Vaccine/Antibody updates

[injuryBug]

Decided to start a new thread for information people find on Vaccines and antibody testing updates and also general discussion on Covid-19 and how we move forward without the political BS in the other thread.

Stole this link from Frenns

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/492191-antibody-tests-for-the-coronavirus-could-be

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

UK bullish.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/492372-top-uk-scientist-80-percent-confident-a-covid-19-vaccine-could-be

[GooooMarquette]

UK bullish.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/492372-top-uk-scientist-80-percent-confident-a-covid-19-vaccine-could-be

Hard to imagine, but it would be awesome if it happens on that timeline.

[warriorchick]

St. Luke's in Milwaukee on the forefront of this:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/04/11/milwaukee-man-stable-after-experimental-coronavirus-plasma-transfusion/2977352001/

[GooooMarquette]

St. Luke's in Milwaukee on the forefront of this:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/04/11/milwaukee-man-stable-after-experimental-coronavirus-plasma-transfusion/2977352001/

I'm assuming (?) that is part of the national study that is coordinating criteria for administration, monitoring and data collection. https://www.uscovidplasma.org To date, more than 800 sites (hospitals, blood banks, etc) are participating. By using the standardized protocol, FDA and docs will be in the best position to monitor and assess the safety and efficacy of the treatment.

Really hoping this works....

[TSmith34]

Heard a story today that a study of SARS patients showed that in that case, anti-bodies stay in the body and are effective for up to 2 years before starting to drop off by the 3rd year. So if it is similar for COVID and the convalescent plasma treatment is effective, it may not be the same as a vaccine but it could provide similar results until (if) a vaccine is developed.

[forgetful]

Heard a story today that a study of SARS patients showed that in that case, anti-bodies stay in the body and are effective for up to 2 years before starting to drop off by the 3rd year. So if it is similar for COVID and the convalescent plasma treatment is effective, it may not be the same as a vaccine but it could provide similar results until (if) a vaccine is developed.

May not be entirely accurate. The problem is two fold. Yes, antibodies remain detectable for 3-years on SARS (see reference 23 in the link below). But they start declining within 4 months. Where between 3-years and 4-months you drop below an effective level is unknown.

For MERS, the antibody levels dropped rapidly within the first 3-months (see reference 24). So depending on which one this is like, could mean, no resistance within 3-months, or some resistance up to 3-years.

Now, in both cases that is for patients that were infected and recovered on their own. That would not be the case (as far as I'm aware) for someone just injected with antibodies. So it alone can't "act as a vaccine". It doesn't work that way.

But I agree, that it will likely act as our best bridge until a vaccine is developed.

Note. The link below is to the peer reviewed study of the first uses of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/02/2004168117

[TSmith34]

Great stuff forgetful, thank you.

[pbiflyer]

Florida man to the rescue! Our little town.

Coronavirus Florida: Jupiter scientists think they’ve found effective vaccine option
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20200421/coronavirus-florida-jupiter-scientists-think-theyrsquove-found-effective-vaccine-option

If you are bored on Wednesday, they are having a webinar to discuss. Limited to 3000 people, so get your seats early.

Scientists at Scripps Research Institute think they’re onto something big. Some of the latest research coming out of Scripps’ Jupiter campus could lead to a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, researchers there say.

“These data suggest that an RBD-based vaccine for (the coronavirus) could be safe and effective,” researchers wrote in a draft abstract. The preliminary findings were posted April 12 on Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s website for unpublished life science preprints.

[injuryBug]

https://news.yale.edu/2020/04/24/saliva-samples-preferable-deep-nasal-swabs-testing-covid-19

Not antibody but another positive toward saliva based which could open up more tests

[GooooMarquette]

https://news.yale.edu/2020/04/24/saliva-samples-preferable-deep-nasal-swabs-testing-covid-19

Not antibody but another positive toward saliva based which could open up more tests

And spitting is a lot more fun than having someone stick a swab way up your nose....

[Jockey]

Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told NBC’s Meet The Press “The FDA has all but given up its oversight responsibility for the tests we have on the market,” he added. “Many of them are nothing short of a disaster.”

Officials have sounded the alarm about the efficacy of tests currently on the market, criticizing the FDA for greenlighting the products too quickly. The federal government temporarily stripped some of its regulatory barriers after it was scrutinized for its slow rollout of diagnostic tests.

On Friday, the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy released preliminary findings that showed “wide gaps” in the Trump administration’s handling of antibody testing. “FDA did not review any coronavirus ‘rapid’ antibody test kits before they went on the market, and a lack of enforcement by FDA has allowed manufacturers to make fraudulent claims about their efficacy,” according to the panel’s findings.

[GooooMarquette]

Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told NBC’s Meet The Press “The FDA has all but given up its oversight responsibility for the tests we have on the market,” he added. “Many of them are nothing short of a disaster.”

Officials have sounded the alarm about the efficacy of tests currently on the market, criticizing the FDA for greenlighting the products too quickly. The federal government temporarily stripped some of its regulatory barriers after it was scrutinized for its slow rollout of diagnostic tests.

On Friday, the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy released preliminary findings that showed “wide gaps” in the Trump administration’s handling of antibody testing. “FDA did not review any coronavirus ‘rapid’ antibody test kits before they went on the market, and a lack of enforcement by FDA has allowed manufacturers to make fraudulent claims about their efficacy,” according to the panel’s findings.

Regrettably, that seems to be similar to CDC’s approach to its disease control and prevention functions, essentially handing responsibility for testing and contact tracing to the states through its inaction.

Given that CDC and FDA both report to Azar, who in turn reports to a president who ran on a deregulation platform, it’s hard to tell how much of this is negligence by the regulators and how much is a result of a three-year long effort to punt regulatory responsibility downstream.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Azar looks to be losing his job and as head of FDA and CDC I don’t know that it is inappropriate. I hope they bring in someone with a strong POV with how to make the best of this—Gottlieb has been vocal and is in the right party.  Maybe he would be a good replacement.

I may (and should have) added that there are also capable people on the task force like Birx.

[mu_hilltopper]

I want an antibody test.  Anyone know where I could get one in MKE?

[forgetful]

I want an antibody test.  Anyone know where I could get one in MKE?

Please be aware that depending on which test you get, there may be as high of a 20% false positive rate.

So if only 2% of people are infected, for every 1 that tests positive that did have it, 9 will test positive that have never had it.

[Lennys Tap]

Please be aware that depending on which test you get, there may be as high of a 20% false positive rate.

So if only 2% of people are infected, for every 1 that tests positive that did have it, 9 will test positive that have never had it.

Nm

[TSmith34]

Some potentially excellent news

In Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine, an Oxford Group Leaps Ahead

"Most other teams have had to start with small clinical trials of a few hundred participants to demonstrate safety. But scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute had a head start on a vaccine, having proved in previous trials that similar inoculations — including one last year against an earlier coronavirus — were harmless to humans.

"That has enabled them to leap ahead and schedule tests of their new coronavirus vaccine involving more than 6,000 people by the end of next month, hoping to show not only that it is safe, but also that it works.

"Scientists at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana last month inoculated six rhesus macaque monkeys with single doses of the Oxford vaccine. The animals were then exposed to heavy quantities of the virus that is causing the pandemic — exposure that had consistently sickened other monkeys in the lab. But more than 28 days later all six were healthy, said Vincent Munster, the researcher who conducted the test."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/world/europe/coronavirus-vaccine-update-oxford.html?campaign_id=168&emc=edit_NN_p_20200428&instance_id=17997&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=98421546&section=topNews&segment_id=26118&te=1&user_id=65badcb7c07b4cd4815fe5e758510381

[forgetful]

Some potentially excellent news

In Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine, an Oxford Group Leaps Ahead

"Most other teams have had to start with small clinical trials of a few hundred participants to demonstrate safety. But scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute had a head start on a vaccine, having proved in previous trials that similar inoculations — including one last year against an earlier coronavirus — were harmless to humans.

"That has enabled them to leap ahead and schedule tests of their new coronavirus vaccine involving more than 6,000 people by the end of next month, hoping to show not only that it is safe, but also that it works.

"Scientists at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana last month inoculated six rhesus macaque monkeys with single doses of the Oxford vaccine. The animals were then exposed to heavy quantities of the virus that is causing the pandemic — exposure that had consistently sickened other monkeys in the lab. But more than 28 days later all six were healthy, said Vincent Munster, the researcher who conducted the test."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/world/europe/coronavirus-vaccine-update-oxford.html?campaign_id=168&emc=edit_NN_p_20200428&instance_id=17997&nl=morning-briefing&regi_id=98421546&section=topNews&segment_id=26118&te=1&user_id=65badcb7c07b4cd4815fe5e758510381

I'm hesitantly optimistic. Early on I commented that I thought there was a chance that a vaccine may be able to be accelerated to around 9-months. So ready by around October. That was based on a group like this one, getting started right away, and a country willing to bend testing rules and allow accelerated phase II/III trials.

Now the big hurdle. It has to work. A lot of treatments/vaccines work fine in mice or monkeys, then fail when they transition to monkeys. Hoping this one works well, or at least moderately.

[forgetful]

https://covidtestingproject.org/index.html

For those interested in getting antibody tests. You can look here to find which tests are accurate and which are not, and then make sure that your testing company is giving you a good one.

[mu_hilltopper]

https://covidtestingproject.org/index.html

For those interested in getting antibody tests. You can look here to find which tests are accurate and which are not, and then make sure that your testing company is giving you a good one.

I'm having trouble reading them .. it kinda seems like the tests for antibodies are not very good early, 1-5 "days since onset."  11-15days they are pretty good .. then > 20 days .. maybe they're good, but the dots fade out as if to say they aren't?
 
I would have thought you'd have a ton of antibodies after infection, then fewer as time went on, but maybe my medical degree from Holiday Inn Express is failing me.


Then the other chart .. seems to suggest as time goes on, +20 days, the positive tests are way fewer, more negatives.   So .. if you were infected 2 months ago, you don't have detectable antibodies anymore?   I don't get it.


-- Saw this website on the news last night .. $119 and they'll direct you to an office for a blood draw and antibody test .. no idea where the offices are located in the US though:  http://getquesttest.com/

[forgetful]

I'm having trouble reading them .. it kinda seems like the tests for antibodies are not very good early, 1-5 "days since onset."  11-15days they are pretty good .. then > 20 days .. maybe they're good, but the dots fade out as if to say they aren't?
 
I would have thought you'd have a ton of antibodies after infection, then fewer as time went on, but maybe my medical degree from Holiday Inn Express is failing me.


Then the other chart .. seems to suggest as time goes on, +20 days, the positive tests are way fewer, more negatives.   So .. if you were infected 2 months ago, you don't have detectable antibodies anymore?   I don't get it.


-- Saw this website on the news last night .. $119 and they'll direct you to an office for a blood draw and antibody test .. no idea where the offices are located in the US though:  http://getquesttest.com/

In general, the figures in the main link are hard to read. But the text in the paper linked in the main link is more informative.

What you are seeing in the 2nd table where you see dots fading out, I think that is due to a lack of samples, or running out of sample material at >20 days.

The main text in the paper link has a table summarizing efficacy of each test in SARS-CoV2 patients, and in blood samples from prior to COVID-19 emerging (e.g. from at least a year ago). The latter lets you test false positives. The table in the main text is the most useful part.

It is normal and expected for antibodies to peak late in the infection. In general we have two different immune systems, the innate immune system, and the adaptive immune system. Early in infections the innate immune system tries to clear any foreign infections, it does not have specificity for any specific disease, it is a general response.

Later in infection the adaptive immune system kicks in. It is specific to an antigen, and includes the production of antibodies. So we expect that later in the infection there will be more antibodies present and a higher degree of positive antibody tests.

[GooooMarquette]

It is normal and expected for antibodies to peak late in the infection. In general we have two different immune systems, the innate immune system, and the adaptive immune system. Early in infections the innate immune system tries to clear any foreign infections, it does not have specificity for any specific disease, it is a general response.

Later in infection the adaptive immune system kicks in. It is specific to an antigen, and includes the production of antibodies. So we expect that later in the infection there will be more antibodies present and a higher degree of positive antibody tests.

That is a terrific explanation for non-scientists.

The only thing I would add - to help others understand some terms they may be hearing in the news - is that the cytokines, the complement system, and various types of white blood cells (macrophages, natural killer cells, T-cells and such) are parts of the innate immune system. They all help to serve as a bridge to get us to the point where we have specific antibodies directed at the pathogen.

[Jockey]

Good news and bad news.

There are currently 5 vaccines in clinical trials and 71 vaccines in pre-clinical trials (end of good news). But if even one of them makes in to market in 12-18 months, it would be the quickest turnaround in history. The record for fastest vaccine is 4 years for the Mumps back in the 60s. For Ebola, a vaccine took 5 years.

Normally, a vaccine takes 8-10 years. With the amount of work being done for this one, though, 18 months may be achievable.

We don't even know what type of vaccine will work best as there are different ways of attacking it, but vaccines are a different animal than medicines. You are not trying to cure people, so in a healthy population, you don't want the vaccine to have negative consequences. Thus the human clinical trials take the longest.

Phase 1 - testing on healthy volunteers for serious side effects.

Phase 2 - smaller studies of efficacy, looking at best dosages and scheduling of dosages.

Phase 3 - large field studies. Using a control group and looking for side effects and at what dosages they occur.


So, once again, this shows the lunacy of our leader when he says we may have a vaccine in a few months. Not just lunacy, but flat out lying as he has been told different by the scientists.

One last bit of good news - medical treatments may well be available much sooner for seriously ill patients.

[mu_hilltopper]

Ok .. so true or false, a COVID anti-body test .. after 20 days, 200 days will they be able to detect COVID antibodies / is it harder to detect / more false positives/negatives?