The U Kentucky study includes an ivermectin-HCQ combo. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04374019?term=ivermectin+hydroxychloroquine&draw=2&rank=2
and Iraq https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343092?term=ivermectin+hydroxychloroquine&draw=2&rank=1
The latest episode of TWiV was pretty harsh on the Los Alamos study referenced above on two strains of viruses. They said the paper has some good data on various mutations of the virus but it absolutely doesnāt prove that one mutation somehow made it more infectious or deadly, and this claim is purely sensationalist.
From what I read the news about supposedly āgame-changingā antibodies developed in Israel are also sensationalist. They are not the first group to develop such antibodies, and all still need clinical trials to show if theyāll actually work as medicines.
2:27 pm: Abbott Labs antibody test delivers highly accurate results, study says
A coronavirus antibody test from Abbott Laboratories is highly likely to deliver correct results, according to the company.
It cited a University of Washington School of Medicine study that found that the antibody test had a specificity rate of 99.9% and a sensitivity rate of 100%, Reuters reported Friday. The results indicate a low probability of incorrectly diagnosing a healthy person and no possibility of false negatives.
Antibody tests are considered crucial in getting the country back to work, as the presence of antibodies could potentially signal immunity to reinfection.
From the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security email newsletter:
PREPRINT QUALITY CONTROL Preprint servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, have become important and highly referenced resources for information during the COVID-19 pandemic. While these repositories serve an important role in allowing emerging evidence to be published more quickly, with the goal of informing policy or research, they can also disseminate incorrect and potentially harmful information to readers who have less understanding of the crucial scientific peer-review process. The process to submit manuscripts for publication in a peer-reviewed journal can be lengthy, which can delay the impact of valuable information. In order to combat the dissemination of misleading information, managers of these servers are implementing new screening procedures and publication guidelines. Manuscripts are usually screened for plagiarism and topics that might cause harm to established public health and medical practices, but the screening is now expanded to topics that might fuel conspiracy theories or propagate harmful claims for unstudied treatments.
^ That sounds like a REALLY good idea.
I think we will soon find out how quickly the Abbot test picks up the CV after exposure. Katie Miller, Penceās press secretary tested positive today after testing negative yesterday. They are doing contact tracing, so hopefully they can determine who she got it from and when - and this may be a real live ātestā of the sensitivity of the tests.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-staffer-tests-positive-coronavirus/
It would be fantastic if the Abbott test could pick up the disease at the beginning of the infectious period.
The Abbott test mentioned above is the antibody test. Antibodies are only produced 7-14 days after infection. Abbottās other rapid 5-min diagnostic test (IDNow) is only about 85% accurate, according to a study by Cleveland Clinic.
I was talking about the Abbot 5-min diagnostic test. So its possible that Katie Millerās results are wrongā¦ But iām guessing she was retested to confirm, considering how high profile this is.
Its interesting, because its the only place in the US (probably) that does daily testing now, the White House could be currently living its own health study. If they can figure out when Katie had contact with another infected person (big If) and the test she took yesterday and today are accurate, then we can see how soon these tests pick up the virus. From what I read, dozens and dozens of people in the White House are now going to be tested daily, so the spread can be identified and tracked.
Yup. As others said, Abbot has a PCR test (Alere) that picks up active infection and an Ab/immuno test that detects antibodies developed in response to a past infection. The Alere test is only good for freshly taken samples (apparently, samples stored in viral transport media can priduce false negatives).
White House needs to get a GX.
What is a GX?
This is a serious question. Do we know when exactly a person is infectious with this virus? Are they only infectious when the test is positive? Or could a person be infecting others before they have a positive test result?
Is there evidence when a person becomes able to infect others after exposure to the virus? Does it correlate to a positive test?
I donāt think we know that yet, but the situation in the White House may reveal that to medical experts. They must be one of the few, if not only, places in the country that is getting daily (or close to daily) testing and may be able to determine that via this current situation with the VP press secretary and presidential valet. Itās important they analyze exactly who they have come into contact with and test everyone of them ASAP and frequently in the next few days. This would give Fauci and Birx alot of good REAL data. Crossing fingers this situation will at least produce good info for the expertsā¦ unfortunately, their own workspace is the guinea pig.
We know that the valet was symptomatic on Wednesday. Not sure if the valet infected the press secretary or was it someone else. The press secretary was asymptomatic when she tested positive- if they test everyone sheās been in contact with we can see if any of them turn out positive. Same with the valetā¦ If everyone heās been in contact with his tested we can see how many people heās infected and derive good analysis from that information.
Some food for thought: ACE 2 activators could be a plausible treatment https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.25992
Is potassium an ACE2 activator? (I could be reading this wrong.)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.01212/full
Electrolytes and COVID: āCOVID-19 severity is associated with lower serum concentrations of sodium, potassium and calciumā
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004563220922255?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed
Things that make you go hmmm
Sorry was going to post a link discussing test accuracy but could not find it. GeneXpert, a cartridge PCR test that takes 45 minutes from sample to result. Apparently, the most accurate rapid PCR Covid test.
Is this the one that does multiple tests at a time? I think one of the negatives of the Abbot test is that it only does one test at a time, which requires machines to test a lot of people.
The Abbott Alere test missed up to 25% of Covid+ samples (depending on how the sample was stored). That is a big negative in my opinion. It was discussed again today on CNN.
GeneXpert machines can single or multiple cartridges at the same time depending on the number of modules in the machine.
I read that a person has the highest viral load (which is thought to be synonymous with being the most contagious) one or two days before they first feel sick. The reason for this is that the virus is replicating exponentially under-the-radar for 24-48 hours until the immune system detects an invasion and calls out all the inflammatory cytokines that make you feel sick, achey, tired, feverish etc.
I donāt think they know much about people who are completely asymptomatic and when they might be contagious because unless you are testing people who feel fine, you donāt find them. Also, so far, I canāt find evidence of anyone who tested positive for antibodies but has not been sick at all.
I thought this was an interesting interview with David Ho (famous for AIDS research): https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/famed-hiv-researcher-race-find-covid-19-treatment-n1197631.
He has been leading four teams of researchers at Columbia funded by a $2.1 grant from Chinese businessman Jack Maās foundation.
One of their goals is to engineer monoclonal antibodies to the virus. I saw that they asked for Covid-19 survivors to give blood, and they got what they needed: https://recruit.cumc.columbia.edu/clinical_trial/1925
In the interview, Ho says that they have very promising leads. I have high hopes that this will work to protect people from getting sick, because itās like giving you the antibodies your body would make if your immune system had seen the virus before. This is not as good as a vaccine, because a vaccine makes it as though you actually got the disease (although you donāt get sick) and your body has the memory to make its own antibodies when needed. Still, until we have a vaccine, this would be very positive.
He also talks about how Taiwan has handled the virus (he is a Taiwanese-American who immigrated at age 12).
These guys are making a lot of progressā¦
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/04/new-covid-19-research.html
A vaccination expert talked on UCSF Grand Rounds this week. He said that vaccinations may produce a better immune response than getting the disease.
Also, we donāt know very much about what kind of antibodies your body produces if you recover from covid-19. With the dengue virus, the first time you get the disease your body produces antibodies which make it so the next time you get it, the disease is much much worse. Instead of protecting you from getting sick, the dengue antibodies make you get sicker the next time!
Probably if you recover from covid-19, your antibodies wonāt make you get sicker the next time. But apparently according to the vaccination expert, thereās reason to believe they might not help you, either, in some cases, and that a good fraction of people who recover from covid-19 are not immune.