Ontvang nu dagelijks onze kooptips!

Koffiekamer« Terug naar discussie overzicht

In de race voor een Coronavirus Vaccin - wie wint?

Volgen

261 Posts

Pagina: «« 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 »» | Laatste | Omlaag ↓

MisterBlues 20 augustus 2020 19:22
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
This Big Data Startup Raised $12 Million To Speed Up Clinical Trials For Coronavirus Research

Castor CEO Derk Arts presents the company's Covid-19 related projects. Castor

Researchers across the globe are developing medicines based on technology that would have sounded like science-fiction a few years ago: cancer vaccines, stem cells that cure genetic disorders, brain-computer implants and more. But the clinical trial process to bring these advances to market is stuck in the 20th century: time-consuming and clunky, managed with spreadsheets and reams of paper, making data difficult to access and share.

Derk Arts is changing that with the company he founded in his basement: Castor. His aim is to “bring medical research to the 21st century by allowing researchers all across the world to very efficiently run clinical trials.”

Already powering 4,000 clinical trials across 90 countries, the Amsterdam-based company announced Wednesday that it has raised $12 million in series A funding to continue scaling up and boost its U.S. presence. The round was led by Two Sigma Ventures, along with existing investors INKEF Capital, the venture arm of the Dutch pension fund ABP, and Hambrecht Ducera Growth Ventures. This brings Castor’s total venture funding to $18.25 million.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
haas 20 augustus 2020 21:50
   haas

Lid sinds: 09 apr 2000

Laatste bezoek: 06 sep 2022

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 2442

Gegeven: 10807

   Aantal posts: 24.865
Farmaceut Johnson & Johnson (J&J) gaat zijn coronavaccin eind september testen op maximaal 60.000 mensen, schrijft de Amerikaanse krant Wall Street Journal. Het vaccin, dat bij dochterbedrijf Janssen Vaccines in Leiden wordt ontwikkeld, wordt daarmee op veel meer mensen getest dan concurrerende vaccins van onder meer Moderna, Pfizer en AstraZeneca. Die bedrijven gaan met 30.000 mensen testen.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 26 augustus 2020 14:28
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Lyra Health Hits $1.1 Billion Valuation, As Coronavirus Boosts Need For Teletherapy

As employers grapple with the fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, there’s a reckoning taking place in human resources departments around the country: the need for better mental healthcare for employees. Around one in four U.S. adults suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition and depression is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Lyra Health, which provides mental health benefits for large employers, became the latest healthcare technology startup to hit unicorn status on Tuesday, following a $110 million Series D round.

The Burlingame, California-based company expects to hit more than $100 million in revenue by the end of the year, and the latest funding round brings its valuation to $1.1 billion, according to a company representative. Around 50 million people in the U.S. have a mental health condition, and the Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating two of the most common: anxiety and depression. Lyra, which offers an easy-to-use digital platform to connect people with mental health providers, has around 1.5 million members so far, adding more than 800,000 people since the start of the pandemic.

Lyra cofounder and CEO David Ebersman says customers are looking to launch the platform right away, instead of waiting for the typical January 1 fiscal year cycle for health benefits. “Because of Covid, economic uncertainty, and conversations around racial injustice, people are really struggling even more, and it's an important time to invest in a service that really will be there for their employees when they need it,” says Ebersman, who previously served as chief financial officer of Genentech and Facebook. Untreated mental health conditions can lead to lower productivity and morale that can affect the overall work environment.
Recommended For You

Covid-19 Coronavirus Can Survive On Frozen Meat And Fish For Up To 3 Weeks, Study Finds
Covid-19 Can Cause Heart Damage—Even If You Are Asymptomatic
Africa Declared Free Of Wild Polio Virus

The $110 million Series D raise comes on the heels of a $75 million Series C closed in March. Lee Fixel’s new venture firm Addition led the round and was joined by Adams Street Partners, along with existing investors, including former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Casdin Capital, Glynn Capital, Greylock Partners, IVP, Meritech Capital Partners, Providence Ventures and Tenaya Capital. Lyra also announced that Kerry Chandler, chief human resources office at the global entertainment and sports company Endeavor, would join the board of directors. Lyra has raised around $275 million to date.

Lyra is an alumnus of this year’s Forbes Next Billion-Dollar Startups list and is the third company from the 2020 list to cross the $1 billion dollar valuation mark, along with AI-powered sales startup Gong and human resources software automation company Rippling.

One of the biggest challenges in the $280 billion behavioral health market is access, given that “only a fraction of the people that actually need care, get it,” says Thomas Bremner, partner at Adams Street Partners. “You need to use technology to drive scalability without also losing the kind of personalization and the human touch,” says Bremner. That’s where one of Lyra’s flagship products comes in: Blended Care.

Lyra’s solution combines one-on-one video sessions with digital exercises to reinforce cognitive behavioral therapy lessons. One of the keys to the company’s success is using clinical measurement tools to establish improvement over time. A study published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, led by Lyra’s director of clinical product Anita Lungu, recorded a significant decrease in anxiety or depression symptoms after 5 sessions among 385 patients, although it did not include a control group. While a randomized controlled trial would be needed to truly determine clinical effectiveness, the study suggests that Lyra’s teletherapy model could potentially achieve faster results than the typical 12 to 16 weeks of standard treatment.
Lyra Health Blended Care screenshots.

Lyra Health Blended Care screenshots. Lyra Health

Using technology to solve healthcare problems is a natural fit for Ebersman, who spent fifteen years in various executive roles at the biotechnology Genentech, including chief financial officer. He later jumped to Facebook, where he served as CFO, as well as a board member for Castlight Health. In 2015, Ebersman cofounded Lyra Health with two Venrock partners and Castlight investors, Bob Kocher and Bryan Roberts, as well as Dena Bravata, Castlight’s chief medical officer. Kocher and Roberts continue to serve on the board, while Bravata left the company.

Five years later, Lyra is rapidly expanding, and by the end of this month expects to have delivered it’s one-millionth session. The company counts a wide range of industries among its client base, ranging from Morgan Stanley to Zoom Video Communications.

One such customer is Genentech, which began partnering with Lyra in October 2018. Since then, a spokesperson says the biotech has seen a sevenfold increase in the use of its employee assistance program. “We intentionally named our program Lyra Mental Wellness to help reduce the stigma around seeking mental health care,” the company said in a statement. “Just as they have access to an acupuncturist or physical therapist, we encourage our employees to consider Lyra part of their holistic care team.”

While the regular Lyra health benefit offers services for the whole family, the next step will be using this latest funding round to expand the Blended Care model to include services both for adolescents and couples. “We want to be able to offer targeted and effective approaches to everyone,” says Ebersman. This means international expansion and investment in more clinical services, as well as expanding the company’s market segment beyond large employers and aiming at government and commercial health plans.

Before the pandemic, the trends were shifting in favor of both increased use of telemedicine and behavioral health services, but no one could have predicted just how rapid the acceleration would be. “The average person when starting care in 2020 is feeling more anxious and more depressed than we've seen in any prior year,” says Ebersman. But on the flip side, both employees and employers are asking for help. “It feels different right now,” he says. “The moment is now to offer better mental health services.”

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 31 augustus 2020 11:23
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
www.futura-sciences.com/sante/actuali...

Une étude parue le site The Cell en juillet dernier, et présente dans le dernier volume papier de la revue scientifique, refait la Une des médias et agite les réseaux à la suite de la déclaration d’un scientifique de Singapour. Une mutation aurait rendu le virus plus infectieux mais moins virulent, qu'en est-il vraiment ?

Dans cette étude, les scientifiques ont étudié l'infectiosité de deux variants du coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 : D614 et G614. La différence entre ces deux variants tient dans un changement d'une seule lettre de leur séquence génomique, une adénine remplacée par une guanine à la position 23,403.

Cela se traduit par un changement dans l'enchaînement des acides aminés qui composent la protéine S du coronavirus. Le variant D614 possède un acide aspartique, tandis que le variant G614 possède à la même place, une glycine.

Après s'être échappé de Chine, le variant G614, aussi appelé D614G, s'est rapidement répandu en Europe et a fait son chemin jusqu'aux pays d'Amérique du Nord et du Sud, aux dépends des autres variants initialement présents en Chine. Pour expliquer cela, les auteurs de l'étude de Cell ont donc émis l'hypothèse que le variant D614G était plus infectieux que l'autre.
Plus infectieux ?

Pour éprouver leur hypothèse, ils ont réalisé des tests in vitro avec des pseudo-particules virales. Ils n'ont donc pas utilisé des coronavirus mais d'autres virus habillés de la même enveloppe que le coronavirus G614 ou bien D614. In vitro, le variant G614 se montre 2,6 à 9,3 plus infectieux que l'autre, selon les lignées cellulaires utilisées. Les scientifiques ont observé la production de plus de pseudoparticules de G614 ainsi qu'une plus grande quantité d'ARN viral produit.

Dans un texte qui accompagne la parution de l'article dans Cell, Nathan D. Grubaugh, chercheur au département d'épidémiologie de l'université de Yale, ainsi que ses confrères d'Harvard et de Columbia écrivent que « ces données ne prouvent pas que G614 soit plus infectieux ou transmissible que les virus contenant D614. »

Malgré la solidité de ces expériences, elles ne peuvent en aucun cas retranscrire la dynamique naturelle de la propagation du coronavirus qui est soumise à beaucoup plus de variables, comme les défenses immunitaires.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 3 september 2020 13:58
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Yesterday, the U.S. announced that it wouldn’t join a global effort to find and distribute a vaccine for Covid-19 because it’s being led by the World Health Organization.

The WHO has already warned against the dangers of “vaccine nationalism”-- wealthier countries hoarding Covid-19 treatments and vaccines for themselves, to the detriment of global public health. “For the world to recover faster, it has to recover together,” said WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Even within the United States, we’ll soon have to decide who gets access to a Covid-19 vaccine first. Multiple entities will be tasked with sorting that out, and the result could be chaotic if everyone isn’t in agreement about who should get vaccinated first.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 4 september 2020 20:05
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Prescriptions Skyrocket For Hydroxychloroquine—A Dubious Coronavirus Treatment Endorsed By Trump

New prescriptions of the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine shot up 80-fold year-over-year in March, according to a new study from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention published on Thursday, illustrating the influence of the Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization and President Trump's encouragement for its use against Covid-19, despite a lack of data backing up any benefits against the coronavirus.
US-HEALTH-VIRUS-MEDICINE

A bottle and pills of Hydroxychloroquine sit on a counter at Rock Canyon Pharmacy in Provo, Utah, on ... [+] AFP via Getty Images
KEY FACTS

The FDA issued its emergency use authorization on March 20, a week after Trump declared a national emergency, but after numerous studies found no benefit for its use and instead found significant side effects from its use, the agency cautioned against its use on April 24 and rescinded the authorization on June 15.

New prescriptions from specialists who didn't normally prescribe the drugs rose from 1,143 in February to 75,569 in March, an 80-fold year-over-year increase.

In total, prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine between March and April increased 60% from 819,906 in 2019 to 1,312,859 in 2020, with new prescriptions declining in May and June as more research failed to prove the drugs worked as a Covid-19 treatment.

Trump received criticism for his strong endorsement for hydroxychloroquine despite its known side-effects, saying during an April 4 White House briefing, "What do you have to lose, take it, I really think they should take it."

As researchers published studies failing to prove hydroxychloroquine treated Covid-19, Trump continued to promote the drug, even claiming to have briefly taken the drug prophylactically and delaying studies on convalescent plasma in early August to instead examine hydroxychloroquine.

The FDA's emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma on August 23—a day after Trump criticized the agency and a day before the Republic National Convention—has come under scrutiny due to a lack of data proving the treatment works, fueling fears that the agency may rush to approve a Covid-19 vaccine authorization for political purposes.
Key Background

There is no known cure for Covid-19. Beyond plasma, the only other medications with an emergency use authorization for use against the coronavirus is remdesivir, which studies have shown shortens the time of recovery from severe symptoms in hospitalized patients. There are currently 26,118,288 confirmed cases of the coronavirus globally, with the U.S. leading with 6,131,344. The country also leads in reported deaths with 186,293 out of 864,801 worldwide.
Big Number

63 million. That's how many doses of hydroxychloroquine were stockpiled by the federal government by the time the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization in June.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 4 september 2020 20:06
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Vaccine Multilateralism Is The Alternative To Vaccine Nationalism

A researcher at a pharmaceutical lab in Shenyang, China that is working on a Covid-19 vaccine (Photo ... [+] AFP via Getty Images

The globe’s best bet at managing Covid-19 demands a global effort. At the moment this looks like the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Facility, which pulls together the buying power of most of the world’s countries and aims at fair access to the eventual vaccine. It does this by using the pooled funds of participating countries to invest in vaccine candidates. With COVAX’s volume guarantees, manufacturers would be better able to continue their work and scale up the most promising vaccine candidates.

The aim is to achieve 2 billion doses by the end of 2021 – covering at least 20% of the participating populations. COVAX has the ambitious goal of achieving broad availability in the first half of 2021.

The equity aspect comes from the distribution, which would target healthcare workers and those most at risk, such as elderly people. And while high- and middle-income countries will be providing their own finance, low-income countries will be supported through the COVAX Advance Market Commitment. “In the past we Africans have all too often ended up at the back of the queue for vaccines,” said Richard Mihigo, manager of the African immunization and vaccine development program of the World Health Organization (WHO), in a press briefing on Covid-19 vaccine access in Africa. He’s hoping that coronavirus will be different.
Recommended For You

LIGO’s Biggest Mass Merger Ever Foretells A Black Hole Revolution
There Could Be Planets That Orbit 3 Stars, Say Scientists Studying Orion’s ‘Tatooine-Style’ Star System
More Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Is Making Poison Ivy ‘Itchier’

Over 170 countries are in talks to participate in COVAX, making up over 70% of the world’s population. These include the China (although it hasn’t formally committed yet) and the European Union.

Notable holdouts include the US and Russia. The US is attempting to go it alone through its optimistically named Operation Warp Speed – a domestic effort to develop a vaccine speedily. This is an expression of the Trump administration’s hostility toward the WHO, at the worst possible time to reject scientific expertise.

The COVAX rejection by both Russia and the US brings to mind the politicized battle of innovation that fuelled the space race. Indeed, this comparison has been made by supporters of vaccine isolationism. But of course the pressure to land a person on the moon has very different stakes to the battle to tamp down on a global pandemic. The space race didn’t have to contend with contagion. It wasn’t a matter of survival. Rivalry between nations doesn’t make sense in this context – except where politicians are gambling on their countries coming out first, in the interest of short-term political gains.

Vaccine nationalism isn’t just a matter of ethics, in turning away from global efforts to pool resources and prioritize access for the neediest. It’s also illogical. Participation in COVAX has been called a matter of “enlightened self-interest” and “a win-win” for wealthy countries. One reason is that developing a successful vaccine can be fiendishly difficult, with many individual contenders dropping out during the process. It’s hard to know which horse will ultimately pull out ahead; betting on the wrong one could be catastrophic. Here, running as a team makes more sense than racing individually.

COVAX currently involves nine vaccine candidates – only three of which are being solely developed in the US, and none of which is being developed in Russia. They include the vaccine being worked on by CureVac, a German biopharmaceutical company that the Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to lure to the US. Clearly US officials understand the global nature of vaccine development, even if their refusal to consider COVAX suggests otherwise.

As well, vaccines will only be available in small quantities to start. (There are legitimate questions about the COVAX model – for instance, how effective the 20% target is, given that the herd immunity threshold is around 80%.) With the limited initial quantities, it’s essential to target them intelligently to people who will need them first, at a global level. If, say, rich young recluses, who are at lowest risk for contracting the virus, are the first to get scarce vaccine doses, it’s not the most efficient form of distribution.

Politically motivated vaccine nationalism is counterproductive. A pandemic spreads easily within and across borders; and if one person is vulnerable, everyone is vulnerable. Vaccine multilateralism is the sensible choice forward.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 5 september 2020 17:16
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Protecting Against Airborne Transmission Of Covid-19

Coronavirus

Previously, I wrote about the evidence for airborne transmission of Covid-19. Here I want to consider how to protect against airborne transmission and what airborne transmission might mean for the epidemiology of Covid-19.
Wear a mask
Cloth face mask

The good news is that face masks reduce airborne transmission and they do this two ways: (1) by protecting the susceptible wearer, and (2) by protecting everyone else when the wearer is the one who is infectious.
Recommended For You

Is Covid-19 Airborne?

Even though aerosol filtration by common fabrics is not perfect, it may be comparable to N95 masks. Even homemade face masks made of tea cloth have been shown to reduce the inhalation of aerosols by about 50%. This isn’t terribly bad compared to surgical masks, which reduced exposure by about 75% in the same experiment. (Both homemade masks and surgical masks were inferior compared with FFP2 masks, a European mask similar to the N95 masks available in North America, which reduced exposure by about 99%.)
N95 Face Mask

Another study, using surgical masks, looked at aerosols generated during a 30 minute period of normal breathing by individuals infected with one of two human coronaviruses, influenza virus, or rhinovirus. The coronaviruses used in this study — known as OC43 and HKU1 — are relatives of the virus that causes Covid-19, but are not the same species. Coronavirus was detected during thirty minutes in the exhaled breath from four out of ten participants without masks but zero out of eleven participants with masks. These sample sizes are small, but statistically significant.

Perhaps most interestingly, the data collected in the second study also included how many times participants coughed. Despite infection, some participants didn’t cough at all. Of these “non-coughers” there were only four with coronavirus and none of these generated detectable virus in aerosols or droplets. But one out of nine non-coughers with flu and five out of seventeen non-coughers with rhinovirus generated virus-laden aerosols. These results strongly support the value of masks worn even by people who are not symptomatic, if it’s possible that they may be infected.
Why being outdoors helps: Sunlight and ventilation

Regardless of transmission route, one thing is certain: increased contact with others, both in duration and proximity, increases risk of infection. The risk is compounded in enclosed spaces, where social distancing is more difficult. One study found that the odds of transmitting Covid-19 in a closed environment is 18.7 times greater than in an open-air environment. Being outside provides an astonishing reduction in risk.

This is partly due to ventilation. A key element in reducing risk indoors is ensuring proper ventilation. When ventilation is poor, aerosols remain in the air longer. For individuals in the same enclosed space as an infected person, poor ventilation increases risk of airborne transmission by allowing aerosolized virus particles to accumulate.

In looking further at how risks of indoor spaces may be mitigated, studies have demonstrated that it is the sun itself that reduces the infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2. As little as eight minutes of exposure to sunlight reduced the viability of an aerosolized sample by 90%. A control sample left in the dark required more than four and half hours for the same reduction in viability.
bar graph

Time (in minutes) to 90% loss of viability of SARS-CoV-2 under simulated sunlight. Image: John M. Drake. Based on data from Schuit. et al. 2020.
Why is there still skepticism about airborne transmission?

Despite the many studies suggesting the possibility of airborne transmission, there is still skepticism that it plays anything more than a negligible role in total infections. One argument focuses on the reproduction number (i.e. the number of secondary cases rising from each infected person). The reproduction number for Covid-19 — even before strict prevention measures — is probably somewhere between 2 and 4 (with some of that variation depending on the transmission setting). This is far lower than viruses known to be airborne, such as measles, which has a reproduction number of 12 to 18.

This is a compelling argument. But there are alternative explanations. For instance, it could be that transmission is generally rare (whether by aerosols, droplets, or fomites), but sometimes, perhaps only very occasionally, results in a lot of airborne exposures. Rarity and magnitude would balance each other out to result in the modest reproduction number estimated by epidemiologists. A prediction of this hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 transmission may occur in bursts. There is anecdotal evidence that Covid-19 transmission occurs in bursts quite often (think about the numerous reports of large simultaneous exposures like the Skagit County choir practice). A feature of the original SARS virus, which caused a series of epidemics in 2003 and is related to the virus that causes Covid-19, was transmission in bursts

To sum up, aerosols have the chance of exposing a much larger number of people than droplets, due to the longer time they remain aloft and longer distances traveled. But there are ways to reduce risk — by wearing masks, socializing outside, and ensuring adequate indoor ventilation. Without taking these precautions, even if the number of exposure events may be small, it is quite possible that a relatively large number of individual cases of Covid-19 have been caused by airborne transmission. The important thing is that this is neither surprising nor insurmountable.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 5 september 2020 17:27
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Alphabet’s Verily Lands First Employer For Its Back-To-Work Covid-19 Vetting System

ALPHABET VERILY

The Verily website is displayed on a laptop computer in an arranged photograph taken in Arlington, ... [+] © 2020 Bloomberg Finance LP

Google’s sister company Verily said it has landed its first employer client for its health screening and analytics service designed to help companies and schools reopen during the pandemic.

The tech company Waymo, Alphabet’s self-driving car unit, Friday said it will use Verily’s “Healthy at Work,” which offers diagnostic testing for the Coronavirus strain Covid-19 to clear their employees to return to the workplace based on individual test results as well as how prevalent the virus is in the community.

Verily, also an Alphabet company, announced in June it was launching Healthy at Work by combining Verily’s “core data science and software capabilities, and Covid-19 testing expertise with guidance from public health authorities” to provide testing, screening and related strategies for universities and employers to return to “shared spaces.”

Landing an employer client is key for Verily given thousands of U.S. businesses across the country continue to have their employees work remotely during the pandemic into this fall and at least until a Covid-19 vaccine is available later this year or into early 2021, employee benefits consultants say.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 5 september 2020 18:25
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Convalescent plasma

According to the FDA web site, you need to have had a prior diagnosis of Covid-19 that was confirmed by an actual laboratory test and have had no symptoms for at least 14 days prior to donating. The site provides the following links to identify places to make your blood donations as well:

AABBExternal Link Disclaimer
America’s Blood CentersExternal Link Disclaimer
American Red CrossExternal Link Disclaimer
Blood Centers of AmericaExternal Link Disclaimer
CoVIg-19 Plasma AllianceExternal Link Disclaimer
National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma ProjectExternal Link Disclaimer
Plasma Protein Therapeutics AssociationExternal Link Disclaimer
The Fight Is In Us

Federal officials have been hesitant to issue the EUA for convalescent plasma since the evidence to date hasn’t been very strong. The studies to date have had major limitations. For example, a randomized clinical trial in seven medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14 to April 1, 2020, was not blinded and didn’t have enough patients. Not blinded means that the researchers knew which patients got the therapy and which did not. This could in turn bias how they assessed the patients and the results. The number of patients was relatively small because researchers had terminated the study when Covid-19 cases had decreased in Wuhan.

A publication in JAMA described how those with severe Covid-19 who received convalescent plasma were 34% more likely than those who didn’t receive the treatment to have improved by Day 28. While the study did find that those who received therapy had a lower mortality rate (16% vs. 24%) compared to those who didn’t receive the therapy (the control group). The researchers reported two transfusion-related events, including one severe event.

Another study published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings was a safety analysis of the first 20,000 patients who received plasma through the Mayo Clinic program, between April 3 and June 2, 2020. This study was also limited because there was no control arm. The researchers found 146 severe adverse events (less then 1% of patients) and 63 deaths. The researchers determined that 13 of the deaths may have been related to the convalescent plasma treatment.

Then there’s the case-control study of 39 consecutive patients who were at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City from March 24 to April 8, 2020. The research team uploaded the results of this study as a pre-print to medRxiv. That means the study has not yet fully undergone scientific peer-review. So take any findings with a pillow case full of salt. For the study, the team searched the hospital’s electronic health records to find 156 patients who had had Covid-19 but didn’t receive convalescent plasma to serve as controls. Compared to the control group, a lower percentage of those who had received convalescent plasma (13% versus 24%) ended up dying (as of May 1, 2020.), Again, this study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and was not a randomized clinical trial.

The dearth of strong evidence doesn’t mean that convalescent plasma can’t turn out to be a useful therapy. Will it be a “powerful therapy” that will save “countless lives”? That’s not very clear right now. The EUA certainly isn’t a “major therapeutic breakthrough.” It’s more of a change in status of the treatment’s availability. This makes it easier for doctors to try the treatment and patients to get the treatment. That could be a double-edged sword in some ways. It may make it more difficult to recruit for formal clinical trials since patients may just want to get the treatment without being part of a clinical trial. It also makes it more possible for the treatment to be misused.

It’s really too early to tell the impact of this treatment. It’s probably not going to change many of the realities of the pandemic. The virus is still spreading throughout the U.S. It is still potentially deadly. It still can leave people with persistent symptoms. Social distancing will still be necessary.

There are concerns that the FDA EUA decision may be too rushed, that political pressure may be trumping science, so to speak. Will granting the EUA now versus when more data is available save lives or will it put more lives at risks since the data on its safety and efficacy are not clear yet?

Convalescent plasma does have promise to help those with severe Covid-19. But is today’s announcement a major therapeutic breakthrough? Not yet. So stay tuned.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 9 september 2020 08:42
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Now that AstraZeneca's Covid-19 clinical trials is in hold, Mexico, the UK & US are having less choices.

Accord to the report one off he participants had a heart attack three days after getting the vaccine.
In the United States, in addition to AstraZeneca's trial, now on hold, there are two other large-scale COVID-19 vaccine trials underway, one by Pfizer and BioNTech, a German company, and another by Moderna, a biotech firm.

The medical and biotech news site STAT, which broke the news of the trial stoppage, reported the person's exact reaction was not known, although they are expected to recover.

Now the company must try to figure out the cause their reaction, said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor in the division of preventive medicine and infectious disease at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

“It’s very possible that according to their protocol, as soon as the event occurs the company can put a hold on the trial and then refer the investigation to the Data Safety Monitoring Board, the external group of experts who then conduct an investigation,” he said.

It's crucial to show whether the person's reaction was caused by the vaccine, or a coincidence.

Schaffner offered a hypothetical example of how such a halt might happen. If, for example, one of the vaccine trial participants had a heart attack three days after getting the vaccine and ended up in the hospital, “this would immediately qualify as an adverse event. We don’t know if it’s linked to the vaccine or not, but it would likely be the kind of trigger that could cause a pause while the Data Safety Monitoring Board investigated."

AstraZeneca's statement in full reads:

"As part of the ongoing randomized, controlled global trials of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine, our standard review process was triggered and we voluntarily paused vaccination to allow review of safety data by an independent committee. This is a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials, while it is investigated, ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials. In large trials illnesses will happen by chance but must be independently reviewed to check this carefully. We are working to expedite the review of the single event to minimize any potential impact on the trial timeline. We are committed to the safety of our participants and the highest standards of conduct in our trials."

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 9 september 2020 08:48
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
AstraZeneca onderbreekt proeven met eventueel coronavaccin

Gepubliceerd op 9 september 2020 07:51 | Views: 1.339

Artikel
Reacties

[07:51 - AstraZeneca onderbreekt proeven met eventueel coronavaccin]

CAMBRIDGE/OXFORD (AFN/RTR) - De Britse farmaceut AstraZeneca en de Universiteit van Oxford onderbreken de vergevorderde proeven met een mogelijk coronavaccin om veiligheidsredenen, meldt de gezondheidsnieuwswebsite Stat News. Het potentiële vaccin heeft mogelijk ongewenste bijeffecten veroorzaakt bij een proefpersoon. De Europese Commissie en Nederland hebben een deal met AstraZeneca gesloten voor het vaccin dat de farmaceut met de Universiteit van Oxford ontwikkelt.

"Standaard beoordelingsprocedures hebben aanleiding gegeven tot een onderbreking van de vaccinaties om de veiligheidsdata te beoordelen", zegt een woordvoerder van AstraZeneca in een verklaring. Volgens hem gaat het om een routinebesluit.

Welke ongewenste bijwerking bij de proefpersoon is opgetreden en wanneer het is gebeurd, is niet bekend. De proefpersoon zal naar verwachting herstellen.

Voorzichtigheid

Een ingewijde zegt dat de proeven zijn stilgelegd vanwege een "grote mate van voorzichtigheid". Een tweede ingewijde, die niet met naam en toenaam genoemd wil worden, stelt dat de bevinding die tot de onderbreking heeft geleid, invloed heeft op de proeven door AstraZeneca die nog moeten plaatsvinden en die van andere farmaceuten die vaccinproeven uitvoeren.

Een woordvoerder van AstraZeneca zegt dat ziekteverschijnselen altijd kunnen optreden in grootschalige proeven. Individuele gevallen die zich voordoen moeten dan zorgvuldig worden onderzocht, aldus de woordvoerder.

Negen grote vaccinproducenten uit Europa en de Verenigde staten beloofden dinsdag plechtig dat zij hun normale veiligheidsstandaarden niet zullen verlagen, ondanks de grote druk die er is om snel een effectief vaccin te ontwikkelen. Ook AstraZeneca deed die belofte.

De proeven met het zogenoemde Oxford-vaccin, die in de derde fase zijn, worden momenteel voornamelijk uitgevoerd in de Verenigde Staten. De proef waarbij de ongewenste bijeffecten zouden zijn opgetreden vond plaats in het Verenigd Koninkrijk.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 9 september 2020 09:35
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Biopharma Leaders Unite to Stand with Science
Sep 08, 2020 at 6:30 AM EDT

-- Nine CEOs sign historic pledge to continue to make the safety and well-being of vaccinated individuals the top priority in development of the first COVID-19 vaccines --

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sep. 8, 2020-- The CEOs of AstraZeneca (LSE/STO/NYSE: AZN), BioNTech (NASDAQ: BNTX), GlaxoSmithKline plc (LSE/NYSE: GSK), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX), Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), and Sanofi (NASDAQ: SNY), today announced a historic pledge, outlining a united commitment to uphold the integrity of the scientific process as they work towards potential global regulatory filings and approvals of the first COVID-19 vaccines.

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: www.businesswire.com/news/home/202009...

All nine CEOs signed the following pledge:

We, the undersigned biopharmaceutical companies, want to make clear our on-going commitment to developing and testing potential vaccines for COVID-19 in accordance with high ethical standards and sound scientific principles.

The safety and efficacy of vaccines, including any potential vaccine for COVID-19, is reviewed and determined by expert regulatory agencies around the world, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA has established clear guidance for the development of COVID-19 vaccines and clear criteria for their potential authorization or approval in the US. FDA’s guidance and criteria are based on the scientific and medical principles necessary to clearly demonstrate the safety and efficacy of potential COVID-19 vaccines. More specifically, the agency requires that scientific evidence for regulatory approval must come from large, high quality clinical trials that are randomized and observer-blinded, with an expectation of appropriately designed studies with significant numbers of participants across diverse populations.

Following guidance from expert regulatory authorities such as FDA regarding the development of COVID-19 vaccines, consistent with existing standards and practices, and in the interest of public health, we pledge to:

Always make the safety and well-being of vaccinated individuals our top priority.
Continue to adhere to high scientific and ethical standards regarding the conduct of clinical trials and the rigor of manufacturing processes.
Only submit for approval or emergency use authorization after demonstrating safety and efficacy through a Phase 3 clinical study that is designed and conducted to meet requirements of expert regulatory authorities such as FDA.
Work to ensure a sufficient supply and range of vaccine options, including those suitable for global access.

We believe this pledge will help ensure public confidence in the rigorous scientific and regulatory process by which COVID-19 vaccines are evaluated and may ultimately be approved.

Together, these nine companies have collectively developed more than 70 novel vaccines that have helped to eradicate some of the world’s most complex and deadly public health threats, underscoring their experience in clinical development and regulatory rigor, as well as their longstanding commitments to patient safety and public health.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 9 september 2020 09:35
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
About AstraZeneca

AstraZeneca (LSE/STO/NYSE: AZN) is a global, science-led biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery, development and commercialisation of prescription medicines, primarily for the treatment of diseases in three therapy areas - Oncology, Cardiovascular, Renal & Metabolism, and Respiratory & Immunology. Based in Cambridge, UK, AstraZeneca operates in over 100 countries and its innovative medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide. Please visit astrazeneca.com and follow the Company on Twitter @AstraZeneca.

About BioNTech

Biopharmaceutical New Technologies is a next generation immunotherapy company pioneering novel therapies for cancer and other serious diseases. The Company exploits a wide array of computational discovery and therapeutic drug platforms for the rapid development of novel biopharmaceuticals. Its broad portfolio of oncology product candidates includes individualized and off-the-shelf mRNA-based therapies, innovative chimeric antigen receptor T cells, bi-specific checkpoint immuno-modulators, targeted cancer antibodies and small molecules. Based on its deep expertise in mRNA vaccine development and in-house manufacturing capabilities, BioNTech and its collaborators are developing multiple mRNA vaccine candidates for a range of infectious diseases alongside its diverse oncology pipeline. BioNTech has established a broad set of relationships with multiple global pharmaceutical collaborators, including Genmab, Sanofi, Bayer Animal Health, Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, Regeneron, Genevant, Fosun Pharma, and Pfizer.

For more information, please visit biontech.de/.

About GlaxoSmithKline

GSK is a science-led global healthcare company with a special purpose: to help people do more, feel better, live longer. For further information please visit www.gsk.com/about-us.

About Johnson & Johnson

At Johnson & Johnson, we believe good health is the foundation of vibrant lives, thriving communities and forward progress. That’s why for more than 130 years, we have aimed to keep people well at every age and every stage of life. Today, as the world’s largest and most broadly-based health care company, we are committed to using our reach and size for good. We strive to improve access and affordability, create healthier communities, and put a healthy mind, body and environment within reach of everyone, everywhere. We are blending our heart, science and ingenuity to profoundly change the trajectory of health for humanity. Learn more at Learn more at www.jnj.com. Follow us at @JNJNews.

About the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson

At Janssen, we're creating a future where disease is a thing of the past. We're the Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, working tirelessly to make that future a reality for patients everywhere by fighting sickness with science, improving access with ingenuity and healing hopelessness with heart. We focus on areas of medicine where we can make the biggest difference: Cardiovascular & Metabolism, Immunology, Infectious Diseases & Vaccines, Neuroscience, Oncology and Pulmonary Hypertension.

Learn more at www.janssen.com. Follow us at www.twitter.com/JanssenGlobal or www.twitter.com/JanssenUS.

About Merck

For more than 125 years, Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, has been inventing for life, bringing forward medicines and vaccines for many of the world’s most challenging diseases in pursuit of our mission to save and improve lives. We demonstrate our commitment to patients and population health by increasing access to health care through far-reaching policies, programs and partnerships. Today, Merck continues to be at the forefront of research to prevent and treat diseases that threaten people and animals – including cancer, infectious diseases such as HIV and Ebola, and emerging animal diseases – as we aspire to be the premier research-intensive biopharmaceutical company in the world. For more information, visit www.merck.com and connect with us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn.

About Moderna

Moderna is advancing messenger RNA (mRNA) science to create a new class of transformative medicines for patients. mRNA medicines are designed to direct the body’s cells to produce intracellular, membrane or secreted proteins that can have a therapeutic or preventive benefit and have the potential to address a broad spectrum of diseases. Moderna’s platform builds on continuous advances in basic and applied mRNA science, delivery technology and manufacturing, providing the Company the capability to pursue in parallel a robust pipeline of new development candidates. Moderna is developing therapeutics and vaccines for infectious diseases, immuno-oncology, rare diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, independently and with strategic collaborators.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., Moderna currently has strategic alliances for development programs with AstraZeneca PLC and Merck & Co., Inc., as well as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense; the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a division of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Coalition for Epidemic Pre

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 10 september 2020 12:56
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Ik vraag me af hoeveel staartjes dit muisje krijgt. Hoeveel mensen krijgen bijwerkingen? Hoeveel mensen worden nu juist extra besmet? Kan het niet meer kwaad dan goed?

International Scientists Skeptical Of Data In Russian Covid-19 Vaccine Trial
Leah Rosenbaum
Leah RosenbaumForbes Staff
Innovation
I am the assistant editor of healthcare and science.

Topline

More than 25 researchers and scientists from around the world have published and signed a letter stating concerns about the legitimacy of the data in a recent article outlining the early clinical trials of the Russian Covid-19 vaccine published in The Lancet.
Volunteers take part in post-registration phase trials of Russia's COVID-19 vaccine

A medical worker gives a volunteer a trial vaccine against COVID-19 at Moscow's N62 Outpatient ... [+] Sergei Bobylev\TASS via Getty Images
Key Facts

The note, published on September 7th, is addressed to the authors of a study on the Russian Covid-19 vaccine and the editor of prestigious medical journal The Lancet.

The authors of the note say that their concerns about the data stem from the fact that some data appears to repeat in a way that they say defies coincidence, raising concerns that some of the data was falsified.

For example, all of the volunteers that received one version of the vaccine appeared to produce the exact same amount of antibodies 21 and 28 days after injection.

The authors of the note say that no definitive conclusions can be drawn without the full data from the trial, and ask the study authors to release all of the data from the experiments.

The Lancet study was published on September 4th and detailed the results of an early stage clinical trial of two versions of the Russian Covid-19 vaccines, and found that both vaccines were safe and well tolerated in 76 volunteers.

Even though some vaccine trials in America and other countries are larger and have collected more data, Russia was the first country in a global race to approve a Covid-19 vaccine.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 10 september 2020 16:19
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Novavax to Participate in Upcoming Investor Conferences
Sep 10, 2020 at 7:00 AM EDT

GAITHERSBURG, Md., Sept. 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX), a late stage biotechnology company developing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, today announced it will participate in five upcoming investor conferences. A topic of discussion will be Novavax’ COVID-19 vaccine candidate, NVX-CoV2373.

Conference details are as follows:

Citi 15th Annual BioPharma Virtual Conference
Date: September 10, 2020
Event: Investor meetings only

H.C. Wainwright 22nd Annual Global Investment Conference
Date: September 14, 2020
Time: 9:30 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time (ET)
Event: Corporate presentation and investor meetings
Live Webcast: www.novavax.com, “Investors”/ “Events”

Cantor Virtual Global Healthcare Conference
Date: September 15, 2020
Time: 11:20 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time (ET)
Event: Fireside chat and investor meetings
Live Webcast: www.novavax.com, “Investors”/ “Events”

Morgan Stanley Virtual 18th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
Date: September 16, 2020
Time: 12:30 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time (ET)
Event: Fireside chat and investor meetings
Live Webcast: www.novavax.com, “Investors”/ “Events”

Leerink CyberRx Series: Vaccine Forum
Date: September 23, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time (ET)
Event: Fireside chat

A replay of the presentations will also be accessible under the “Investors/Events” section www.novavax.com.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
haas 17 september 2020 09:40
   haas

Lid sinds: 09 apr 2000

Laatste bezoek: 06 sep 2022

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 2442

Gegeven: 10807

   Aantal posts: 24.865
quote:
haas schreef op 29 april 2020 14:42:
ha, @ mr Blues,welkom
Mooie lithanie, in 5 delen:)

Oja, Inovia,zie ik niet zo zitten: bloed aan de paal
koers $ 14.00,wss wat lager in 3 mnd,imo
INO gedaald naar < 10 begin deze week(top in Juni 2020 34)
NU 18.50 in 3 dagen

PS: ik heb niet meegedaan. Ik hou mij eraan dat ik niet aan de race naar 'n mogelijk vaccin meedoe:)

1
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 17 september 2020 13:36
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
Without Good Public Health Strategy, The Coronavirus Pandemic Could Make Antimicrobial Resistance Worse

Healthcare
Rodney Rohde,PhD is a Professor and Chair for the Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) Program in the College of Health Professions at Texas State University.

Dr. Rodney Rohde, a virologist and clinical laboratory expert, explains how the Covid-19 pandemic can make antimicrobial resistance a bigger problem if health systems aren’t careful.
AUSTRALIA-HEALTH-HOSPITAL-DISEASE-SUPERBUG

Antimicrobial-resistant infections are a major problem around the globe. WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images

Like most of my public health; healthcare, medical laboratory, environmental services and other related professionals, I’ve spent the last seven months overwhelmed by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic—and expect to continue to be overwhelmed. But when I get a chance to catch my breath, one worry that keeps coming back to my mind is the potential for this pandemic to amplify an already out of control, but resilient threat – the antimicrobial resistance epidemic.

In its recent 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that despite improvements in recent years, “the number of people facing antibiotic resistance in the United States is still too high. More than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the United States each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result. In addition, nearly 223,900 people in the United States required hospital care for C. difficile and at least 12,800 people died in 2017.” Likewise, a group of public health experts from the UN, international agencies and others released a report in April of 2019 stating that if no action is taken, “drug-resistant diseases could cause 10 million deaths each year by 2050 and damage to the economy as catastrophic as the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. By 2030, antimicrobial resistance could force up to 24 million people into extreme poverty.”

I have been personally involved in the war on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) for about two decades. It is personal to me for a number of reasons. Primarily, AMR has become an ongoing crusade for me because my father has been dealing with an ongoing methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection for many years. However, it is not just about my dad; it is about so many others that I have worked with regarding this terrible global crisis and pandemic. The ongoing need to educate the public about this threat is becoming life and death for so many. Despite the challenges of the current pandemic, antimicrobial resistance should still be front of mind for physicians and public health officials. This is especially true because without a good strategy, it’s possible the current pandemic could increase the threat.

How Covid-19 could make antibiotic resistance worse

Imagine being in the current landscape for a physician or other healthcare provider that is responsible for tackling things like bacterial infections such as pneumonia, strep throat, or other similar respiratory ailments. Especially as schools are reopening and we move into the Fall, which is a prime time for flu viruses, allergies and other respiratory ailments. At a time when there are over 29 million Covid-19 infections globally, and almost 200,000 deaths in the United States, there will be times where overwhelmed doctors will prescribe antibiotics for the wrong infection.

Viruses are not killed by antibiotics, which target only bacteria. But a wrong prescription doesn’t just mean a patient gets the wrong treatment. When we take antibiotics incorrectly, either because of the wrong prescription or because we take antibiotics without a physician or pharmacist prescribing one, we create an environmental pressure cooker where bacteria can become superbugs, evolving because of the presence of antimicrobial medicines.

Other risks the pandemic poses for accelerating antibiotic resistance

In a recent Bulletin from the WHO, several experts discussed dangers that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will contribute to the threat of antibiotic resistance. They argue many people have been receiving antibiotics when presenting with mild cases of Covid-19, but no pneumonia or even a moderate case with pneumonia. These are instances when antibiotics should not be prescribed. The article goes on to note that studies “published on hospitalized COVID-19 patients identified that while 72% (1450/2010) of patients received antibiotics, only 8% (62/806) demonstrated superimposed bacterial or fungal co-infections.”

There’s a secondary impact here because of the use of hydroxychloroquine, which is not yet recommended as a Covid-19 treatment outside of ongoing clinical trials. The World Health Organization reports that azithromycin (an antibiotic) is being widely used with the hydroxychloroquine treatment.

Another concern is that with higher Covid-19 hospital admissions, we are seeing increased numbers of healthcare associated infections (HAIs). A proportion of these infections will be multidrug resistant bacterial infections from microbes like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium tuberculosis or any other number of these dangerous bacteria. Not only do these diseases threaten patients, but because of crowding of hospitals caused by the pandemic, there’s a greater risk of these diseases spreading to others. Likewise, the Covid-19 pandemic is leading to issues like fewer vaccinations or disruptions to ongoing treatments for HIV or other infections. These disruptions can and do lead to selection for resistance in bacteria.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 17 september 2020 13:38
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
We’re not rising up to the challenge of antibiotic resistance

Public health experts have been screaming about antibiotic resistance for decades. Yet, even in the face of our educational efforts for political leaders, policymakers, healthcare professionals, environmentalists and the public about the crisis, this slower but ever-present epidemic continues to be a low priority.

To make matters worse, public health and university research funding for the problem of antimicrobial resistance is dangerously underfunded compared to other infectious and non-infectious diseases. I would argue that this type of ongoing public health threat should be a line-item fund via governmental agencies. Public health matters all the time to everyone. Eternal, ongoing funding is critical to combat this threat. Unfortunately, too often we see the funding thrown at a current emergency (like Covid-19) in a reactive, knee-jerk response when we all know that a proactive, ongoing national strategy for any major public health threat makes more sense.
Concept of global medicine and healthcare. Doctor holds digital tablet. Diagnostics and modern technology

Health systems play a key role in preventing antimicrobial resistance. getty

The importance of antimicrobial stewardship

Timothy Gauthier currently manages the Antimicrobial Stewardship Clinical Program for Baptist Health South Florida and has been an infectious diseases clinical pharmacist for the past decade in Miami, Florida. In his career as a clinician, researcher, and educator he has helped treat patients infected with bacteria resistant to all our FDA-approved antibiotics. He also teaches other healthcare professionals about how to manage infections caused by antimicrobial resistant bacteria, and all too commonly he has seen these “‘bad bugs” contribute to patient morbidity and mortality, particularly in vulnerable populations.

One of Gauthier’s key philosophies is the idea of “antimicrobial stewardship”, which describes efforts aimed at measuring and improving how antibiotics are prescribed, with goals to reduce the chances for drug toxicity or selecting out problem bacteria, all while maximizing antibiotic effectiveness. Antimicrobial stewardship is important for improving appropriate antibiotic use, which can secondarily reduce the chances for causing antibiotic resistance, but according to Gauthier, the Covid-19 pandemic has “pushed antimicrobial stewardship programs back onto their heels.”

It’s only natural that people’s attention is focused on the current crisis. However, Gauthier warns that if antimicrobial stewardship programs are more focused on Covid-19, that means they are less focused on other matters. “This is something that is very concerning.” Says Dr. Gauthier. “While we need to focus efforts towards managing Covid-19 patients rationally, we also need to keep up our efforts to ensure optimal antimicrobial drug use.”

How medical systems can do their part

The authors of the above-mentioned WHO Bulletin propose antimicrobial stewardship activities should be integrated into the Covid-19 pandemic response across the broader health system through five measures:

1. Increase clinical competence among health workers treating Covid-19 patients through targeted training in order to prevent misdiagnosis.

2. Ensure the continuity of essential health services and regular supply of quality assured and affordable antimicrobials including antiretroviral and tuberculosis drugs and vaccines.

3. Reduce the turnaround time of Covid-19 testing by improving testing methods and expanding testing facilities, especially for presumed patients, to reduce the urge to initiate antibiotics.

4. Exercise maximum caution in the use of biocides for environmental and personal disinfection and prioritize biocidal agents without or with a low selection pressure for antibiotic resistance.

5. Address gaps in research to ensure that antimicrobial stewardship activities become an integral part of the pandemic response and beyond.

If these principles are kept front and center, then medical systems can treat Covid-19 patients rapidly and efficiently, without increasing the risks of antimicrobial resistant infections.

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké
MisterBlues 21 september 2020 13:35
   MisterBlues

Lid sinds: 09 jan 2020

Laatste bezoek: 15 apr 2024

   Aanbevelingen

Ontvangen: 825

Gegeven: 621

   Aantal posts: 3.315
De pandemie vormt een rijke voedingsbodem voor protesten en onrust die agressiever van aard zijn dan voor de pandemie het geval was.

Daarvoor waarschuwen historici in een paper verschenen in het blad Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. Ze baseren zich op de geschiedenis. Want die heeft de neiging zich te herhalen.

Greta en gele hesjes
We horen nauwelijks meer iets van Greta Thunberg: de tiener die tot voor kort onvermoeibaar op de barricaden ging voor het klimaat. En ook de gele hesjes hullen zich in stilzwijgen. En dat zijn niet de enige protestgroeperingen die totaal te lijken zijn ondergesneeuwd door de wereldwijde gezondheidscrisis waarin we ons momenteel bevinden; een recent onderzoek wijst uit dat van elke 20 grote protestbewegingen die in december 2019 nog volop actief waren, er vandaag de dag hooguit twee of drie nog op de barricaden gaan. Maar wie denkt dat de pandemie zo een definitief einde heeft gemaakt aan de conflicten en problemen die mensen in 2019 nog al dan niet in een geel hesje of gewapend met spandoeken en protestborden de straat op dreven, heeft het hoogstwaarschijnlijk mis.

Afgaand op de geschiedenis mogen we namelijk verwachten dat de pandemie – die maatschappelijke onrust die niet direct samenhangt met COVID-19 zelf, lijkt te hebben uitgedoofd – dienst doet als een rijke voedingsbodem waaruit – als alles achter de rug is – nieuwe maatschappelijke onrust voortkomt. En die onrust zal op agressievere wijze tot uiting komen dan we voor de pandemie gewend waren.

Het onderzoek
Onderzoekers trekken die conclusie nadat ze 57 grote epidemieën bestudeerden die de mensheid tussen de Zwarte Dood en de Spaanse Griep troffen. Tijdens slechts vier epidemieën was er sprake van opstanden die niet direct verband hielden met de woedende infectieziekte. Het onderschrijft het idee dat de acute crisissituatie andere problemen of conflicten verdringt, iets wat we nu dus ook zien gebeuren. Maar tegelijkertijd sluimerde de maatschappelijke onrust – ondanks dat deze niet tot uiting komt in de vorm van demonstraties of protestmarsen – tijdens veel van de bestudeerde epidemieën wel door. En ook de pandemie zelf leidt tot frictie.

Drie manieren
“Over het algemeen laat het historische bewijs zien dat epidemieën op drie verschillende manieren een mogelijk ontwrichtend effect hebben op de burgermaatschappij,” zo schrijven de onderzoekers. “Allereerst zijn de beleidsmaatregelen vaak in strijd met de belangen van mensen, waardoor er een gevaarlijke wrijving ontstaat tussen de samenleving en instituten. Ten tweede zien we dat een epidemie doordat deze niet alle delen van de samenleving als het gaat om sterfte en economische welvaart even hard raakt, de ongelijkheid binnen de samenleving kan vergroten. En ten derde kan de psychologische schok leiden tot irrationele verhalen over de oorzaken en verspreiding van de ziekte, wat weer leidt tot racisme en discriminatie en zelfs xenofobie.”

0
”
Quote Reageren

Niet oké