Covid-19: Treatments, Cures, and Vaccines

New $10 rapid saliva test approved for emergency use by FDA that produces results in hours. Same results as the $100+ PCR tests that take days to get results

News Bureau | ILLINOIS
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign is now performing its new rapid, saliva-based COVID-19 test under the umbrella of an approved FDA Emergency Use Authorization. The CLIA-certified lab at the U. of I. performed a bridging study to a recently approved FDA EUA, showing that the Illinois test performs at least as well as the recently approved saliva-testing protocol.

“Direct saliva testing can address bottlenecks of time, cost and supplies. Our test also has unique features that enable fast and frequent testing on a large scale, and we are now working together with many partners to make our testing method broadly available as soon as possible,” said Dr. Martin Burke, a chemistry professor who helped to design the test. Burke also is the associate dean for research at the Carle Illinois College of Medicine and a medical doctor.
...............…............................
Unlike most coronavirus tests, which involve a long, invasive nasopharyngeal swab, the Illinois-developed saliva test, called I-COVID, asks those tested to drool a small amount into a sterile test tube. The I-COVID test yields results in hours, even at high testing volumes: The U. of I. has performed more than 50,000 tests since making walk-up testing available to faculty members, staff and students in July, and expects to test up to 20,000 people a day when the fall semester begins Aug. 24.

 

I have been listening to podcasts from the TWIV guys discussing these results for a few weeks now. Before the FDA ruling, they had gone through a couple of the pre-prints of papers not yet peer reviewed and basically shredded them. Clearly identifying poor control in the studies, no consistency in patient selection or standard treatments in parallel with plasma treatment. Further, statistics did not show a significant difference in survival rate due to muddled data.

I think most people agree that this treatment is of benefit. But, when, how, where to apply and what treatments need to go hand in hand with this are not clear.

This is another hydroxychloroquine case. I still have little doubt that over the next 3-5 years sufficient studies will be done to conclusively rule out this drug or, more likely, find the subset of patients where when used this could provide benefit that outweighs the risks. There simply is no way to know that in the 6 short months that people have had to study it.

Trump accuses FDA of playing politics with last-minute COVID-19 plasma delay

 

This story has been getting more and more repeated play without any kind of rigorous proof. However, it is an interesting concept that I believe people will try to continue to study, though not really sure if you could apply the learning in any meaningful way.

However, the article gave the "T-Cells for Dummies" type description that being the ultra-nerd that I am found pretty interesting. Have doubts that this superficial treatment does it justice, but probably more than non-knowing people like me could handle anyway.

Thought I would share in case anyone else is interested.

Exposure to common colds might give some people a head start in fighting COVID-19

 

Forget Antigen test....here comes the Fitbit testing.....

Fitbit posts early findings showing its trackers can identify cases of COVID-19 before symptoms take hold

 

Russia back pedaling on the vaccine. Just like out an western company playbook, after the splash announcement and free advertising or promotion, the story has changed to something that pretty much looks like a Western styled phase 3 study for their vaccine candidate.

Russia announces expanded trials for coronavirus vaccine approved 10 days ago

 

Interesting. I have a Fitbit watch

 

Maybe this one will work?

 

Is there a pillow involved with this one?

 

Probably involves Ginko-biloba, ferry dust and substantial loans from Deutsche Bank to someone involved.

 

Plasma treatments. They don't have random blind trials yet, but patients have improved after receiving it.

Here are the FDA comments, which, of course, are contrary to Trump's claims today followed by a study going on. People have been receiving treatment as it is sudies; now, anyone can get the treatment.

Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma - Emergency INDs

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.

Convalescent Plasma and COVID-19: Hope, Blood and Chance

So far, nearly 87,000 patients nationwide have received plasma through the program, which is approved by the FDA as an “expanded access” program – a way for patients to receive an experimental therapy outside of a clinical trial. Like C3PO, it’s funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, which focuses on potential treatments for emerging diseases.

While the effort won’t produce as rigorous of results as a trial would because it doesn’t randomly assign patients to get plasma or not, it could still yield good evidence about the safety and side effects of convalescent plasma treatment.

COVID-19 and Convalescent Plasma - Hematology.org

Multiple published and unpublished studies have now reported on the use of convalescent plasma to treat severely or critically ill COVID-19 patients, without unexpected or serious adverse events. Many patients improved clinically and cleared the virus, however the role of the convalescent plasma treatment in these patients is unclear, because all patients received at least one additional therapy, including antivirals, antibiotics or antifungals, and corticosteroids. In the sole randomized controlled trial reported to date, patients with severe disease, but not intubated patients with critical disease, receiving convalescent plasma showed more frequent and faster clinical improvement compared to controls, however the trials was terminated early due to lack of eligible patients at the study sites in China, with waning of the pandemic there. The results from this RCT support the concept that convalescent plasma should be used prior to life-threatening disease in order to more rapidly clear virus and avoid further tissue damage, rather than using this approach to treat patients with inflammatory end organ failure.

Multiple ongoing clinical trials are investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with less severe infection, or prophylactically in highly susceptible individuals, such as exposed health care workers or family caregivers of COVID-19 patients, situations predicted to result in more potential benefit from passive antibody transfer.

 

So, I did not listen to the press conference, but my question is this: many anti-viral treatments are of limited value in the later stage of the disease, especially those in ICU because my then they have mostly passed through the infected stage but are dying due to the Cytokine Storm. Many of the steroid treatments used to quell the Cytokine storm suppress the immune system and may actually be harmful if administered too early in the course of infection when anti-virals should be more effective.

So where along the progression of the disease does this treatment appear to be most effective? Especially since what I have read so far on this, the jury is still kind....., well, out??

 

The science has not assessed the efficacy of this therapy. And this seems to be a therapy directed to the early stages.

 

Given the barely-more-than-zero that I know on the subject, that would make the most sense.

 

Lot's of good research going on all over the world. Legit science that is not being pressured by policy or politics with key Learning at the fringes trying to help people in earnest. Here is a collection of just a few: the story about ARBS and Ace inhibitors is especially interesting given the negative headline a few months back that in monkees ACE2 production was increased and "MAY" (people failed to report the "may") increase likeliness of becoming infected.

AstraZeneca starts phase 1 of antibodies that could protect against COVID-19 for 6 months

Coronavirus 'could be treated by common blood pressure pills taken by millions'

NIH will study Gilead's remdesivir-like compound against Covid-19

 

Thought this was an interesting take. Maybe why kids typically don't get very sick?
COVID-19 and the Elderly: Could MMR Vaccination Slow the Pandemic?

 

I hadn't heard of this before today (I checked and didn't see it mentioned above, apologies if I missed it):

Nasal Saline Irrigations in a Pandemic

Benefits and Safety of Nasal Saline Irrigations in a Pandemic—Washing COVID-19 Away

Our pediatrician recommended using saline not only for our children as they return to school, but also for parents as well.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

It would appear that the CDC and now the FDA have been completely overtaken by political influence, and are very quickly devolving into political tools for the re-election of our president and no longer deserve to be respected as offices of public health where science and medicine are the only guiding facts.

Pfizer could score fast COVID-19 vaccine nod, thanks to Hahn's promise of October FDA review: analyst

 

Good read on the use of UV-C going forward. entire article is worth reading. 4 paragraph limit ...

The Ins & Outs of UV-C Germicidal Irradiation - GLHN

CASE STUDY: UV-C

This summer, GLHN Architects & Engineers received a theoretical question about UV-C disinfection treatment applications for a sizeable renovation. After rapidly updating our expertise, the following economical solution was offered.

Upper-air UV-C light fixtures, wall-mounted 7’ above the floor, would be aimed up into a 10’ high space. They would only activate after two measures of occupancy are deployed: a CO2 sensor indicating spaces have recently been occupied and vacancy sensors indicate people are no longer present. This way energy isn’t wasted treating spaces that aren’t being used and people won’t be exposed to UV light.

UV-C lamps with an average of 254nm and minimum intensity of 10uW/cm² could be positioned to achieve at least 100 feet of coverage per minute with wall-mounted fixtures. Spraying titanium dioxide on surfaces would enhance dispersion of light waves. Additionally, UV-C light may be added near the cooling coils to purify the return air. For the most vulnerable populations, this two-fold approach would be ideal, but upper air UV-C treatment alone is the most affordable.

Further refinements include customizing the unit for manual programming and calibration or integrating it with the facility Building Automation Software (BAS). Then the building management team could program and monitor the operation of these lamps through the BAS system dashboard of their existing Delta System.