowns after infection spikes).  In addition, below the video are some notes from his presentation and some links to sites discussed within the video.

 

Notes from the video:

  • approaching 5 million confirmed cases in US however is probably an underestimation
  • 160,00 deaths as of 8/08/2020

From the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle WA

  • 295,000 US COVID-19 related deaths estimated by December 1, 2020
  • however if 95% of people in US consistently and properly wear masks could save 66,000 lives
  • however this will mean a remaining 228,271 deaths which is a depressing statistic
  • Dr. John Campbell agrees with Dr. Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics that “people’s inconsistent use of these measures (face masks, social distancing) is a serious problem”
  • States with increasing transmission like Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Virginia are suggested to have a lockdown when death rate reaches 8 deaths per million population however it seems we should be also focusing on population densities rather than geographic states
  • Dr. Campbell and Dr. Murray stress more proactive measures than reactive ones like lockdowns
  • if mask usage were to increase to 95% usage reimposition to shutdown could be delayed 6 to 8 weeks

 

New IHME COVID-19 Forecasts See Nearly 300,000 Deaths by December 1

SEATTLE (August 6, 2020) – America’s COVID-19 death toll is expected to reach nearly 300,000 by December 1; however, consistent mask-wearing beginning today could save about 70,000 lives, according to new data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine.The US forecast totals 295,011 deaths by December. As of today, when, thus far, 158,000 have died, IHME is projecting approximately 137,000 more deaths. However, starting today, if 95% of the people in the US were to wear masks when leaving their homes, that total number would decrease to 228,271 deaths, a drop of 49%. And more than 66,000 lives would be saved.Masks and other protective measures against transmission of the virus are essential to staying COVID-free, but people’s inconsistent use of those measures is a serious problem, said IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray.

“We’re seeing a rollercoaster in the United States,” Murray said. “It appears that people are wearing masks and socially distancing more frequently as infections increase, then after a while as infections drop, people let their guard down and stop taking these measures to protect themselves and others – which, of course, leads to more infections. And the potentially deadly cycle starts over again.”

Murray noted that there appear to be fewer transmissions of the virus in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas, but deaths are rising and will continue to rise for the next week or two. The drop in infections appears to be driven by the combination of local mandates for mask use, bar and restaurant closures, and more responsible behavior by the public.

“The public’s behavior had a direct correlation to the transmission of the virus and, in turn, the numbers of deaths,” Murray said. “Such efforts to act more cautiously and responsibly will be an important aspect of COVID-19 forecasting and the up-and-down patterns in individual states throughout the coming months and into next year.”

Murray said that based on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, several states are seeing increases in the transmission of COVID-19, including Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Virginia.

“These states may experience increasing cases for several weeks and then may see a response toward more responsible behavior,” Murray said.

In addition, since July 15, several states have added mask mandates. IHME’s statistical analysis suggests that mandates with no penalties increase mask wearing by 8 percentage points. But mandates with penalties increase mask wearing by 15 percentage points.

“These efforts, along with media coverage and public information efforts by state and local health agencies and others, have led to an increase in the US rate of mask wearing by about 5 percentage points since mid-July,” Murray said. Mask-wearing increases have been larger in states with larger epidemics, he said.

IHME’s model assumes that states will reimpose a series of mandates, including non-essential business closures and stay-at-home orders, when the daily death rate reaches 8 per million. This threshold is based on data regarding when states and/or communities imposed mandates in March and April, and implies that many states will have to reimpose mandates.

As a result, the model suggests which states will need to reimpose mandates and when:

  • August – Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina
  • September – Georgia and Texas
  • October – Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon.
  • November – Alabama, Arkansas, California, Iowa, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

However, if mask use is increased to 95%, the re-imposition of stricter mandates could be delayed 6 to 8 weeks on average.

Source: http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-ihme-covid-19-forecasts-see-nearly-300000-deaths-december-1

 

Read Full Post »


 

Contagious

We are in the midst of a pandemic that is impacting people and society in ways that are hard to grasp. The most apparent impact is on physical health. It also effects our attitudes in society, our economy and our cultural life. Throughout history, humanity has had to face the challenge of understanding, managing and fighting viruses.

In the exhibition Contagious we are highlighting Nobel Prize-awarded researchers who have expanded our knowledge about viruses, mapped our immune system and developed vaccines. We also examine the perspectives from Literature and Economics Laureates about the impact of epidemics on life and society. Visit us at the museum or on these pages.

Museums have an important role to play in times of crisis, since they can help people tackle existential questions and provide a broader context. The Nobel Museum is about ideas that have changed the world. The Nobel Prize points to the ability of humans to find solutions to difficult challenges that we face time and time again. It is a source of hope, even in the midst of the crisis.

SOURCE

Nobel Prize Museum

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/whats-on/contagious/?utm_content=contagious_text

Coronavirus

On March 11 this year, the World Health Organization announced that the spread of the coronavirus should be classified as a pandemic, that is “an infectious disease that spreads to large parts of the world and affects a large proportion of the population of each country”. Today, nobody knows how many will die in this pandemic, or when, or if, we can have a vaccine against the disease.

SARS-CoV-2, or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is an RNA virus from the family coronavirus that causes the respiratory disease covid-19.

The virus was detected at the end of last year in the Wuhan sub-province of China, and in most cases causes milder disease symptoms that disappear within two weeks. But sometimes, especially in certain groups such as the elderly and people with certain other underlying illnesses, the infection becomes more severe and can in some cases lead to death.

The virus is believed to have zoonotic origin, that is, it has been transmitted to humans from another animal. Where the origin of the disease comes from, that is to say from which host animal the virus originates, is still unknown. However, the virus has close genetic similarity to a corona virus carried by some bats, which might indicate where the virus comes from.

This model shows the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes the illness covid-19. The globe-shaped envelope has a membrane of fat-like substances. Inside the envelope are proteins bound to RNA molecules, that contain the virus’s genes. Short spikes of proteins and longer spikes of glycoprotein stick out of the envelope and attach to receptors on the surface of attacked cells. The spikes, which are bigger at the top, give the virus its appearance reminiscent of the Sun’s corona. This where the coronavirus’s name comes from.

Testing is an important tool for tracking and preventing the spread of infection during an epidemic.

One type of test looks at if a person is infected by looking for traces of the virus’s RNA genetic material. The test is taken using a swab stick inserted into the throat. The small amounts of RNA or DNA that attach to the swab are analyzed using the PCR technique, which was invented by Kary Mullis in 1983. Ten years later he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Another type of test looks for antibodies to the virus in the blood. This indicates that the person has had the disease.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/coronavirus/

The first virus ever discovered

We have understood since the 19th century that many diseases are caused by microscopic bacteria that cannot be seen by the naked eye. It turned out that there were even smaller contagions: viruses. Research on viruses has been recognized with several Nobel Prizes.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/the-first-virus-ever-discovered/

Spanish flu

The worst pandemic of the 20th century was the Spanish flu, which swept across the world 1918–1920.

The Spanish flu was caused by an influenza virus. American soldiers at military facilities at the end of World War I were likely an important source of its spread in Europe. The war had just ended, and the pandemic claimed even more lives than the war. Between 50 and 100 million people died in the pandemic.

The Red Cross, an international aid organization, which received the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts during the war, also took part in fighting the Spanish flu. International Committee of the Red Cross received the prize in 1917, 1944 and 1963.

This photo shows personnel from the Red Cross providing transportation for people suffering from the Spanish flu in St. Louis, Missouri in the United States.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/spanish-flu/

Polio

Polio is an illness that often affects children and young people and that can lead to permanent paralysis.

Polio is a highly infectious RNA virus belonging to the genus Enterovirus. The virus only infects humans and enters the body via droplets such as sneezing and coughing, or through contact with infected people’s feces. Usually, polio infects our respiratory and intestinal tract, but sometimes the virus spreads to the spinal cord and can then cause paralysis. The virus mainly affects children, but most of those infected show no or very mild symptoms.

Vaccines are a way to help our immune system fight viruses. The immune system is the body’s defence mechanism against attacks from viruses and bacteria. A number of Nobel Laureates have researched the immune system and contributed to the development of vaccines.

Hepatitis B

The virus can infect people without them becoming sick. Discoveries in the 1960s enabled both vaccines and tests to prevent the spread.

Hepatitis B can infect humans and apes, and is most common in West Africa and in sub-Saharan Africa. The disease also occurs in the rest of Africa, as well as in areas from the Caspian Sea through to China and Korea and further down to Southeast Asia.

Baruch Blumberg discovered the virus behind hepatitis B and developed a vaccine against the disease.

There are many varieties of hepatitis, or jaundice, that cause inflammation in the liver. When studying blood proteins from people from different parts of the world at the end of the 1960s, Baruch Blumberg unexpectedly discovered an infectious agent for hepatitis B. He showed that the infectious agent was linked to a virus of previously unknown type. The virus can infect people without them becoming sick. The discoveries enabled both vaccines and tests to prevent the spread through blood transfusions.

Baruch Blumberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1976. He has summarized what the Nobel Prize meant to him.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/hepatitis-b/

Yellow fever

Each year, Yellow fever causes about 30,000 deaths. The vaccine against yellow fever was produced in the 1930s. A work awarded the Nobel Prize.

Yellow fever is a serious disease caused by a virus that is spread by mosquitos in tropical areas of Africa and South America.

Each year, Yellow fever causes about 200,000 infections and 30,000 deaths. About 90% of the cases occur in Africa. The disease is common in warm, tropical climates such as South America and Africa, but it is not found in Asia.

You may think that the number of people infected would be decreasing, but since the 1980s the number of yellow fever cases has unfortunately increased. This is believed to be due to the fact that more and more people are living in cities, that we are traveling more than before, and an increased climate impact.

Since there is no cure for the disease, preventive vaccination is a very important measure. Max Theiler successfully infected mice with a virus in the 1930s, which opened the door to more in-depth studies. When the virus was transferred between mice, a weakened form of the virus was created that gave monkeys immunity. In 1937, Theiler was able to develop an even weaker version of the virus. This version could be used as a vaccine for people.

Max Theiler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1951.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/yellow-fever/

HIV/AIDS

In the early 1980s, reports began to emerge about young men that suffered from unusual infections and cancers that normally only affect patients with weakened immune systems. It turned out to be a previously unknown epidemic, HIV, which spread rapidly across the world.

HIV, which is an abbreviation of human immunodeficiency virus, is a sexually transmitted retrovirus that attacks our immune system. An untreated infection eventually leads to AIDS, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. In 2008, French scientists Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus.

Watch the interview where Françoise Barré-Sinoussi talks about what it is like to meet patients affected by the virus she discovered.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/hiv-aids/

 

Viruses captured in photos

Viruses are incredibly small and cannot be seen in normal microscopes.

The electron microscope, which was invented by Ernst Ruska and Max Knoll in 1933, made it possible to take pictures of much smaller objects than was previously possible. Ernst Ruska’s brother, Helmut Ruska, was a doctor and biologist, and used early electron microscopes to make images of viruses and other small objects. The tobacco mosaic virus was the first virus captured on film. The development of the electron microscope has enabled increasingly better images to be taken.

Ernst Ruska was awarded the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics together with Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Röhrer, who developed the scanning electron microscope.

Read more about Ernst Ruska – his life and research. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1986/ruska/facts/

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/viruses-captured-in-photos/

 

Epidemics and literature

When epidemics and pandemics strike the world, it isn’t just the physical health of people that are impacted but also ways of life, thoughts and feelings. Nobel Laureates in literature have been effected by epidemics and written about life under real and fictive epidemics.

The coronavirus crisis has had a dramatic impact on our lives and our view of our lives. Olga Tokarczuk is one of the authors who has reflected on this.

Tokarczuk argues that the coronavirus has swept away the illusion that we are the masters of creation and that we can do anything since the world belongs to us. She wonders if the pandemic has forced us into a slower, more natural rhythm in life, but also worries about how it may increase distrust of strangers and worsen inequality among people.

Orhan Pamuk has worked for many years on a novel about a bubonic plague epidemic that struck primarily Asia in 1901. The coronavirus crisis has caused him to consider the similarities between the ongoing pandemic and past epidemics throughout history.

He sees several recurring behaviors when epidemics strike: denial and false information, distrust of individuals belonging to other groups, and theories about a malicious intent behind the pandemic. But epidemics also remind us that we are not alone and allow us to rediscover a sense of solidarity. He writes in The New York Times.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/epidemics-and-literature/

Economics Laureates on the current pandemic

Pandemics have wide-ranging impacts on the economy. Paul Romer and Paul Krugman are two economists who have been active in the public discourse during the coronavirus crisis.

Paul Romer has expressed concerns about the pandemic’s effects on the economy but is optimistic about the possibilities of technology. He supports widespread testing. Those who are infected have to stay home for two weeks while others can work and take part in other ways in society.

Paul Romer was awarded the prize “for integrating technological innovations into long-run macroeconomic analysis.” Paul Romer has demonstrated how knowledge can function as a driver of long-term economic growth. He showed how economic forces govern the willingness of firms to produce new ideas.

His thoughts are developed in his lecture during the Nobel Week 2018.

https://nobelprizemuseum.se/en/economics-laureates-on-the-current-pandemic/

 

Other SOURCE

https://www.nobelprize.org/

 

Read Full Post »


via Key Immune System Genes Identified to Explain High COVID Deaths and Spread in Northern Italy Versus Fewer Cases and Deaths in the South

Read Full Post »


The Inequality and Health Disparity seen with the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Similar to Past Pandemics

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

2019-nCoV-CDC-23311

It has become very evident, at least in during this pandemic within the United States, that African Americans and poorer communities have been disproportionately affected by the SARS-CoV2 outbreak . However, there are many other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer in which these specific health disparities are evident as well :

Diversity and Health Disparity Issues Need to be Addressed for GWAS and Precision Medicine Studies

Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer:  Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

Disease like cancer have been shown to have wide disparities based on socioeconomic status, with higher incidence rates seen in poorer and less educated sub-populations, not just here but underdeveloped countries as well (see Opinion Articles from the Lancet: COVID-19 and Cancer Care in China and Africa) and graphics below)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an article in Science by Lizzie Wade, these disparities separated on socioeconomic status, have occurred in many other pandemics throughout history, and is not unique to the current COVID19 outbreak.  The article, entitled “An Unequal Blow”, reveal how

in past pandemics, people on the margins suffered the most.

Source: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6492/700.summary

Health Disparities during the Black Death Bubonic Plague Pandemic in the 14th Century (1347-1351)

During the mid 14th century, all of Europe was affected by a plague induced by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, and killed anywhere between 30 – 60% of the European population.  According to reports by the time the Black Death had reached London by January 1349 there had already been horrendous reports coming out of Florence Italy where the deadly disease ravished the population there in the summer of 1348 (more than half of the city’s population died). And by mid 1349 the Black Death had killed more than half of Londoners.  It appeared that no one was safe from the deadly pandemic, affecting the rich, the poor, the young, the old.

However, after careful and meticulous archaeological and historical analysis in England and other sites, revealed a distinct social and economic inequalities that predominated and most likely guided the pandemics course throughout Europe.   According to Dr. Gwen Robbins Schug, a bio-archaeologist at Appalachian State University,

Bio-archaeology and other social sciences have repeatedly demonstrated that these kinds of crises play out along the preexisting fault lines of each society.  The people at greatest risk were often those already marginalized- the poor and minorities who faced discrimination in ways that damaged their health or limited their access to medical care even in pandemic times.

At the start of the Black Death, Europe had already gone under a climactic change with erratic weather.  As a result, a Great Famine struck Europe between 1315-17.  Wages fell and more people fell into poverty while the wealthiest expanded their riches, leading to an increased gap in wealth and social disparity.  In fact according to recordkeeping most of Englanders were living below the poverty line.

Author Lizzie Wade also interviewed Dr. Sharon, DeWitte, a biological anthropologist at University of South Carolina, who looks at skeletal remains of Black Death victims to get evidence on their health status, like evidence of malnutrition, osteoporosis, etc.   And it appears that most of the victims may have had preexisting health conditions indicative of poorer status.  And other evidence show that wealthy landowners had a lower mortality rate than poorer inner city dwellers.

1918 Spanish Flu

Socioeconomic and demographic studies have shown that both Native American Indians and African Americans on the lower end of the socioeconomic status were disproportionately affected by the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.  According to census records, the poorest had a 50% higher mortality rate than wealthy areas in the city of Oslo.  In the US, minors and factory workers died at the highest rates.  In the US African Americans had already had bouts with preexisting issues like tuberculosis and may have contributed to the higher mortality.  In addition Jim Crow laws in the South, responsible for widespread discrimination, also impacted the ability of African Americans to seek proper medical care.

From the Atlantic

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-health-segregation-problem/483219/

America’s Health Segregation Problem

Has the country done enough to overcome its Jim Crow health care history?

VANN R. NEWKIRK II

MAY 18, 2016

Like other forms of segregation, health-care segregation was originally a function of explicitly racist black codes and Jim Crow laws. Many hospitals, clinics, and doctor’s offices were totally segregated by race, and many more maintained separate wings or staff that could never intermingle under threat of law. The deficit of trained black medical professionals (itself caused by a number of factors including education segregation) meant that no matter where black people received health-care services, they would find their care to be subpar compared to that of whites. While there were some deaths that were directly attributable to being denied emergency service, most of the damage was done in establishing the same cumulative health disparities that plague black people today as a societal fate. The descendants of enslaved people lived much more dangerous and unhealthy lives than white counterparts, on disease-ridden and degraded environments. Within the confines of a segregated health-care system, these factors became poor health outcomes that shaped black America as if they were its genetic material.

 

https://twitter.com/time4equity/status/1175080469425266688?s=20

 

R.A.HahnaB.I.TrumanbD.R.Williamsc.Civil rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health equity: Health care, education, employment, and housing in the United States.

SSM – Population Health: Volume 4, April 2018, Pages 17-24

Highlights

  • Civil rights are characterized as social determinants of health.
  • Four domains in civil rights history since 1950 are explored in—health care, education, employment, and housing.
  • Health care, education, employment show substantial benefits when civil rights are enforced.
  • Housing shows an overall failure to enforce existing civil rights and persistent discrimination.
  • Civil rights and their enforcement may be considered a powerful arena for public health theorizing, research, policy, and action.

 

For more articles on COVID-19 Please go to our Coronovirus Portal

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

Read Full Post »


National Public Radio interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci on his optimism on a COVID-19 vaccine by early 2021

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

Below I am giving a link to an important interview by NPR’s Judy Woodruff with Dr. Anthony Fauci on his thoughts regarding the recent spikes in cases, the potential for a COVID-19 vaccine by next year, and promising therapeutics in the pipeline.  The interview link is given below however I will summarize a few of the highlights of the interview.

 

Some notes on the interview

Judy Woodruff began her report with some up to date news regarding the recent spike and that Miami Florida has just ordered the additional use of facemasks.  She asked Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAD), about if the measures currently in use are enough to bring this spike down.  Dr. Fauci said that we need to reboot our efforts, mainly because people are not doing three things which could have prevented this spike mainly

  1. universal wearing of masks
  2. distancing properly from each other
  3. close the bars and pubs (see Wisconsin bars packed after ruling)

It hasn’t been a uniform personal effort

Dr. Fauci on testing

We have to use the tests we have out there efficiently and effectively And we have to get them out to the right people who can do the proper identification, isolation, and do proper contract tracing and need to test more widely in a surveillance way to get a feel of the extent and penetrance of this community spread.  there needs to be support and money for these testing labs

We have a problem and we need to admit and own it but we need to do the things we know are effective to turn this thing around.

On Vaccines

“May be later this year”

His response to Merck’s CEO Ken Frazer who said officials are giving false hop if they say ‘end of year’ but Dr. Fauci disagrees.  He says a year end goal is not outlandish.

What we have been doing is putting certain things in line with each other in an unprecedented way.

Dr. Fauci went on to say that, in the past yes, it took a long time, even years to develop a vaccine but now they have been able to go from sequence of virus to a vaccine development program in days, which is unheard of.  Sixty two days later we have gone into phase 1 trials. the speed at which this is occurring is so much faster.  He says that generally it would take a couple of years to get a neutralizing antibody but we are already there.  Another candidate will be undergoing phase 3 trials by end of this month (July 2020).

He is “cautiously optimistic” that we will have one or more vaccines to give to patients by end of year because given the amount of cases it will be able to get a handle on safety and efficacy by late fall.

Now he says the game changer is that the government is working with companies to ramp up the production of doses of the candidate vaccines so when we find which one works we will have ample doses on hand.  He is worried about the anti vaccine movement derailing vaccine testing and vaccinations but says if we keep on informing the public we can combat this.

Going back to school

Dr. Fauci is concerned for the safety of the vulnerable in schools, including students and staff.  He wants the US to get down to a reasonable baseline of cases but in the US that baseline after the first wave was still significantly higher than in most countries, where the baseline was more like tens of cases not hundreds of cases.

For more information on COVID-19 Please go to our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

Read Full Post »


Placenta lacks molecules required for COVID-19 infection

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected more than 10 million people, including pregnant women. To date, no consistent evidence for the vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been found. The placenta serves as the lungs, gut, kidneys, and liver of the fetus. This fetal organ also has major endocrine actions that modulate maternal physiology and, importantly, together with the extraplacental chorioamniotic membranes shield the fetus against microbes from hematogenous dissemination and from invading the amniotic cavity.

 

Most pathogens that cause hematogenous infections in the mother are not able to reach the fetus, which is largely due to the potent protective mechanisms provided by placental cells (i.e. trophoblast cells: syncytiotrophoblasts and cytotrophoblasts). Yet, some of these pathogens such as Toxoplasma gondii, Rubella virus, herpesvirus (HSV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Zika virus (ZIKV), among others, are capable of crossing the placenta and infecting the fetus, causing congenital disease.

 

The placental membranes that contain the fetus and amniotic fluid lack the messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule required to manufacture the ACE2 receptor, the main cell surface receptor used by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to cause infection. These placental tissues also lack mRNA needed to make an enzyme, called TMPRSS2, that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter a cell. Both the receptor and enzyme are present in only miniscule amounts in the placenta, suggesting a possible explanation for why SARS-CoV-2 has only rarely been found in fetuses or newborns of women infected with the virus, according to the study authors.

 

The single-cell transcriptomic analysis presented by the researchers provides evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to infect the placenta and fetus since its canonical receptor and protease, ACE2 and TRMPSS2, are only minimally expressed by the human placenta throughout pregnancy. In addition, it was shown that the SARS-CoV-2 receptors are not expressed by the chorioamniotic membranes in the third trimester. However, viral receptors utilized by CMV, ZIKV, and others are highly expressed by the human placental tissues.

 

Transcript levels do not always correlate with protein expression, but the data of the present study indicates a low likelihood of placental infection and vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, it is still possible that the expression of these proteins is much higher in individuals with pregnancy complications related with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which can alter the expression of ACE2. The cellular receptors and mechanisms that could be exploited by SARS-CoV-2 are still under investigation.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/placenta-lacks-major-molecules-used-sars-cov-2-virus-cause-infection

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32662421/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32217113/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32161408/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32335053/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32298273/

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »