header logo image


Page 6«..5678..2030..»

Archive for May, 2020

Does coronavirus affect eyesight? Here’s what you need to know – Telegraph.co.uk

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Can coronavirus be transmitted through the eyes?

Yes, there is a small chance. We know that Covid-19 is transmitted through aerosol droplets thatspread through person-to-person contact, hence why experts attribute social distancing measures as essential in slowing the spread of the virus.

Research suggests that there's asmall chance that the eyes could act as an entry point for the virus.In March, scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine found that eyes produce ACE-2, a protein used by the infection to bind cells, making eyes a target for the virus. In practice, this means if droplets from an infected persons sneeze or cough were to land on the eyes surface, the virus could enter the cells there. For this reason, its important to avoid touching your face as much as you can, as we know that the virus can live on certain surfaces for up to 72 hours.

There is also a small possibility that coronavirus can be spread through tears. A study undertaken in March by researchers from Singapore and the UK, which was published in Opthalmology, collected 64 tear samples from 17 patients with Covid-19 from the time they showed symptoms until they recovered about 20 days later. They found that the risk of transmission this way was low, and that infection was much more likely to occur through mucus and droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing.

There isn't much research in this area yet. However, Boris Johnson has claimed that he's wearing glasses for the first time in years as a result of the coronavirusand we do know that recovery from Covid-19can be long process which is different for everyone.Many people report symptoms, such as post-viral fatigue and shortness of breath, lingering long after they've recovered. There's always a small possibility that eye health could be affected long-term too.

"Periods on intensive care can be associated with severe dry eye and blurring of vision if the patient has not been conscious for a period and thus unable to naturally protect the eye by closing the eye lids, blinking and normal production of tears," said ProfBastawrous.

A report published by researchers at the National Institute for Infectious diseases in Italy found that the virus can persist in the eyes for up to 21 days. Healthcare workers sampled fluid from a 65-year-old woman's eyes - whose symptoms includedred eyes, a dry cough, sore throat and nasal congestion - almost every day for three weeks.Every sample revealed RNA, genetic material from SARS-CoV-2,the virus that causes Covid-19.

A spokesperson for the Moorfields Eye Hospital said: At present, there is very little evidence to suggest that Covid-19 can affect eyesight.Cases where Covid-19 is recorded alongside an impact on eyesight are rare, so we cannot establish a direct causal effect. We need more data to be collected on Covid-19 related eye conditions to see if there is an association.

For ProfBastawrous, the greater risk for eye health comes from people not being able to accessroutineservices as a result of Covid-19.

"For some people with vision threatening conditions this is leading to loss of vision who would normally have been able to be treated," he said. "This situation is likely to get worse as a consequence of the disruption to health systems rather than a direct effect of the virus on the eyes of visual pathways."

The answer to this question largely remains up to personal judgement. According to a paper led by the Centre for Ocular Research and Education in Canada, there is currently no evidence that contact lens wearers have an increased risk of contracting Covid-19 compared with wearers of spectacles.

However, it is likely that those who wear contact lenses will touch their faces more, so in practical termsit could be worth swapping to glasses if youre worried.

For those who do decide to continuewearing lenses, the eye care companyEssilor advises people to be stringent about washing theirhands before and after touching their eyes.The same applies to glasses; to be safe, wash them regularly with warm soapy water and dry them with a disposable paper towel.

In England, people are nowfree to drive unlimited distances. However, if you are worried about your eyesight after contracting coronavirus, it might be worth referring to the highway code to check if it's safe to drive, rather than taking a trip to find out.

Currently, the highway code guidelines statethat to drive, you must be able to read a vehicle number platein good daylightfrom a distance of 20 metres (or 20.5 metres where the old style number plate is used). If you need to wear glasses (or contact lenses) to do this, you mustwear them at all times while driving. The police have the power to require a driver to undertake an eyesight test

Read the original here:
Does coronavirus affect eyesight? Here's what you need to know - Telegraph.co.uk

Read More...

Backup as a Service Market 2019 | How The Industry Will Witness Substantial Growth In The Upcoming Years | Exclusive Report By DataIntelo – Bulletin…

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Backup as a Service Market Forecast 2020-2026

The Global Backup as a Service Market research report provides and in-depth analysis on industry- and economy-wide database for business management that could potentially offer development and profitability for players in this market. This is a latest report, covering the current COVID-19 impact on the market. The pandemic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) has affected every aspect of life globally. This has brought along several changes in market conditions. The rapidly changing market scenario and initial and future assessment of the impact is covered in the report. It offers critical information pertaining to the current and future growth of the market. It focuses on technologies, volume, and materials in, and in-depth analysis of the market. The study has a section dedicated for profiling key companies in the market along with the market shares they hold.

The report consists of trends that are anticipated to impact the growth of the Backup as a Service Market during the forecast period between 2020 and 2026. Evaluation of these trends is included in the report, along with their product innovations.

Get a PDF Copy of the Sample Report for free @ https://dataintelo.com/request-sample/?reportId=79079

The Report Covers the Following Companies:CommvaultSymantecIBM CorporationDell EMCAmazon Web ServicesCisco SystemsFujitsuBackblazeHexistorCA TechnologiesIntronis

By Types:Public CloudPrivate CloudHybrid Cloud

By Applications:Small EnterprisesMedium EnterprisesLarge Enterprises

Furthermore, the report includes growth rate of the global market, consumption tables, facts, figures, and statistics of key segments.

By Regions:

Grab Your Report at an Impressive Discount! Please visit https://dataintelo.com/ask-for-discount/?reportId=79079

Years Considered to Estimate the Market Size:History Year: 2015-2019Base Year: 2019Estimated Year: 2020Forecast Year: 2020-2026

Important Facts about Backup as a Service Market Report:

What Our Report Offers:

Make an Inquiry of This Report @ https://dataintelo.com/enquiry-before-buying/?reportId=79079

About DataIntelo:DATAINTELO has set its benchmark in the market research industry by providing syndicated and customized research report to the clients. The database of the company is updated on a daily basis to prompt the clients with the latest trends and in-depth analysis of the industry. Our pool of database contains various industry verticals that include: IT & Telecom, Food Beverage, Automotive, Healthcare, Chemicals and Energy, Consumer foods, Food and beverages, and many more. Each and every report goes through the proper research methodology, validated from the professionals and analysts to ensure the eminent quality reports.

Contact Info:Name: Alex MathewsAddress: 500 East E Street, Ontario,CA 91764, United States.Phone No: USA: +1 909 545 6473 | IND: +91-7000061386Email: [emailprotected]Website: https://dataintelo.com

Read more from the original source:
Backup as a Service Market 2019 | How The Industry Will Witness Substantial Growth In The Upcoming Years | Exclusive Report By DataIntelo - Bulletin...

Read More...

Covid-19 Impact On Global Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market 2020 : Industry Trends, Size, Growth, Swot Analysis By Top Key Players And Forecast Report…

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

The Ambulatory Healthcare IT market report on the world market encompasses an evaluation of distinct parameters that uplift the growth of the global industry. In addition to this, all the industry manufacturers can utilize the market report to create themselves for facing tough market challenges and further competition in the universal market. Insightful information on notable strategies adopted by vital firms along with their key impact on the industry growth has been administrated in this market document. This Ambulatory Healthcare IT market research report gives explanation of market restraints, key drivers, and industry trends that transform the international market either in a positive or negative manner.

Get Exclusive Sample Report Herehttps://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-ambulatory-healthcare-market

Market AnalysisBesides target market information, DBMR also provides information about your competitor, your customers, products etc. A few techniques we use are: Customer analysis Competitor analysis Risk analysis Product research Advertising research E-mail survey and many more

Global ambulatory healthcare IT market is registering a substantial CAGR in the forecast period of 2019-2026. This rise in the market value can be attributed to the growing incidence of chronic diseases and continuous advancement in technologies.

Few of the major market competitors currently working in the globalambulatory healthcare IT marketareAmSurg Corp, Surgical Care Affiliates, Surgery Partners, Healthway Medical Group, SurgCenter, Trillium Health Partners, Medical Facilities Corporation, Nueterra Capital, Aspen Healthcare, Suomen Terveystalo Oy, IntegraMed America, Inc., SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE, NueHealth, Athenahealth, GENERAL ELECTRIC, Optum, Inc., Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., DaVita Inc., LVL Medical, Fresenius Kabi AG, Sonic Healthcare among others.

Table of Contents is Available[emailprotected]https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-ambulatory-healthcare-market

Market Definition:Global Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market

Ambulatory care is also referred as outpatient care. It is a medical care given on outpatient criteria such as consultation, rehabilitation, observation, intervention, diagnosis, and treatment services. Ambulatory care involves emergency care, primary care, ambulatory services, and others. In this intervention and surgery, overnight hospital stay is not required.

Segmentation: Global Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market : By Type

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market : By Modality

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market : By Surgery Type

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market : By Application

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market : By Geography

Key Developments in the Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market:

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market : Competitive Analysis

Global ambulatory healthcare IT market is highly fragmented and the major players have used various strategies such as new product launches, expansions, agreements, joint ventures, partnerships, acquisitions, and others to increase their footprints in this market. The report includes market shares of ambulatory healthcare IT market for global, Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, South America and Middle East & Africa.

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market Drivers

Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market Restraints

Opportunities in the Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market Report :

Want Full Report? Enquire Here @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/inquire-before-buying/?dbmr=global-ambulatory-healthcare-market

About Data Bridge Market Research:

Data Bridge Market Researchis a versatile market research and consulting firm with over 500 analysts working in different industries. We have catered more than 40% of the fortune 500 companies globally and have a network of more than 5000+ clientele around the globe. Our coverage of industries include Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology, Semiconductors, Machinery, Information and Communication Technology, Automobiles and Automotive, Chemical and Material, Packaging, Food and Beverages, Cosmetics, Specialty Chemicals, Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Robotics, among many others.

Data Bridge adepts in creating satisfied clients who reckon upon our services and rely on our hard work with certitude.We are content with our glorious 99.9 % client satisfying rate.

Contact Us

Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475Mail:[emailprotected]

Read more here:
Covid-19 Impact On Global Ambulatory Healthcare IT Market 2020 : Industry Trends, Size, Growth, Swot Analysis By Top Key Players And Forecast Report...

Read More...

This new mobile vision-testing device aims to improve road safety – ABC News

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Drivers' eye sight could be the next focus of road-side testing, if a Hobart optometrist's invention is taken up.

Ben Armitage has been frustrated by people not adhering to the vision requirements for driving.

"I regularly have a conversation with someone where I say 'you need to wear glasses to drive' and they tell me 'I'm not going to do that'," he says.

"And in Tasmania there's nothing really much I can do about it."

Research conducted in Melbourne and Brisbane showed up to 8 per cent of drivers did not meet the legal standard for vision.

The frustration prompted Mr Armitage to look at ways to improve road safety by encouraging people to wear their glasses.

"So I was thinking of a way that we could get a check to the side of the road that enabled someone to check whether someone was legal to drive," he said.

"Basically, to do a quick eye test on the side of the road in a few seconds which said 'yes, you're okay to drive' or 'no, you're not okay to drive'."

Mr Armitage worked with designers in Melbourne and has now developed the third prototype of the patented device he calls Acuidrive.

"I'm an optometrist, so the optics how the lenses work, how the light moves I can do that, but the ergonomics of it and the practicalities, I've had a lot of help both from friends in the police force and also these designers in Melbourne," he said.

Australian drivers need to meet what is called 6/12 vision, reading letters about twice the size of 20/20.

The device is held up to a person's forehead, and when they apply pressure a panel illuminates inside, revealing five small letters.

It is designed to replicate the standard six-metre reading test done in optometrists' rooms.

Mr Armitage is in talks with the Queensland University of Technology about trials to prove the device's accuracy.

"We need to make sure that if we are going to use this to test people's vision on the side of the road, that if you can't see using this device, you wouldn't be able to see using a test chart," he said.

"Once we have that stage, I think the next step is to try to get it into the hands of the police on a trial basis, just to do almost like random breath-testing to find out how big the scope of the problem is."

Ben Hamlyn, an Optometry Australia board member, said it was difficult to accurately test eyesight on the side of the road.

"Simply asking them to tell the police officer if they can see a street sign is not appropriate in most circumstances and it's not reliable enough," he said.

"So there is an enforcement issue."

Mr Hamlyn said research from the United Kingdom showed around 26 per cent of people admitted to not wearing glasses to drive when they should.

"Provided the device is precise and accurate enough to reliably measure someone's vision, I believe that it would benefit the community for police to be able to enforce the vision requirements that already exist," he said.

"And it may encourage those people who are not wearing their glasses to wear their glasses to drive."

In Tasmania, drivers' vision is tested when they first get their licence and then when they turn 75.

It is up to the individual to report if their eyesight changes during the decades in between.

RACT's executive general manager Stacey Pennicott said the idea of the Acuidrive device was sound and she was hopeful it would help improve road safety.

"That's a long period of time from when most people get their drivers licence to the time that they finish driving," she said.

"It's obviously an area that's untapped in terms of its ability to improve our road safety statistics."

See the article here:
This new mobile vision-testing device aims to improve road safety - ABC News

Read More...

How to properly test if your eyesight is good enough to drive – Ledbury Reporter

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Motorists have been urged to test their eyesight amid concerns many behind the wheel do not realise they are too shortsighted to drive.

An awareness campaign by the DVLA in 2018 has resurfaced calling on drivers to test whether they can see a number plate from 20 metres away.

The number plate test reflects the legal distance from which all motorists should be able to read a sign.

It follows claims by the Prime Ministers chief aide Dominic Cummings, who said he drove to Barnard Castle in County Durham with his wife and son during the lockdown to test his eyesight.

What is the legal limitfor sight?

A DVLA survey indicated less than half of drivers knew that 20 metres was the legal limit for sight.

Five car lengths is said to roughly match the distance and road users are being encouraged to use the measure to test their vision on passing signs.

Anyone concerned about their vision should visit an optician or optometrist for an eye test, the DVLA said.

Motoristsshould carry out the 'number plate test' before driving

Wyn Parry, the DVLAs senior doctor, said:The number plate test is a simple and effective way for people to check their eyesight meets the required standards for driving.

The easiest and quickest way to do this is to work out what 20 metres looks like at the road side this is typically about the length of fivecars parked next to each other and then test yourself on whether you can clearly read the number plate.

Its an easy check to perform any time of day at the road side and takes just a couple of seconds.

Having good eyesight is essential for safe driving, so its really important for drivers to have regular eye tests.

Eyesight can naturally deteriorate over time, he added, meaning those who have never needed glasses before could eventually require a pair.

Top tips to check before driving for the first time in a while

For those whose cars have been parked up for a few weeks, MoneySavingExpert has published several key points that drivers should check before setting off on essential journeys:

Read the rest here:
How to properly test if your eyesight is good enough to drive - Ledbury Reporter

Read More...

Public warned by police not to test their eyesight by going for a drive – Mirror Online

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Police are urging the public not to test their eyesight by going out for a drive.

The chairman of the Police Federation has issued the plea after the prime ministers top aide Dominic Cummings said he drove 30 miles during the lockdown to check if his eyesight was up to scratch.

John Apter tweeted: "Folks, I say this in all sincerity and as an important road safety issue.

"If youre feeling unwell and your eyesight may be impaired do not drive your vehicle to test your ability to drive. Its not a wise move.

He added: "As a former road death investigator with Hampshire police I have investigated many serious collisions, including fatalities.

"Some of these were caused by drivers with impaired vision, this is a serious issue. Do not drive if your eyesight is impaired or you feel unwell."

Mr Cummings used the eyesight excuse during a bombshell 14-minute explanation of why he drove 260 miles to his family's farm in Durham when his wife Mary suffered coronavirus symptoms on March 27.

He said he suffered Covid-19 symptoms the next day.

During the press conference on Monday he admitted he drove from the Durham home to nearby Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday, a half hour drive, on April 12, his wife Mary's 45th birthday.

He claimed it was on day 15 since the illness struck, and was to test his eyesight before going back to London down the A1.

He said his vision had been "a bit weird" so his wife suggested to "drive down the road" to check it.

Mr Cummings said "in a very complicated situation, I behaved reasonably".

People took to social media to poke fun at his eyesight explanation.

One man posted: "Hi @Specsavers, please can I cancel my eye test booked for Wednesday? I instead will be driving to Barnard Castle as I believe this is by far the most effective way to test my vision."

Another tweeted: "cant wait to go for my next eye test at specsavers and have them put me in a car and tell me to drive to barnard castle"

Stephen Reicher, a scientific advisor to the government, warned people would stop following advice because "government is looking after themselves in a way theyre not looking after us".

Prof Reicher added: If adherence falls, the infection will rise and people will die.

Mr Cummings has been reported to police over the trip, which came at the same time people were advised only to leave their house to walk, cycle or run if they were exercising.

This morning a Government minister resigned over the decision by Boris Johnson to back his most senior aide in Downing Street.

Read the original post:
Public warned by police not to test their eyesight by going for a drive - Mirror Online

Read More...

Here are the opticians open in England for emergency eye care – News Post Leader

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

After Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chief aide Dominic Cummings claimed that having coronavirus affected their eyesight, many people may be keen to get their own eyes checked after recovering from the virus (Photo: Shutterstock)

After Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chief aide Dominic Cummings claimed that having coronavirus affected their eyesight, many people may be keen to get their own eyes checked after recovering from the virus.

Lockdown restrictions in England are slowly beginning to ease, with the country set to move into Phase 2 in June, and many non-essential shops are being allowed to reopen.

But does this include opticians? Heres what you need to know about when you might be able to get your eyes tested again - and what to do if you have an emergency.

When did opticians close?

Opticians ceased running routine appointments when the UK entered into lockdown.

An NHS England notice dated 1 April, explaining the changes to optometry services delivered outside hospital, said: all routine optical services are suspended until advised otherwise.

When will opticians be allowed to reopen?

Although the government has not yet set a date for when opticians will be able to open for routine appointments, those who need access to urgent and essential eye care are still able to get help.

Urgent and essential eye care is being delivered from a limited number of optical practices only. You can check with your local optician or branch.

What is essential eye care?

This includes, but is not limited to, appointments for patients who would not normally be considered to be emergencies, but where a delay in an examination could be detrimental to a patients sight or wellbeing.

This could include situations where patients have broken or lost their glasses or contact lenses and need a replacement pair to function.

What is urgent or emergency eye care?

This is where urgent clinical advice or intervention is needed, for example for red eye, contact lens discomfort, foreign objects, sudden change in vision, flashes and floaters, or where the patient has been advised to attend a practice by NHS 111 or another healthcare professional for urgent eye care.

Specsavers has suspended all routine eye appointments, but CEO John Perkins, said: We will though still remain open to support people in the communities we work in if they need urgent or essential care.

However, not all stores are open during this time and some Specsavers stores have changed their normal working hours.

The Specsavers website explains that if youre having any problems with your eyes, the best thing to do is to call your local store, who will ask you some questions about your symptoms and will be able to arrange either an essential appointment, over the phone or with their RemoteCare service.

They will then let you know whether you should come into store for an urgent appointment.

They may even refer to you to an eye emergency department. If you do need to come into store, the chain is following government guidelines to make this as safe as possible.

Vision Express, Asda Opticians and Boots Opticians have also remained open for urgent and emergency appointments, but again, not all branches are open.

You are advised to call your local branch if you have a problem, so the optician can assess your situation and whether or not you need to be seen face to face.

Read more:
Here are the opticians open in England for emergency eye care - News Post Leader

Read More...

Tom Peterkin: Dominic Cummings’s ‘handy-hint’ for testing the eyesight would be laughable if things weren’t so serious – Press and Journal

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

There is a Fleet Street memoir by an author who is a little neglected these days.

The late Michael Green was a journalist who was once quite well known for The Art of Coarse series of books. They celebrate incompetence by poking fun at the attempts of the inadequate to take part in serious activities.

In that vein, The Art of Coarse Rugby chronicles the game as played by the wrecks, cowards and weaklings of the 4th XV, rather than the first-class version of the sport played by athletes and superstars.

Similarly, The Art of Coarse Acting, is a far cry from Londons West End. It is a memorable depiction of the sub-culture of amateur dramatics, where the coarse actor contends with collapsing scenery and is pretty good at remembering the lines so long as they arent his own.

Green also wrote a lesser known autobiography of his journalistic life, called Nobody Hurt in Small Earthquake. The title derives from a competition by sub-editors on The Times to find the dullest headline ever written.

In it, Green recalls one of the more congenial jobs which he had during the 1950s. It was in the features department of The Star not the tabloid of today but rather one of the London evening papers which was a stablemate of the also defunct News Chronicle.

He edited a feature named Bright Ideas, in which readers were encouraged to write in with their best hints and wheezes. If a letter was printed, the reader received a guinea. The writer of the letter judged the best of the day received five guineas. Whoever came up with the best letter of the week got 50 guineas. The intention was that readers came up with imaginative solutions for commonplace problems.

For example, a milkman got a prize for informing readers that rubbing the hands in spilt milk prevented chapping and chilblains during the winter. Green tried the advice and it worked.

Nail varnish was recommended as an effective way of stopping tights from laddering. A prize was given to the reader who suggested condensed milk could fix a broken tile. This, however, started a trend. Condensed milk began to be suggested as an answer for all sorts of other household tasks. Green stopped dishing out the prizes on the grounds that condensed milk was scarcely a powerful adhesive.

Dubious entries were checked with experts, but as Green remarked some spurious ones managed to slip through the net.

A suggestion that the taste of custard can be improved by adding an ivy leaf to the mixture brought an urgent letter from a doctor saying the taste was indeed improved but only because ivy contained arsenic, Green remembered.

Other suggestions were recognised as dangerous and were rejected for publication. Green remembered a night-shift worker came up with a coffin-shaped invention which acted as a sound- proof cover on his bed to help him sleep during the day.

The reader asserted that it made him sleep as sound as a babe. Green added the readers claim might have been correct as the device would undoubtedly have suffocated him.

Features in the Bright Ideas genre were once a staple of a handy hints style of journalism. So much so that they have been entertainingly parodied in the Top-Tips column in Viz, the vulgar magazine which satirises magazines and comics.

Among Vizs Top-Tips are such gems as: Before attempting to remove stubborn stains from a garment, circle the soiled area with a permanent pen so that when you remove it from the washing machine you can check the stain has gone.

Top-Tips sprang to mind during Dominic Cummingss excruciating press conference the other day. His explanation for his car journey to Barnard Castle could have walked out of the pages of Viz.

Worried about your dodgy vision after an attack of suspected coronavirus? Test your eyes by getting behind the wheel of your car and taking your wife and young child for a 30-mile drive.

Perhaps Cummings would think it a good idea to check his sense of smell by breaking into the big cats cage at a zoo to sniff the behind of a man-eating lion. While there, he could race a cheetah to test his legs.

His explanation for his now infamous drive to Barnard Castle may or may not prove the most damaging aspect of his 260-mile bolt from London to Durham during the lockdown. But it would certainly be the most laughable, if things werent quite so serious.

As so many people have remarked, Boris Johnsons failure to draw a swift line under the controversy and anger raging over his key advisers behaviour proved a hugely damaging distraction at a time when the public was seeking clarity on the most challenging health crisis of living memory.

If Michael Green were still around, events of the last few days would have provided some brilliant material for The Art of Coarse Politics.

View post:
Tom Peterkin: Dominic Cummings's 'handy-hint' for testing the eyesight would be laughable if things weren't so serious - Press and Journal

Read More...

Southern Company Gas donates $1 million to Morehouse School of Medicine to support the advancement of health equity – Yahoo Finance

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

This contribution is a part of the $50 million commitment from Southern Company and its subsidiaries to historically black colleges and universities

ATLANTA, May 26, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Southern Company Gas and the Southern Company Gas Charitable Foundation are donating $1 million toward academic expansion and efforts to provide greater equity in healthcare led by Morehouse School of Medicine (MSM).

Southern Company Gas Logo (PRNewsfoto/Southern Company Gas)

This gift, part of MSM's Expansion into the Future Initiative, enables the medical school to strengthen its academic offerings and research enterprise, including its budding Natural Products Research Center and the development of an Emerging Pathogens Research Team focusing on topics such as coronaviruses.

"As our communities continue to be impacted by the coronavirus and work to recover from what has become a global health crisis, Southern Company Gas recognizes the immediate need to support institutions seeking solutions while addressing critical health equity issues," said Kim Greene, chairman, president and CEO of Southern Company Gas. "We support MSM's cutting-edge research and education model, which fosters greater inclusion in not only healthcare, but ultimately our entire society."

According to a study led by amfAR and the Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access and data from the U.S. Census Bureau, black Americans represent 13.4% of the U.S. population, but counties with higher black populations account for more than half of all COVID-19 cases and almost 60% of deaths. MSM's efforts to improve diversity in the medical profession, research into health challenges facing minority communities and service to underserved communities play a critical role in addressing racial inequality.

The academic expansion initiative will provide the campus community with state-of-the-art facilities that effectively integrate technology and foster collaborative learning among students, faculty, and staff. It will also support MSM's research portfolio focused on infectious diseases such as COVID-19, as well as cancer, cardiovascular disease and neuroscience, among other topics critical to improving the health of underserved communities.

"Our existing virology research's success may help to establish an even larger U.S and global structure examining emerging pathogens of all types and how we can identify and address them," says Professor Vincent C. Bond, chair of the Department of Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Immunology at MSM. "Our integrative approach to health care allows us to translate the discoveries made in labs, to the bedside of patients, and then to the communities we serve."

Recently celebrating its 45th anniversary, MSM has made monumental strides increasing the class size of each of its degree-granting programs, including the Medical program, Graduate Education in Biomedical Sciences, Graduate Education in Public Health and Physician Assistant Studies.

Higher education plays a critical role in driving economic wellbeing; however, studies have shown one approach to ending the cycle of poverty caused by our nation's long history of racial inequity considers quality education and healthcare. This is why earlier this year Southern Company Gas and its parent company, Southern Company, announced plans to donate $50 million to historically black universities and colleges to support career readiness and develop future leaders.

Story continues

For more information on Southern Company Gas' efforts to support COVID-19 relief, visit scgcares.org.

About Southern Company GasSouthern Company Gas is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE:SO), America's premier energy company. Southern Company Gas serves approximately 4.2 million natural gas utility customers through its regulated distribution companies in four states and approximately 700,000 retail customers through its companies that market natural gas. Other nonutility businesses include investments in interstate pipelines, asset management for natural gas wholesale customers and ownership and operation of natural gas storage facilities. For more information, visit southerncompanygas.com.

About the Southern Company Charitable Gas FoundationThe Southern Company Gas Charitable Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit committed to supporting those who are transforming lives by tackling complex challenges with revolutionary vision. Every year, the Charitable Foundation donates millions of dollars in grants to organizations that align with Southern Company Gas' values and that passionately work to improve the lives of the communities the company serves. As an independent, nonprofit philanthropic foundation, the Southern Company Gas Charitable Foundation is funded solely by Southern Company Gas through shareholder dollars.

About Morehouse School of MedicineMorehouse School of Medicine (MSM), located in Atlanta, GA exist to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, increase the diversity of the health professional and scientific workforce, and address primary health care through programs in education, research, and service, with emphasis on people of color and the underserved urban and rural populations in Georgia, the nation,and the world. MSM is among the nation's leading educators of primary care physicians and has twice been recognized as the top institution among U.S. medical schools for its dedication to the social mission of education. The faculty and alumni are noted in their fields for excellence in teaching, research, and public policy, and are known in the community for exceptional, culturally appropriate patient care. Morehouse School of Medicine is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award doctorate and master's degrees.

View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/southern-company-gas-donates-1-million-to-morehouse-school-of-medicine-to-support-the-advancement-of-health-equity-301065194.html

SOURCE Southern Company Gas

Read the original post:
Southern Company Gas donates $1 million to Morehouse School of Medicine to support the advancement of health equity - Yahoo Finance

Read More...

COVID-19 here to stay till 2021, aggressive testing needed to curb its spread: Health experts – ETHealthworld.com

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Global health experts on Wednesday said novel coronavirus is here to stay for more than a year and called for aggressive testing to prevent its spread. In an interaction with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, health experts Professor Ashish Jha and Professor Johan Giesecke talked about the COVID-19 pandemic as part of the series being aired on Congress social media channels.

While Jha exuded confidence that a vaccine will be available in a year's time, Prof Giesecke said India should practice a lockdown that is as 'soft' as possible, as a severe lockdown will ruin its economy very quickly.

"When the economy is opened up after lockdown, you have to create confidence among people," Harvard health expert Ashish Jha told Gandhi.

Jha is a professor of Global Health at TH Chan School of Public Health and Director, Harvard Global Health institute. He said coronavirus is a '12-18 months' problem and the world is not going to be free of this till 2021.

Professor Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said India should have a 'soft lockdown'. "The situation that India is in, I think, you should have a soft lockdown, as soft as possible," he said. "I think for India, you will ruin your economy very quickly if you have a severe lockdown. It is better, skip the lockdown, take care of the old and the frail...," he noted.

Original post:
COVID-19 here to stay till 2021, aggressive testing needed to curb its spread: Health experts - ETHealthworld.com

Read More...

Clinical trials are showing that Remdesivir can be life-saving drug for COVID-19 infected patients – Firstpost

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Press Trust of IndiaMay 26, 2020 08:04:50 IST

With a vaccine still a long distance away, efforts to repurpose old medications used for other ailments provide hope of an early counter to COVID-19, say, scientists, placing the antiviral remdesivir on top of the list of possible contenders.

As COVID-19 continues its spread crossing 5.2 million cases and 3,38,000 fatalities on Saturday several categories of drugs are under clinical trial. Of them, remdesivir, which initially went into trials for treating the deadly Ebola virus five years ago, has shown promise by modestly speeding recovery from COVID-19, experts said.

More than 130 drugs are under experimentation to treat COVID-19, some may have the potential to stop the virus while others may help calm overactive immune responses that damage organs, according to a tracker maintained by the Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank in the US,

Remdesivir is helping people recover faster, and is lowering the death rate among critically ill patients.

"Right now, there is only one effective approach which is to repurpose already approved drugs for other diseases if they can be used for COVID-19. One example is remdesivir," Ram Vishwakarma, director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, CSIR, Jammu, told PTI.

Remdesivir is helping people recover faster, and is lowering the death rate among critically ill patients, Vishwakarma said, adding that it can be life-saving.

We do not have time to develop new drugs. New drug development takes five-10 years so we are using existing drugs and conducting clinical trials to find if any of them are effective, Vishwakarma said.

Some molecules available for treating diseases like HIV or other viral infections can be quickly checked against the novel coronavirus, he explained. If found effective, they can be used against COVID-19 with the appropriate approval from drug control bodies.

When drug company Gilead Sciences sought to begin clinical trials for remdesivir to treat the novel coronavirus, it immediately got approval from the US FDA.

According to Vishwakarma, the other drug showing promise is favipiravir, a broad-spectrum antiviral approved in Japan, which is also under clinical trials for its effectiveness against COVID-19.

The Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT), Hyderabad, has developed the technology to make favipiravir, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Director-General Shekar Mande announced this month.

CSIR is conducting clinical trials for favipiravir, remdesivir and an anti-inflammatory drug called colchicine, which is commonly used to treat gout, said Vishwakarma.

"A number of drug trials are happening in India, which we are doing with pharmaceutical companies," Vishwakarma said.

Of the drugs under trial, remdesivir has shown the most promising results, agreed Subhabrata Sen, professor at the Department of Chemistry in Shiv Nadar University in Uttar Pradesh.

Sen, whose lab is involved in the discovery of biologically active molecules, told PTI that some of the drugs being tested are antivirals, and some are antimalarials and antibiotics.

Of the antivirals in the tracker list, some are new molecules under trial, whereas others are old drugs being repurposed and tested for their effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April, mimics the genetic material of the coronavirus. When the virus copies its RNA or genetic material, the drug replaces some of the pathogen's building blocks.

According to the authors of this study, the drug prevents new virus copies from being produced.

Preliminary results had shown that patients who received remdesivir had a 31 per cent faster time to recovery than those who received placebo.

However, another study published in the journal Lancet in April cautioned that interpretation of these findings is limited since the remdesivir study was stopped early after the scientists were unable to recruit enough patients due to the steep decline in cases in China.

The authors of The Lancet study concluded that more evidence from ongoing clinical trials is needed to better understand whether remdesivir can provide meaningful clinical benefit.

Some drugs developed to treat HIV, such as lopinavir and ritonavir, are also being tested to cure COVID-19, Vishwakarma said.

A study published in Lancet this month said a treatment involving a combination of the drugs interferon beta-1b, plus the antiviral combination lopinavir-ritonavir and ribavirin, is better at reducing the viral load or quantity of the virus than lopinavir-ritonavir alone.

But these, too, were early findings, observed only in patients with mild to moderate illness, so the scientists behind the study stressed the need for larger trials to examine the effectiveness of this triple combination in critically ill patients.

Another study published last month in the journal Science noted the effectiveness of two small molecule drug candidates named 11a and 11b which could block the SARS-CoV-2 M protease enzyme, which the virus uses to make copies of itself.

The molecules could stop the virus from replicating in monkey cells and have been found safe for administration in rats and beagles, with the study concluding that both the drugs warrant further studies.

Scientists have also tested the effectiveness of therapies involving the use of antibodies that can bind to some parts of the virus, and block their entry into host cells.

In a study, published last month in the journal Cell, scientists reported that antibodies derived from the immune system of the South American mammal called llamas can block the entry of the novel coronavirus into host cells.

This study found that llamas, which belong to the same category of mammals as camels, produce special kinds of antibody molecules that bind tightly to a key protein on the novel coronavirus.

However, scientists believe its efficacy is yet to be proved in human clinical trials.

Last week, scientists from the Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Genomics at Peking University in China, revealed a new method to identify multiple antibodies from recovered COVID-19 patients.

Using a single-cell genomics method, the researchers could rapidly identify antibodies from convalescent plasma, a component of patients' blood.

When the researchers tested these antibodies in mice, they found that some of them could neutralise the virus.

Another team from the University of Washington in the US found recently that a combination of antibodies, including those from a patient who had recovered from the 2002-03 SARS pandemic virus infection, can effectively block the novel coronavirus.

One of these molecules, named S309, showed particularly strong neutralising activity against SARS-CoV-2, they said, adding that it can act in combination with another, a less potent antibody that targets a different site on the virus.

However, these results to are yet to be validated in human clinical trials.

Among other therapeutics currently under trial or in use, Sen said US President Donald Trump's "game-changer" drug hydroxychloroquine was promising "until it demonstrated serious side effects in the form of cardiovascular complications", rendering it ineffective.

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

Originally posted here:
Clinical trials are showing that Remdesivir can be life-saving drug for COVID-19 infected patients - Firstpost

Read More...

Existence and the Virus: A Healing Solution – SFGate

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

By Deepak Chopra, MD

The COVID crisis is being fought on two fronts, medical and economic, but most people are suffering psychologically. The word existential rarely comes up in normal everyday life, but the crisis has created all the symptoms of existential dread: a sense of futility, anxiety about the human condition, and a deep fear of death. This comes as a shocking occurrence, and if there is such a thing as existential healing, now is the time for it.

Questions about existence baffle people, and there seems to be no reason to confront them until the last moment. One of the reasons that Elisabeth Kbler-Rosss 1969 book, On Death and Dying, was seized upon by millions is that she drew a map of grief that showed dying patients that the inevitability of death wasnt terrifying in the end. The five stages of grief outlined by Kbler-Rossdenial, anger, depression, bargaining, and acceptancecoincides with what is seen in hospice care. The prospect of death for most people leads to acceptance.

But there is a sixth stage of grieving that applies right now: meaning. The most fortunate patients go beyond acceptance to see that their lives had purpose, that existence is meaningful, and therefore that death lost its final power, which is fear and dread. This is the healing that I think should be embraced now. The actual deaths caused by COVID-19 are outnumbered by the cases of fear and dread being experienced on a mass scale. One way or another, we have all entered the grieving process.

There are two paths to arrive at the peace that comes when your life is meaningful. The first path is through action and achievement. You set out on a purpose, and you succeed in fulfilling it. Ideally everyone should be able to create meaning through the work they do, the service they offer, the love they share, and the good they achieve. But during lockdown, there is often no outlet for this path. We find ourselves passively victimized by a mindless virus that is achieving far more than its human victims; that is, its purpose in life, which is to find a host and multiply, has been astoundingly successful.

But the second path to a meaningful life hasnt been touched by the virus, and never can be. This path is one of realization. You go inside and discover that you are sustained by your own being. At your core you find value, no matter what you do in life, and no matter what external threats assail you. This path has been open forever, and its teaching occupies the worlds spiritual traditions both East and West. Nirvana, Moksha, liberation, the Kingdom of Heaven within, the peace that passes understanding: by whatever name, the path is essentially the same.

The problem is that we have erected mental barriers that block this path, which should be the easiest path imaginable. Its message is grasped naturally by children: You are here, and that is enough. There is no need to a pilgrimage to a holy place, years in a spiritual retreat, long immersions in silence, or the proverbial cave in the Himalayas. The only thing to do is to wake up as directly as you can, here and now. So why dont we? It isnt as if the teachings from spiritual guides, teachers, seers, sages, avatars, gurus, and saints is lacking. Whats the problem?

Once you ask this question, you are on your way to waking up. Existential dread is actually a mental creation. We listen to the voice of fear in our heads; we let fear become an emotion that we feel powerless to oppose; we are lulled into passivity by the everyday routine of life; we dont bother to see for ourselves; and we have a lot of desirable goals in mind that make it easy to avoid the inner journey.

If you set all of that baggage aside for one moment of clarity, you will see clearly that existence has never been the problem. In fact, it is the solution. Every moment of epiphany, revelation, divine presence, inner peace, etc. has only one source: existence. You have to be here first before anything, good or bad, can happen. So why not just be here? The thinking mind cannot just be here, because it is filled with a riotous display of thoughts, feelings, and sensations. Yet these must have a source, and the source isnt a thought, feeling, or sensation.

The source is existence. The spiritual promise, the goodie that every religion holds out, is that there is higher existence. But this too is a mental construct. Existence isnt like a luxury high rise that saves the best apartments for the top floors. Existence is the rock solid, indestructible, eternal, immutable zero point at which everything begins. Simply by existing, human beings are given infinite possibilities in life. That alone is the source of lifes vibrancy, as well as our own joy, live, creativity, discovery, and evolution.

The real promise that we should all explore is this: Being is more meaningful than doing. The ultimate healing, the end of all fear, including the fear of death, is contained in that simple axiom. Being is more meaningful than doing. This is why Buddhism engendered the concept of non-doing. Settle down in yourself, meet yourself in silence, appreciate the silence, and accept the peace that is part of existence. You cant create peace; you can only discover it.

We test out how life works through our experiences. The good experiences encourage us to give a cheer for being alive; the bad experiences raise doubts, fear, uncertainty, and depression. So healing cannot come from amassing more good experiences until your bank account is bursting with them. Goodies dont make for a good life. Only life makes for a good life. Shed all your experiences temporarily, in other words sit in silence for a few minutes. You wont know who you really are or what your life means until you meet yourself inside. What awaits is the merging of self, silence, existence, and being. In this merging lies the answer to fear and dread. More importantly, this is where life finally begins to mean everything we want it to mean.

DEEPAK CHOPRA MD, FACP, founder of The Chopra Foundation, a non-profit entity for research on well-being and humanitarianism, and Chopra Global, a modern-day health company at the intersection of science and spirituality, is a world-renowned pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation. Chopra is a Clinical Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, San Diego and serves as a senior scientist with Gallup Organization. He is the author of over 89 books translated into over forty-three languages, including numerous New York Times bestsellers. His 90th book, Metahuman: Unleashing Your Infinite Potential, unlocks the secrets to moving beyond our present limitations to access a field of infinite possibilities. TIME magazine has described Dr. Chopra as one of the top 100 heroes and icons of the century.

Read the original post:
Existence and the Virus: A Healing Solution - SFGate

Read More...

Thought Technology’s Webinar Series Focuses on Adjunctive Therapies That Combine Well with Biofeedback and Neurofeedback – PR Web

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Dr. Donald Moss

MONTREAL (PRWEB) May 26, 2020

In an ongoing webinar series presented by Thought Technology Ltd., experts from various fields discuss how they are using biofeedback in their practices. Todays mental health practitioners have many tools at their disposal to best address the individual needs of their clients. In an upcoming webinar, Dr. Donald Moss will discuss adjunctive therapies that can be used in conjunction with biofeedback.

Adjunctive therapies are interventions that combine well with biofeedback and neurofeedback training and augment the therapeutic effect of the biofeedback and neurofeedback. The combined therapeutic effect of biofeedback and relaxation together is often greater than the effect of either intervention alone. Regular home practice of relaxation skills improves basal autonomic nervous system regulation and reduces the onset of problematic symptoms. This Webinar introduces six adjunctive therapies, including progressive muscle relaxation, autogenic training, paced diaphragmatic breathing, guided imagery, meditation, and mindfulness. Two of them will be demonstrated, and brief clinical vignettes will illustrate the use of the adjunctive techniques. Each of these skill sets can be administered on its own, with therapeutic effect, or provided in combination with biofeedback as a treatment package.

Adjunctive Therapies for Use with Biofeedback and NeurofeedbackPresenter: Dr. Donald MossDate: May 29, 2020Time: 1:00-2:00 pm EDT

Click here to register.

About Dr. Donald MossDonald Moss, Ph.D., BCB, is Dean, College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, at Saybrook University, Oakland, CA. Dr. Moss is the Education Chair of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (SCEH). He is also the ethics chair and international certification chair for the Biofeedback Certification International Alliance. He has served as president of Division 30 (hypnosis) of the American Psychological Association, SCEH, and the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB). Dr. Moss has a book with co-author Angele McGrady on Integrative Pathways: Navigating Chronic Illness with a Mind-Body-Spirit Approach (Springer, 2018), and a book with co-editor Fredric Shaffer on Physiological Recording Technology and Applications in Biofeedback and Neurofeedback (AAPB, 2019). He has a book in press with co-editor Inna Khazan on Mindfulness, Compassion, and Biofeedback Practice (AAPB). Moss is co-editor of Foundations of Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (AAPB, 2016), co-author of Pathways to Illness, Pathways to Health (Springer, 2013), and chief editor of Handbook of Mind-Body Medicine for Primary Care (Sage, 2003) and Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology (Greenwood, 1998).

About Thought Technology Ltd.Founded in 1975, Thought Technology is the world's leading biofeedback and physiological instrument manufacturer. Its products are used as an essential part of many therapeutic treatments and clinical assessment protocols in over 85 countries and are used by tens of thousands of clinicians in thousands of medical institutions.

Always supportive of new research and development ideas, Thought Technology Ltd. has encouraged a number of special interest groups and clinicians to create cutting edge applications for its instrumentation. Thought Technology Ltd. equipment is now being used in telemedicine, web-based monitoring and biofeedback, sports training, research in human-machine interface, physiology-driven multimedia environments and virtual reality. Constantly striving to improve the quality of the products and services, TTL has obtained, and maintains, ISO 13485, and CE certification for the organization and products.

Share article on social media or email:

Read this article:
Thought Technology's Webinar Series Focuses on Adjunctive Therapies That Combine Well with Biofeedback and Neurofeedback - PR Web

Read More...

Mapping the Neurons of the Rat Heart in 3D – Technology Networks

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

An interdisciplinary team of researchers has developed a virtual 3D heart, digitally showcasing the heart's unique network of neurons for the first time. Using the rat heart as a model, the investigators in this study appearing in the journal iScience created a comprehensive map of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system (ICN) at a cellular scale. This map allows for gene expression data to be superimposed within it, which can help determine the functional role that specific neuron clusters play. The researchers say this map will allow neurologists and cardiologists alike to more precisely study the neuroanatomy of the heart and lays the groundwork for developing virtual maps for other major organs.While people normally associate neurons with the brain, they play important roles in other organs as well. "Many cardiologists aren't even aware there are neurons in the heart, let alone that they are critical to heart health," says senior author James Schwaber, director of the Daniel Baugh Institute for Functional Genomics and Computational Biology at Thomas Jefferson University. With the newly developed virtual framework, scientists can study the organization and function of the heart's neurons at an unprecedented level of detail. "By using this 3D reference space, we can build a comprehensive picture of the heart's structure which is foundational to address various health concerns."

The 3D model is made possible by interweaving imaging, collection, anatomical mapping, and gene expression techniques. First, a diamond knife is used to create fine slices throughout the length of the heart, where microscopic images and tissues samples are taken at each cut using 3Scan software. These images are used to create the base of the 3D reconstruction. In parallel, laser capture microdissection is used to remove individual neurons from the collected samples, while recording their precise placement within the heart's anatomy. Researchers then used single-cell transcriptomics to determine the gene expression profiles of each of these collected neurons. Once all the data are collected, they are fit onto the 3D model to create a comprehensive picture of the heart's neural network.

"With the spatial mapping of the gene expression, we can begin to discuss the precise roles that these neurons play. Do separate clusters of the ICN neurons have different functions, or do they work into an integrated way to influence heart health? Now we can address these questions in way that wasn't possible before," says co-author Zixi Jack Cheng, a cardiovascular anatomist and physiologist from the University of Central Florida College of Medicine.

The map revealed a consistent spatial pattern of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system moving from the top to the bottom of the heart. And although the 3D map was constructed using the hearts of rats, the researchers say the protocols generated to create it will likely have long-term impacts on human medicine. For instance, some cases of severe heart disease have been reversed or remediated by stimulating the vagus nerve though it is unclear why this treatment is effective in some patients and not others. "Evaluating these cardiac neurons from an anatomical and molecular perspective may help us better understand their function and develop therapies that can produce these protective effects of the vagus nerve onto the hearts of more patients," says co-author Jonathan Gorky, a recent MD/PhD graduate from Thomas Jefferson University and medical resident at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"Now that we have a comprehensive map of the heart, the way we pursue bioelectronic medicine will significantly change as we have information available at a level of resolution that just wasn't accessible before this," says co-author Rajanikanth Vadigepalli, a systems biologist with a chemical and control systems engineering pedigree at Thomas Jefferson University.

All the techniques and technologies used to create the atlas are made readily available through the Stimulating Peripheral Activity to Relieve Conditions program (SPARC), so other researchers can recreate and build upon the 3D framework whether it be with other animal hearts or with other organs such as the liver or lungs. "The SPARC program has created an online portal that allows other research teams to access our and other's data, empowering them to understand, expand, explore, and contribute to how we think about the innervation aspects of each organ of the body. Thereby, we can start to create a community that extends beyond a single area of focus onto all the integrative aspects of the brain and body," says co-author Susan Tappan, a developmental neuroscientist and the scientific director at MBF Bioscience.

Already, the combined efforts of this research team and the SPARC program have generated new projects across several labs that are working to understand the autonomic nervous system for other organs of the body. Though much research is left to be done, these efforts work towards the larger goal of creating effective treatments utilizing neuromodulation.ReferenceAchanta et al. (2020). A Comprehensive Integrated Anatomical and Molecular Atlas of Rat Intrinsic Cardiac Nervous System. iScience. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101140

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Go here to read the rest:
Mapping the Neurons of the Rat Heart in 3D - Technology Networks

Read More...

Venture capital found its footing in biotech. Then came the virus. – BioPharma Dive

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Amir Nashat has spent nearly two decades building biotechnology companies. The first he worked on, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, pioneered a new way to make genetic medicine. He's since helped advise and nurture at least 16 others, several of which were acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Despite this track record, Nashat, a partner at the venture firm Polaris Partners, says most of his career in venture capital took place under "really crappy circumstances" that made it challenging to invest in young drug companies. Only in the last five or so years did things really start to change.

It was during this period that public markets came to love young biotechs, buying into record stock offerings. Large drugmakers, starved for innovation, also turned to them for their next drugs. This created a "hyper-compressed, hyper-intense environment," according to Nashat, where venture firms had much clearer and quicker paths to earn returns on their investments. For venture capitalists, there had never been a better time to invest in drug startups and, coming into 2020, many expected another big year.

Their predictions were quickly upended by the spread of the new coronavirus, which has infected millions and brought the global economy to a halt. In the past, economic downturns shaped how venture firms fund and incubate drug companies. Now, a pandemic threatens to do the same.

BioPharma Dive spoke with half a dozen venture capitalists who grow drug companies, as well as legal and financial advisors who work with healthcare venture firms. Almost all said the spread of the new coronavirus is affecting to some degree how they manage existing investments or think about new ones.

"It used to be that we had a lot of chaos, but the rest of the world was predictable," said Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Pioneering, the biotech incubator which founded coronavirus vaccine developer Moderna along with more than 25 other companies. "Now, we have chaos and the rest of the world has chaos, and so there are some adjustments being done."

As venture capitalists assess the damage caused by the pandemic, they appear to be treading lightly financial data provider Pitchbook found biopharma venture deals are down roughly 16% compared to last year. Some firms told BioPharma Dive that, in the current environment, they'd be apprehensive to invest in certain kinds of drug companies.

Even small adjustments could have a lasting impact on the drug industry, given the vital role venture firms play in it. Many biotechs wouldn't exist without venture money and support, making these investors a powerful force over the drugs that could become available in the future.

After the recession in the early 2000s, scientific breakthroughs led to a surge in biotech investments, many of which would ultimately disappoint. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, healthcare-focused venture firms found it extremely difficult to raise money from their investors, who viewed biotech as a risky bet.

Their attitude didn't start to change until about 2013, by which time the recession was over and advances in drug research had made biotech more attractive to a wider group of investors and potential buyers. Biopharma acquisitions and initial public offerings, typically the two main ways venture firms receive returns, would hit record highs in the following years, giving these firms and their backers the confidence to keep putting in money.

Indeed, since 2013 there's been an annual uptick in the number of funding deals venture firms are doing, with almost every year having about 70 more than the one prior, according to Pitchbook. By 2019, the deal count had hit 941.

The collective value of these deals, which range from small angel investments to the larger funding rounds that follow, has grown too. In four of the last five years it surpassed $10 billion.

The favorable conditions also made it so that venture firms could go back to their investors for more money. Polaris Partners, 5AM Ventures, Third Rock Ventures and Versant Ventures, among others, each secured hundreds of millions of dollars across 2018 and 2019, while Flagship, Arch Venture Partners and venBio closed new funds this spring worth almost $3 billion combined.

Deerfield, a type of investor known as a "crossover" because it invests in both private and publicly traded companies, also just completed raising $840 million to put into healthcare companies.

While money has been plentiful, the economic disruption caused by the coronavirus raises doubts about whether that will continue.

Bob Nelsen, managing director at Arch, said he'd be surprised if any new, first-time funds can raise cash at all this year. Firms with existing networks of investor relationships may be able to pull off follow-on funds, he added, but they'd likely take longer to complete.

If a slowdown persists, young biotechs could find it difficult to close their next rounds of financing. Already, the pace of biopharma venture deals appears to be lagging, as Pitchbook counted 228 deals between early February and mid-May this year, down from the 271 seen in a similar time frame in 2019.

One top concern is that crossover investors, who often come in later and supply a substantial amount of the funding that props up a company until it goes public, will back away from biotech startups. Without those investors, early-stage venture backers might have to dig deeper in their pockets to push their companies forward.

"It can take $1 billion to get a drug to market," said Kristopher Brown, a partner in the life sciences group at law firm Goodwin. "There are few venture capitalists who can afford to fund that."

Nelsen predicts some crossover investors will take a break from biotech startups and focus on public stocks that are now cheaper because of a turbulent market. But Jon Norris, a managing director at Silicon Valley Bank who works on deals with healthcare venture firms, isn't so sure.

Biotech stocks have held up relatively well this year compared to the rest of the market, which Norris said bodes well for continued crossover interest. What's more, the number of biotechs that have gone public this year 14 as of May 26 is just a tick down from the 17 IPOs completed by the same date in 2019.

"It just means to me that people continue to see this sector as one that's worthy of investing," Norris said. "If you see good returns, people are not going to be quick to exit the market."

After dip, biotech stocks have outperformed the market

XBI vs S&P; 500, values indexed to Jan. 2, 2020=100

Still, much is unknown about how the pandemic will further unfold.

For drug companies, the impact of social distancing and its ripple effects on the economy are expected to be more dramatic in the second and third quarters. In a possibly foreboding sign, industry bellwethers Merck & Co. and Johnson & Johnson have lowered their revenue forecasts for the year by billions of dollars.

"I do worry about the delays that are inherent to having this whole economy come to a stop and hospital systems being overwhelmed," Norris said. "To me, that's a big deal over the next quarter."

In the meantime, venture firms need to put the money they've already raised to work.

Early-stage investors who spoke to BioPharma Dive said their core strategies are still intact in spite of the coronavirus. Flagship and Arch prefer companies with technology platforms that, in theory, can give rise to multiple drugs. Polaris, as it has in the past, works its close relationships with academic institutions to find new startup opportunities. Atlas Venture remains fairly agnostic, while San Francisco-based venBio looks for companies on track to hit a meaningful milestone in the next three to five years.

And yet, the pandemic does weigh on their thinking.

To attract new investors, development partners and potential acquirers, biotech startups need to hit goals like moving a drug into and through human testing. But they've found a new obstacle in the coronavirus. By late May, nearly 100 drug companies of all sizes had reported impacts to their clinical trials related to the pandemic.

"There could be significant dollars lost and significantly extended timelines" for biotechs on the verge of, or already in, clinical testing, said James Flynn, managing partner at Deerfield.

As such, some firms are investing more selectively. Aaron Royston, a managing partner at venBio, said his team will be "very cautious" when putting money into any drug company that's close to starting an important trial or launching a new product.

Funding also might be harder to come by for biotechs built around a single drug program, as there's not much cushioning if that program runs into complications.

"Companies that are purely based on single assets with a clinical readout are in deep shit," Nelsen said.

By contrast, companies at the earliest stages of research may benefit. Investors assume that, by the time these companies reach human trials, some of the challenges and uncertainties surrounding the coronavirus will have been ironed out.

Royston, for instance, said he has little apprehension investing in biotechs that will be working on early research for the next 12 to 18 months.

"Preclinical investment is almost a safe place to hide while everybody else is on the later-stage side, trying to figure out how to deal with delays in clinical trials," SVB's Norris said.

For now, venture firms say they've been more frequently checking in with companies that could face setbacks because of the disruption and, if needed, helping devise plans to conserve cash.

"At the end of the day, data is the currency of how we value our progress," said Atlas Venture partner Bruce Booth. "So, as long as the biotech has enough capital to get it through those data collections and can get out from some of those R&D delays, then I think we'll be in an OK place coming out of this crisis."

In responding to the disruption brought by the pandemic, venture capitalists may revisit approaches honed after the last big economic downturn in 2008.

Then, a dried up IPO market alongside difficulties raising money led some venture firms to leave life sciences investing altogether. Others doubled down on their existing strategies or adopted new ways to build companies.

Versant, for example, was known to start companies with a prearranged buyer in place. Atlas gave some companies, like Nimbus Therapeutics, a limited liability structure that made it easier to sell individual drugs to buyers, though more complicated to go public. Such tools are "less critical now than they were during that challenging period" because biotechs can still conduct IPOs, Booth says.

At Polaris, hard economic times reinforced the firm's trust in a type of group investing called syndicates, which can spread risk between firms. Flagship, on the other hand, backed away from forming biotechs with other investors because the process felt too restrictive.

"What we found was that, when people were traumatized through financing risks and through uncertainty, a syndicate was only as strong as its weakest link," Afeyan said. "In other words, if you had five investors sitting around a board table, the weakest one was the one that got to decide what you did."

Flagship has since shifted resources to focus almost exclusively on creating startups in its own labs. And it isn't alone. Firms such as Third Rock have become known for an intensely hands-on approach, incubating companies and ultimately owning significant stakes when those biotechs go public.

Another popular strategy has been to stagger, or tranche, investments to limit risk. Typically, this means firms give smaller chunks of cash early on and larger chunks later, once a startup has provided more evidence that its medicines might pan out.

And yet, despite the unprecedented challenges posed by the pandemic, venBio and others appear optimistic that a 2008-like shakeout isn't coming, and that they won't have to rely on unorthodox strategies to navigate the future. Royston's view on 2020 opportunities hasn't changed; Nelsen doesn't foresee the pandemic preventing Arch from investing right now; and Flagship is still on track to spin around 10 projects into full companies over the next year and a half, Afeyan said.

There's a key difference this time around, several firms and advisors said, and that's the money which has so far stayed readily available to healthcare investors. Cowen Healthcare Investments just last week finished raising nearly half a billion dollars, adding to the string of recent hauls from other firms.

"We've seen these things come and go, and frankly we've done some of our best companies in the down cycles," Nelsen said.

A pandemic, however, isn't just another down cycle.

Past downturns didn't threaten to overwhelm the healthcare system, as the outbreak of the coronavirus has. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been sickened by coronavirus infections. And for millions of people with diseases other than COVID-19, how they seek and receive care changed overnight.

The widespread shutdown of businesses across the country, meanwhile, has created economic hardship not seen since the Great Depression, and it's unlikely a stop-and-start reopening will quickly heal those wounds.

"No one fully can comprehend, even in a world as smart as the biotech scientific world, the trajectory and the impact of the current situation," said Amy Schulman, a managing partner at Polaris.

Whether the pandemic persists into next year or lingers much longer, venture capitalists do acknowledge it will have profound effects on society and, by extension, the drug industry.

Nashat envisions that "new kinds of entrepreneurs" will rise amid the chaos, while others will be "scared off." Nelsen predicts big changes in how healthcare is delivered, which will "shock" the system and create new opportunities.

That means investors will need to adapt too.

"It would be incredible, to me," Afeyan said, "if people just forgot this and resumed their old normal."

See the article here:
Venture capital found its footing in biotech. Then came the virus. - BioPharma Dive

Read More...

COVID-19: How many strains of the new coronavirus are there? – Medical News Today

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

Since the emergence of the new coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, several researchers have proposed that there is more than one strain, and that mutations have led to changes in how infectious and deadly it is. However, opinions are divided.

Genetic mutations are a natural, everyday phenomenon. They can occur every time genetic material is copied.

When a virus replicates inside the cell it has infected, the myriad of new copies will have small differences. Why is this important?

When mutations lead to changes in how a virus behaves, it can have significant consequences. These do not necessarily have to be detrimental to the host, but in the case of vaccines or drugs that target specified viral proteins, mutations may weaken these interactions.

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, several research studies have highlighted variations in the viruss genetic sequence. This has prompted discussion about whether or not there are several strains, if this has an impact on how easily the virus can infect a host, and whether or not this affects how many more people are likely to die.

Many scientists have called for caution. In this Special Feature, we summarize what researchers currently know about SARS-CoV-2 mutations and hear from experts about their views on what these mean for the pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus, which means that its genetic material is encoded in single-stranded RNA. Inside a host cell, it makes its own replication machinery.

RNA viruses have exceptionally high mutations rates because their replications enzymes are prone to errors when making new virus copies.

Virologist Prof. Jonathan Stoye, a senior group leader at the Francis Crick Institute in London in the United Kingdom, told Medical News Today what makes virus mutations significant.

A mutation is a change in a genetic sequence, he said. The fact of a mutational change is not of primary importance, but the functional consequences are.

If a particular genetic alteration changes the target of a drug or antibody that acts against the virus, those viral particles with the mutation will outgrow the ones that do not have it.

A change in a protein to allow virus entry into a cell that carries very low amounts of receptor protein could also provide a growth advantage for the virus, Prof. Stoye added.

However, it should be stressed that only a fraction [of] all mutations will be advantageous; most will be neutral or harmful to the virus and will not persist.

Mutations in viruses clearly do matter, as evidenced by the need to prepare new vaccines against [the] influenza virus every year for the effective prevention of seasonal flu and the need to treat HIV-1 simultaneously with several drugs to [prevent the] emergence of resistant virus.

Prof. Jonathan Stoye

MNT recently featured a research study by a team from Arizona State University in Tempe. The paper described a mutation that mimics a similar event that occurred during the SARS epidemic in 2003.

The team studied five nasal swab samples that had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. They found that one of these had a deletion, which means that a part of the viral genome was missing. To be precise, 81 nucleotides in the viral genetic code were gone.

Previous research indicated that similar mutations lowered the ability of the SARS virus to replicate.

Another study, this time in the Journal of Translational Medicine, proposed that SARS-CoV-2 had picked up specific mutation patterns in distinct geographical regions.

The researchers, from the University of Maryland in Baltimore and Italian biotech company Ulisse Biomed in Trieste, analyzed eight recurrent mutations in 220 COVID-19 patient samples.

They found three of these exclusively in European samples and another three exclusively in samples from North America.

Another study, which has not yet been through the peer review process, suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutations have made the virus more transmissible in some cases.

In the paper, Bette Korber from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and collaborators describe 13 mutations in the region of the viral genome that encodes the spike protein.

This protein is crucial for infection, as it helps the virus bind to the host cell.

The researchers note that one particular mutation, which changes an amino acid in the spike protein, may have originated either in China or Europe, but [began] to spread rapidly first in Europe, and then in other parts of the world, and which is now the dominant pandemic form in many countries.

Prof. Stoye commented that the results of this study are, in some ways, not surprising.

Viruses are typically finely tuned to their host species. If they jump species, e.g., from bat to human, a degree of retuning is inevitable both to avoid natural host defenses and for optimum interaction with the cells of the new host, he said.

Random mutations will occur, and the most fit viruses will come to predominate, he added. Therefore, it does not seem surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is evolving following its jump to, and spread through, the human population. Clearly, such changes are currently taking place, as evidenced by the apparent spread of the [mutation] observed by Korber [and colleagues].

However, Prof. Stoye does not think that it is clear at this point how mutations will drive the behavior of SARS-CoV-2 in the long term.

Fears about SARS-CoV-2 evolution to resist still-to-be-developed vaccines and drugs are not unreasonable, he explained. Nevertheless, it is also possible that we will see evolution to a less harmful version of the virus, as may well have occurred following initial human colonization by the so-called seasonal coronaviruses.

Earlier this year, researchers from Peking University in Beijing, China, published a paper in National Science Review describing two distinct lineages of SARS-CoV-2, which they termed S and L.

They analyzed 103 virus sequence samples and wrote that around 70% were of the L lineage.

However, a team at the Center for Virus Research at the University of Glasgow in the U.K. disagreed with the findings and published their critique of the data in the journal Virus Evolution.

Given the repercussions of these claims and the intense media coverage of these types of articles, we have examined in detail the data presented [] and show that the major conclusions of that paper cannot be substantiated, the authors write.

Prof. David Robertson, head of Viral Genomics and Bioinformatics at the Centre for Virus Research, was part of the team. MNT asked his views on the possibility of there being more than one strain of SARS-CoV-2.

Until there is some evidence of a change in virus biology, we cannot say that there are new strains of the virus. Its important to appreciate that mutations are a normal byproduct of virus replication and that most mutations we observe wont have any impact on virus biology or function, he said.

Some of the reports of, for example, amino acid changes in the spike protein are interesting, but at the moment, these are at best a hypothesis. Their potential impact is currently being tested in a number of labs.

Prof. Stoye thinks that it is more a case of semantics rather than anything else at the moment.

If we have different sequences, we have different strains. Only when we have a greater understanding of the functional consequences of the evolutionary changes observed does it make sense to reclassify the different isolates, he said.

At that point, we can seek to correlate sequence variation with prognostic or therapeutic implications. This may take a number of years.

So, what kind of evidence are skeptical scientists looking for in the debate around multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains?

MNT asked Prof. Martin Hibberd, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K., to weigh in on the debate.

For virologists, strain is rather a subjective word that does not always have a clear specific meaning, he commented.

More useful in the SARS-CoV-2 situation would be the idea of serotype, which is used to describe strains that can be distinguished by the human immune response an immune response to one serotype will not usually protect against a different serotype. For SARS-CoV-2, there is no conclusive evidence that this has happened yet.

To show that the virus has genetically changed sufficiently to create a different immune response, we would need to characterize the immune protection and show that it worked for one serotype and not for another, he continued.

Prof. Hibberd, who has been researching SARS-CoV-2 mutations, explained that scientists are studying neutralizing antibodies to help them define a serotype for SARS-CoV-2. These antibodies can prevent the virus from infecting a host cell, but they may not be effective against a new strain.

Several groups around the world have identified a specific mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and they are concerned that this mutation might alter this type of binding, but we cannot be sure it does that at the moment. More likely, this mutation will likely affect the virus binding to its receptor [], which might affect transmissibility.

Prof. Martin Hibberd

We ideally need experimental evidence, [such as a] demonstration of a mutation leading to a functional change in the virus in the first instance, and secondly a demonstration that this change will have an impact in [people with the infection], Prof. Robertson suggested.

He pointed to lessons that experts learned during the 20142018 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, where several research groups had suggested that a mutation had resulted in the virus becoming more easily passed between people and more deadly.

Cell culture experiments showed that the mutated virus was able to replicate more rapidly. However, when scientists subsequently studied this in animal models, they found that it did not behave any differently than stains without the mutation.

Scientists around the world continue to search for answers to the many outstanding questions around SARS-CoV-2. No doubt, we will see more research emerge in the coming months and years that will assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 mutations on the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of this new coronavirus.

For live updates on the latest developments regarding the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, click here.

Visit link:
COVID-19: How many strains of the new coronavirus are there? - Medical News Today

Read More...

More insight into the cytokine storm caused by Covid-19 could lead to a treatment – Health24

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

The immune system response triggered by Covid-19, causing an overproduction of cytokines, has been big news during the pandemic.

While Covid-19 deaths are usually caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially in older adults and those with co-morbidities, some younger Covid-19 patients have suffered severe symptoms because of an overreaction by their immune systems, rather than the virus itself.

Now, a new clinical trial will test a treatment that targets this immune response, according to a press release from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

The mechanism behind the cytokine storm

According to leading immunologists in Japan, a molecular mechanism could lead to possible ways to treat this overreaction by the immune system. The research was published in the journal Immunity.

The immune system response to the coronavirus may lead to ARDS, causing patients to struggle for oxygen in their inflamed, fluid-filled lungs.

"To rescue the patients from this condition, it is vital to understand how SARS-CoV-2 triggers the cytokine storm that leads to ARDS," stated Masaaki Murakami, the head of the immunology laboratory at Hokkaido University's Institute for Genetic Medicine.

His study suggested that the novel coronavirusenters human cells by attaching to the ACE2 surface receptor. Then, a human enzyme called TMPRSS2 is utilised.

"Drugs that block the ACE2 receptor or that inhibit the enzyme could help treat the initial stages of the disease," says Murakami. "However, ARDS with cytokine storm starts to appear in the later phase of infection even when the numbers of the virus decrease. So, there must be another pathway that causes the cytokine storm, Murakami explained in a news statement.

Closer to a treatment?

The treatment that will be tested in a clinical trial by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute involves a common type of alpha-blocker. Through mouse studies, the team determined that this drug might break the hyperinflammation before it causes the severe symptoms seen in Covid-19 patients.

"The approach we're advocating involves treating people who are at high risk early in the course of the disease, when you know they're infected but before they have severe symptoms. If the trial's results suggest the drug is safe and effective against Covid-19, it could potentially help many people recover safely at home and lessen the strain on hospital resources, stated Howard Hughes Medical Investigator Bert Vogelstein.

Together with his team at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Vogelstein is currently recruiting patients aged 45 to 85 at the John Hopkins Hospital to participate in the trial. The prerequisites are that they have to be hospitalised, but not ventilated or in ICU.

How will an alpha blocker stop the cytokine storm?

A hyperactive immune system isnt a new response solely seen in Covid-19. Usually, this type of response is seen in people already suffering from autoimmune diseases or cancer.

What happens during a cytokine storm is that cells called macrophages, which are either found in the tissues or in the blood as white blood cells, are activated to detect and fight the pathogen. As soon as this happens, cytokines are released to help the body fight off the intruder.

Unfortunately, the macrophages dont only release cytokines, but also molecules called catecholamines, which trigger the immune system to release even more cytokines.

According to the news release, Vogelsteins team was already investigating how this reaction in cancer patients could be halted with immunotherapy.

They then looked at alpha-blockers which are usually prescribed for prostate conditions and high blood pressure. This medication is meant to help curb the cells that trigger cytokine storms.

The initial research in mice was published in the journal Nature in 2018.

How likely is this method to be successful?

While alpha-blockers were already approved for human use, Vogelsteins team needed to look at medical claims data to see how patients with pneumonia and ARDS responded to alpha-blockers for unrelated conditions.

The conclusion was that the use of alpha-blockers were correlated to lower death risk, but this simply wasnt enough evidence for a new condition such as Covid-19.

Now, the patients on trial will take increasing doses of an alpha-blocker over six days. The team will then evaluate whether those patients had lower risk of ICU admission and being placed on ventilators.

A second trial will be needed to establish whether this approach is safe and effective. According to Vogelstein, this method may be great for helping to mitigate symptoms before they become severe and deadly.

"Eventually, hopefully, a vaccine will be produced, and that will be the essence of prevention," he stated. "But until vaccines are available, secondary prevention makes a lot of sense."

Image credit: Getty Images

Visit link:
More insight into the cytokine storm caused by Covid-19 could lead to a treatment - Health24

Read More...

With big talk and hurled insults, the gloves come off in the race for the coronavirus vaccine – CNN

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

While several vaccine developers have issued statements looking into the future -- setting possible timetables for study completion and vaccine manufacturing -- the ethicists and doctors say one group in particular stands out as being the most aggressive in painting the rosiest picture: the University of Oxford in England.

Oxford has recently walked back some of its optimism, but for months, it set a tone that its vaccine was the most promising, without any solid evidence that this was based in fact.

First, in a field fraught with potential failure, two Oxford researchers stated that they're "80% confident" that the vaccine will work, and that they might be able to complete large-scale clinical trials in just six weeks, a fraction of what some other vaccine companies estimate they can do.

Second, some experts have accused Oxford scientists of spinning results of their vaccine research in monkeys to make the vaccine look more powerful than it is, which Oxford denies.

Third, one leader in the Oxford team has gone so far as to denigrate other teams trying to get a Covid vaccine on the market, calling their technology "weird" and labeling it as merely "noise." Such name-calling is highly unusual and aggressive among scientists.

Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said he "sat straight up" when he heard one of the Oxford scientists talk about how well their vaccine is progressing.

"Some of us in the scientific community here in the US have been a little surprised at the sprightly competitiveness of some of the comments from our colleagues at Oxford. We don't usually see that in public pronouncements," said Schaffner, a longtime adviser to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We've been grumpy with our national political leaders about providing inaccurate information, and we should hold scientific leaders to those same standards."

Dr. Paul Offit, a University of Pennsylvania pediatrician who developed a vaccine for rotavirus, agrees.

"At this point, the Oxford researchers have no idea whether they have something or not," Offit said. "You just get so tired of this 'science by press release.' "

But one of the leaders of the Oxford research team says he and his colleagues are just being straightforward.

"We're going to be first to finish," said Dr. Adrian Hill, one of the lead Oxford researchers. "How can you criticize us for giving our honest opinion?"

On April 16, CNN's Erin Burnett pressed Hill on his predictions.

"Do you have any concern that you're being overly optimistic, that that just seems, for lack of a better word, too good to be true?" Burnett asked.

"We don't think so," Hill answered.

Weeks later, Hill would have to backtrack on his own optimism, warning against "over-promising" and ratcheting down his expectations of success.

Most vaccine efforts will fail

Five Chinese companies have vaccines in human trials. Oxford is the only one in Europe. Worldwide, there are 114 more candidates in pre-clinical trial stages.

Vaccine development is a risky business. Sometimes even ones that get to large-scale clinical trials fail.

Even so, scientists from various experimental vaccine teams have made public statements about their interim results.

On May 18, Massachusetts-based Moderna put out a press release declaring that results in eight human study subjects showed that its vaccine "was generally safe and well tolerated."

Moderna CEO Stphane Bancel referred to the results as "positive interim Phase 1 data" and that "the Moderna team continues to focus on moving as fast as safely possible to start our pivotal Phase 3 study in July."

Moderna's stock soared, and the company was criticized for announcing results on just eight study subjects when the data hadn't even been peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal.

The Oxford scientists have voiced less caution, frequently appearing in the media and making public proclamations that theirs will likely be successful and first.

On April 11, lead researcher Sarah Gilbert told The Times of London that she was "80% confident" that the Oxford vaccine will work.

Her own colleague questioned that statement a few weeks later.

But Hill, the director of the Jenner Institute at Oxford, which specializes in vaccine development, dismissed Bell's comments.

"It's like asking me about a renal drug, asking John about a vaccine. It's not what he does. It's what Sarah does every day and has done for 25 years," Hill said.

Bell did not respond to CNN's multiple requests for comments.

On May 19, Hill told CNN he stood by Gilbert's estimate.

"We did not exaggerate anything. We're not backtracking at all from the 80%," he said.

The wisdom of Spider-Man

Inovio and Moderna have said they expect their large-scale clinical trials, known as Phase 3 trials, to last around six months. Pfizer hasn't given a timetable for its Phase 3 trial.

On May 19, Hill told CNN that his group is planning to start its Phase 3 trial sometime before July 1, and that they could finish by the end of the July, which means the trial would be between a month and six weeks long, although he thought August or September was more likely.

"I've not seen anyone wrap up a Phase 3 trial in a month to six weeks," said Dr. Saad Omer, a Yale University infectious disease expert who's done clinical trials on polio, pertussis and influenza vaccines. "We need to benchmark this against realistic expectations."

Hill said he thought it was important to benchmark his trial progress because "it has huge public policy implications" for officials who are trying to make rules about when to open up communities.

But Omer said that's exactly why it's important to be realistic about how long the vaccine development process will take.

"I buy that this is a pandemic and we may need to show progress and show steps, and I'm OK with making forecasts if decision makers want that, but do it with a level of uncertainty, because that's what's warranted," said Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health.

He said the issue isn't Oxford's specific vaccine technology -- he said they were "scientifically solid" -- but rather that unexpected events can happen during a vaccine trial.

One big stumbling block for any vaccine trial is that Covid-19 infection rates in many areas of the world are flattening out or declining. The point of Phase 3 is to vaccinate people and then see if they naturally become infected, and with lower rates of circulating virus, the study subjects are less likely to be exposed to the virus in the first place.

"Just because things have gone right does not mean the next steps will go exactly on time, and won't go sideways, even if eventually we'll get there," Omer said.

That's why he encourages humility in making any projections about reaching the finish line.

"As Spider-Man says, with great power comes great responsibility, and being responsible is not projecting things with more precision than the field and the history of vaccine development suggests," he added.

Oxford scientist insults other vaccine teams

Hill, the Oxford scientist, has several arguments about why he thinks his vaccine is more promising than the others currently in human clinical trials.

First, he cites his team's many years of research on the technology used in their Covid vaccine.

The Oxford vaccine uses what's called an adenovirus vector. Adenoviruses cause the common cold, but in this case, the adenoviruses are weakened and modified to deliver genetic material that codes for a protein from the novel coronavirus. The body then produces that protein and, ideally, develops an immune response to it.

Despite all this research, none of the Oxford vaccines has made it on the market, Hill said.

Still, Hill told CNN in the May 19 interview that his vaccine, plus one in China that also uses an adenovirus vector, are "the front runners" among the vaccines in clinical trials.

Hill then proceeded to disparage other teams' vaccines -- a highly unusual and aggressive move.

The four US vaccine candidates use a different technology -- or vaccine "platform" -- than Oxford.

Two of them, Moderna and Pfizer, use RNA vaccines, which inject a piece of genetic material from the novel coronavirus into human cells to stimulate immunity.

Hill described RNA vaccines as merely "noise from the new boys."

A Harvard University blog describes it differently.

Hill was particularly disparaging of Moderna, which he said has "weird and wonderful technology." When asked what he meant by "wonderful," Hill said, "I was being sarcastic."

"They've got an unproven technology," he said.

CNN asked Moderna for its response, as well as Pfizer.

"Our only competitors in this race are the virus and the clock. We are rooting for multiple vaccines to succeed because we believe no manufacturer can make enough doses for the planet," according to the Moderna statement.

"Our industry peers, the other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as health authorities, have come together like never before. We're acutely aware that we are all on the same side, and COVID-19 and other diseases are the enemy," Pfizer spokeswoman Amy Rose wrote in an email to CNN.

Hill also took a jab at Inovio, a US vaccine maker in clinical trials, saying "they can't scale up to get into phase three," clinical trials.

Inovio's technology uses a brief electrical pulse to deliver plasmids, or small pieces of genetic information, into human cells. Inovio says those cells then produce the vaccine, which leads to an immune response.

Jeff Richardson, a spokesman for the company said that "our competition is the virus, not other companies. There needs to be three or four winners to vaccinate the world. Most likely, there will be a number of vaccines that make it, and that's a good thing."

As for the four Chinese companies in clinical trials with a potential Covid vaccine, Hill said "they have a problem."

For a vaccine clinical trial to be successful, there needs to be sufficiently high levels of the virus circulating in the community. If there isn't enough virus around, it will be impossible to tell if the vaccine protected the study subjects, or if they were just never exposed to the virus.

"There's no Covid left in China. They can't finish," Hill said.

There is still a bit of Covid left in China, with a few dozen cases left, according to the latest briefings by the nation's National Health Commission. While this is likely not enough for a full-scale clinical trial, the researchers could conduct trials in other countries where the vaccine is still circulating more widely.

Oxford not in 'slam dunk' territory

The Oxford scientists have sometimes tempered their positive statements with more cautious ones.

"Nobody can be absolutely sure it's possible. That's why we have to do trials. We have to find out. I think the prospects are very good, but it's clearly not completely certain," Gilbert answered.

But the US and British media have focused more on the positive statements, often writing glowing reports about the vaccine's progress.

A few weeks ago, a headline in a US newspaper story proclaimed that the "Oxford group leaps ahead" even though it's not clear there's a single front runner among the vaccines.

"Should be careful when talking about #COVID19 vaccine progress. As a vaccine researcher, I am cautiously optimistic; but we must be mindful of projecting too much confidence. We are not in slam dunk territory," he wrote.

Oxford's monkeys, in particular, have received attention.

BioRxiv.org is a pre-print server, meaning the articles have not been reviewed by other scientists and have not been published in the medical literature.

After the monkeys were vaccinated and then exposed to the virus, they were euthanized and examined for lung damage. According to the Oxford study, none of the vaccinated animals had signs of pneumonia or other lung problems, but two out of three unvaccinated monkeys did develop some degree of viral pneumonia.

"We were very excited by seeing that in the first try," he added.

But William Haseltine, a virologist and former professor at Harvard Medical School, said Hill was being "misleading."

"In this interview Hill is like a magician who distracts the audience with one shiny object to detract you from the fact that his accomplice is picking your pocket," Haseltine told CNN in an email.

Also, he said the monkeys had just as much viral RNA in their nasal secretions compared to the unvaccinated monkeys, an indication to him that the vaccine didn't work and the monkeys could possibly spread the virus to others.

Thirdly, Haseltine pointed to neutralizing antibodies. A vaccine should elicit high levels of antibodies capable of disabling the virus and preventing it from infecting human cells. Haseltine said the level of these antibodies in the monkeys who received the Oxford vaccine was "extremely low."

Haseltine told CNN that the monkey study on the Oxford vaccine was an "outright failure."

The Oxford scientists quickly wrote a statement rebutting Haseltine's article. They had been given the novel coronavirus directly into their noses -- called an intranasal challenge -- and so the presence of virus in the nasal swabs "may reflect use of a very high intranasal challenge dose greater than that transmitted in natural infections," according to the statement.

They also wrote that there were neutralizing antibodies present in all the monkeys who were vaccinated, but not in the unvaccinated monkeys.

"The comment by Haseltine appears to misunderstand the impressive efficacy of the [Oxford] vaccine in the non-human primate model," according to the statement.

Offit, the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, said he thinks it's not a deal breaker that the vaccinated monkeys got infected. People sometimes still get the flu when they get a flu vaccine, but they often get only mild symptoms. Children still can get rotavirus after getting his vaccine, but again, typically a milder version that's less life-threatening.

He said the fact that the monkeys did not develop pneumonia after receiving the Oxford vaccine is "encouraging," but he was not convinced that the Oxford vaccine would ultimately work, since vaccines that show signs of success in animals sometimes fail in humans.

"As vaccine researchers like to say, mice lie and monkeys exaggerate," Offit said.

Offit and others say they sometimes cringe when they hear Oxford scientists talk about their vaccine.

Bioethicist Alta Charo said sometimes scientists can become "overly optimistic" about their work, especially as they race to put an end to the pandemic.

"It is very easy to get caught up in the potential of a new medical product when early development and testing seem to show promise. It is very easy to believe in your own work," said Charo, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Art Caplan, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Health and CNN medical analyst, said it's especially important to be circumspect about vaccines, since so many people have lost trust in vaccines and are hesitant to vaccinate their children, or downright refuse to do so.

"The world is watching, and if you're puffing something up that's uncertain, that's really troubling," he said.

On Saturday, after months of rosy predictions, Hill deflated his predictions of success considerably and softened his competitive tone.

In that interview, Hill warned against "over-promising" and said that developing a vaccine is "not a race against the other guys. It's a race against the virus disappearing, and against time."

Offit said this was much more realistic.

"This tells you he's starting to back away from his original statements, as he's noticed the impracticality of his original statements," he said.

Offit has some advice for Covid vaccine developers: Be quiet.

"Now researchers can't wait to step out to the microphone -- and there are so many microphones out there -- to say, 'I've got it! This looks really good!' " Offit said.

When he and his team were developing the RotaTeq vaccine, he said they didn't speak to the media until they received final approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006.

Today that vaccine saves hundreds of lives a day worldwide, Offit said, mostly children under the age of 2.

"When we discovered our rotavirus vaccine was safe in mice, we didn't say anything. When we finished our Phase one clinical trials, we didn't say anything. We just moved forward," he said.

View original post here:
With big talk and hurled insults, the gloves come off in the race for the coronavirus vaccine - CNN

Read More...

Questions about COVID-19 test accuracy raised across the testing spectrum – NBC News

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

For Sarah Bowen, it all started with a sore throat. Not the kind of searing pain shed feel with strep, she said, but a throat irritation that just didnt feel right.

By the end of the day, it just got a little worse and I didnt feel great. I felt like I might be coming down with something. And the next day, things got worse, Bowen, 31, of Portland, Oregon, said.

Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Bowen works at a doctors office, where she was immediately able to get tested for COVID-19, on May 8. It came back negative, and her doctor said the symptoms were most likely allergies or another virus.

But from there, things snowballed. Bowen developed headaches, a stuffy nose, hot flash symptoms and constant headaches. By day six, she felt like she was hit by a truck. She had extreme fatigue and a burning sensation in her chest.

I started getting shortness of breath if I went upstairs to get water or something, Bowen said. It got worse when I moved around.

Two days later, she took another test for COVID. Again, it came back negative.

But despite her symptoms, her doctor didnt believe she had the virus, because there werent many cases in the Portland suburb where she lives. Frustrated, Bowen continued to isolate alone in the downstairs of her home. She didnt want to take any chances.

Its one thing to get sick and know its a cold or the flu. But to get sick during a pandemic and to be kind of dismissed, makes you feel crazy, she said.

Bowens diagnosis remains unclear, but her experience raises questions about the accuracy of diagnostic tests for the disease. Indeed, as more and more people have access to testing, new data show that false negatives on COVID-19 tests may be more common than first realized.

And as the U.S. starts to reopen, accurate testing is one of the most important tools in states' arsenals to track and stop the spread of the coronavirus.

Since the pandemic started spreading across the United States in March, nearly 70 tests have received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Many of these tests were developed at a breakneck pace in an effort to get tests out to the American people.

But while no test is perfect, experts told NBC News that these particular tests used to diagnose COVID-19 may be missing up to 20 percent of positive cases.

One key reason behind these so-called false negatives may be how the testing samples are collected.

The false negatives are mainly due to specimen acquisition, not the testing per se, said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center clinical laboratories and a professor of pathology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Most tests use a method called polymerase chain reaction or PCR. It detects coronavirus genetic material thats present when the virus is active. Clinicians typically collect a sample for testing from the back of a persons throat where the virus is presumed to be with a long nasopharyngeal swab.

Download the NBC News app for full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

But scientists say that collection method is ripe for error.

Youre sampling blindly. Youre hoping you get the right spot. Then as the disease progresses, the virus might migrate down into your lungs, Wells said, adding that once its in the lungs, that nasopharyngeal swab may not pick up any virus if its already been cleared from the throat.

You have to be at the right place at the right time, he said.

Another type of diagnostic test forgoes the uncomfortable swab altogether, and instead uses saliva collected in a test tube. Once the sample arrives in the lab, its tested the same way, with PCR.

But Wells said those tests could fare even worse.

The reason for pharyngeal swabs is the virus preferentially infects and replicates starting way back in the inner cavities of the nose and not out in front, where it may come into contact with saliva, he said, adding that saliva tests could end up missing up to 50 percent of asymptomatic positive cases.

Making things even more complicated, a May 13 study in Annals of Internal Medicine, from researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, found that test timing is also essential to getting an accurate result.

Lead study author Dr. Lauren Kucirka, a medical resident at Johns Hopkins Medicine, said testing too early after exposure to the virus substantially raises the risk of a false negative.

If you have someone who has been exposed and theyve started to develop symptoms, it probably makes sense to wait a few days before testing, Kucirka told NBC News.

Her study found that three days after the onset of symptoms is when the test is most likely valid.

But besides issues with how and when test samples are collected, questions are also being raised about the quality of the diagnostic tests themselves.

The biggest problem with that is you create a false sense of security.

In other words, even if samples are collected perfectly, at the ideal time, the tests could turn up incorrect results. A commentary published in April in Mayo Clinic Proceedings criticized the reliance on PCR tests, saying that even when tests are 90 percent accurate, that still leaves a substantial number of false test results.

The articles co-author, Dr. Priya Sampathkumar, an infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, used California as an example in a statement: If the entire population of 40 million people were tested, there would be 2 million false negative results. Even if only 1 percent of the population was tested, there would be 20,000 false negatives.

The biggest problem with that is you create a false sense of security, Wells said.

Another type of COVID-19 diagnostic test, Abbott Labs popular ID NOW point-of-care test, has also come under fire in recent weeks, after the FDA issued an alert that it may not always be accurate.

The test, which uses a method different from PCR, called isothermal nucleic acid amplification, can deliver results in five to 13 minutes. Its used by doctors across the country and touted by the White House as whats used to test President Donald Trump and other staffers.

One small study by NYU Langone Health found that the test returned false negatives for nearly 50 percent of certain samples that a rival test had found to be positive. The study has not yet been peer-reviewed.

In response, Abbott last week released interim data on several of its own studiesfinding that accuracy was significantly better, in some cases nearly 100 percent, especially when performed in patients who were tested early after their onset of symptoms.

But anecdotal reports have also found issues with accuracy, leading some of the nations largest medical centers to stop or never even start using it.

NBC News spoke with 10 medical centers and hospitals across the country; seven said they werent using the Abbott test.

All seven cited issues with accuracy, including Jackson Memorial Hospital System in Miami, which said in a statement that they identified some issues with the accuracy, which is to be expected when the medical science is so new and evolving so quickly around this virus. The best fit for Jackson was to transition to other testing platforms that have high-quality accuracy rates and quick turnaround times for results.

A Vanderbilt University Medical Center spokesman told NBC News that No patient at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has been tested via the Abbott ID NOW rapid test. Here, there were concerns about the sensitivity of that test.

Some hospitals continuing to use the Abbott test, such as Sutter Health Hospitals in California, said they often will confirm any negative results with another PCR test if there is clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

Abbott told NBC News in a statement that to date, the company has delivered more than 2 million tests to all 50 states.

"Our customers are telling us that theyre seeing positivity rates from ID NOW testing at or above local community infection rates, which means that ID NOW is detecting the virus at the same level as lab-based testing," the statement said in part. "If there were any systemic problem with ID NOW producing false negatives, that wouldnt be the case."

The bigger issue may be that test manufacturers just havent caught up to science. Its not just COVID-19 tests that have issues with accuracy. In fact, diagnostic tests for all sorts of common diseases are not even close to perfect.

Take rapid strep throat tests, for instance. According to a Cochrane Review, those tests have a sensitivity of just 86 percent. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says rapid flu tests are even worse, with a sensitivity ranging from 50 to 70 percent.

Rapid strep and rapid flu tests look for antigens proteins made by the infectious pathogen rather than genetic material. The first antigen test for COVID-19 received an emergency use authorization from the FDA earlier this month, but questions have already been raised about its accuracy.

Taken together, its why Dr. Ania Wajnberg, associate director of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said that diagnostic tests need to be put together with clinical suspicion.

We still have a lot to learn, but testing itself is hugely important, Wajnberg said. If its not perfect, it doesnt mean its not useful.

Follow NBC HEALTH on Twitter & Facebook.

More:
Questions about COVID-19 test accuracy raised across the testing spectrum - NBC News

Read More...

The Time of Trials: Waiting for a Coronavirus Vaccine – Discover Magazine

Wednesday, May 27th, 2020

The Covid-19 coronavirus has knocked our world off its axis. We wont return to anything approaching normal that is, life without social distancing, quarantines, masks, school closures and other control measures until most of the world has been vaccinated against the virus. Everyone, therefore, has the same question on their mind: How fast will a vaccine be ready?

The history of vaccine development is not encouraging. Ive been working on vaccines for a long time, says Barney Graham, deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Ive never seen one take less than about 20 years. It took 26 years to develop a vaccine for the human papilloma virus, for instance, and 25 years to secure one for rotavirus. And researchers have been trying for more than 50 years to find a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus, one of the leading causes of infectious disease mortality in infants. Even after Grahams group figured out a better approach in 2013, the vaccine is still only in the testing phase.

These are not normal times, however, and a vaccine for the Covid-19 virus, formally known as SARS-CoV-2, is the focus of unprecedented research efforts. Already, over 100 research groups have vaccine candidates under development, and a few are already being tested in people. In mid-May, the US government announced Operation Warp Speed, an initiative that aims to have a vaccine ready for general use by the end of 2020.

Almost all experts say that target is too optimistic, generally citing the spring of 2021 as a best-case scenario. But to hit even that later target, a lot of things have to break right, and a lot of logistic hurdles have to be cleared away. Heres a look at some of the key issues in vaccine development.

All vaccines aim for the same goal: exposing the bodys immune system to protein or carbohydrate fragments, or antigens, displayed by a virus or other pathogen. If all goes as planned, memory cells within the immune system remember this introduction. If the vaccinated person is later exposed to the actual virus, these cells enable the immune system to react quickly, suppressing the disease or reducing its severity.

Where vaccines differ is in how they present those antigens. Some vaccines, such as ones against measles and polio, use the entire virus that has been either killed or damaged so that it no longer causes disease. Because these vaccines use the whole virus, researchers dont need to know as much about the virus and its proteins. But because a whole virus offers many antigens to the immune system and because of the slight risk that a live virus could become pathogenic again more can go wrong. So whole-virus vaccines need extensive safety testing, a process that can take years.

Other vaccines extract the viral gene that codes for the desired antigen and insert it into another, less harmful virus that is then delivered to the patient (the recently approved vaccine for Ebola is a case in point). Still others use bacteria or yeast to manufacture the antigen in fermentation vats. The antigen can then be injected directly, as in the hepatitis B vaccine, or used to build empty shells of viruses that lack genetic material, as in the vaccine against human papilloma virus.

Newer, more experimental vaccines are on the table too. They deliver not the antigen itself but the genetic material that codes for it, either as RNA or DNA, usually encapsulated in a fatty membrane. This enters the bodys cells and directs them to make the relevant protein themselves to trigger the immune response. Such vaccines could be quicker to create because genetic material is easier to mass-produce than proteins are. But RNA and DNA vaccines are so new that none have yet been approved for use by the general public.

Before a vaccine is ready for public use, researchers must prove to government regulators that it is both effective and safe to use. That takes time.

Like all medicines, after vaccines are tested in experimental animals, they go through three phases of testing in people. First, a few healthy volunteers receive the vaccine: This Phase 1 trial tests for safety and gives a rough idea of how much vaccine is needed. After that, researchers work out dosing and safety in more detail in a somewhat larger group the Phase 2 trial.

These preliminaries can be dealt with in a few months, if all goes well. But before a vaccine can be approved for general use, it must be given to a much larger group and compared with an unvaccinated control group, to see whether it really prevents disease. This Phase 3 trial is the most time-consuming step in testing, because researchers have to wait for enough participants to be exposed to a virus naturally. You cannot compress time when youre relying on a natural exposure to occur, says Michael Yeaman, an infectious disease specialist at UCLA and coauthor of a 2017 overview on vaccines in the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology.

Building manufacturing capacity also takes time. Vaccines for clinical trials are generally made in small batches in pilot facilities that arent capable of producing commercial quantities. But because very few candidate vaccines make it through clinical trials successfully Graham puts the number at less than 10 percent manufacturers are understandably reluctant to invest in large-scale production facilities until they know the vaccine will work. This adds an additional time lag to the vaccine-development process.

As of May 18, 2020, there were 169 Covid-19 vaccines under development, using a wide range of approaches. Heres a breakdown of those efforts. Columns indicate how far along each vaccine is: Preclinical means the vaccine is not yet ready for testing in people. Phase 1, 2 and 3 refer to the three phases of clinical trials in people (see text for more detail). Rows indicate type of vaccine: Live attenuated virus vaccines use live SARS-CoV-2 that has been weakened so it no longer causes disease; Inactivated virus vaccines use SARS-CoV-2 that is no longer viable. Viral vector vaccines put genes for SARS-CoV-2 antigens into another, nonpathogenic virus. Protein subunit vaccines use the antigens only, either injected directly or formed into empty protein shells. RNA and DNA vaccines are the newest kind. They deliver genetic material that codes for SARS-CoV-2 antigens, which the recipients cells use to make antigen. Note that most vaccine candidates are still in the earliest stages of development and none have yet entered Phase 3 trials, the most time-consuming step.

With Covid-19, scientists already have a big head start, because this isnt the first coronavirus theyve tried to make a vaccine for. They had begun making vaccines for SARS and MERS during their outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively, only to abandon the efforts when the outbreaks receded.

So when Covid-19 came along, researchers already knew a good target for a vaccine: the spike protein that sits on the surface of the virus, and especially the part that binds to human cells, enabling the virus to gain entry. Researchers even knew how to stabilize that key part of the spike protein so it holds its shape during vaccine production.

This advance knowledge enabled the biotech company Moderna, in collaboration with the US governments Vaccine Research Center, to decide on a vaccine candidate within three days of the Covid-19 genome being sequenced. Thats nearly a year quicker than it took to find a candidate for a SARS vaccine in 2003-04.

Ideally, a steady stream of vaccine candidates should be entering clinical trials, so that each new trial can learn from its predecessors. If Im coming behind, I can design my studies better so I dont make the same mistakes, says Maria Elena Bottazzi, a vaccinologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and coauthor of an article about vaccines for developing countries in the Annual Review of Medicine.

Graham is hopeful that vaccine developers can also speed through the time-consuming, large-scale Phase 3 trials by riding the wave of new Covid-19 infections that is widely expected this fall. By testing the vaccine in locations where large outbreaks are already occurring, researchers should be able to tell more quickly whether it really works.

Once testing shows that a vaccine candidate is safe and effective, regulators are likely to expedite its approval. Everyone recognizes that this is a crisis, including the regulatory authorities. In this case, the benefit of having a vaccine earlier is very high, Graham says. But that should not mean cutting corners on safety testing, he adds. We have to be cautious, even though we have to go fast. I think we can do those things together if we pay attention.

Its unwise to pin too much hope on any given vaccine, because most candidate vaccines Graham puts the number at more than 90 percent fail during their clinical trials, usually at early stages. Thats why its essential to have many potential vaccines to test. Youve got to try multiple shots on goal, and some of them will work, Yeaman says.

One big reason why vaccines fail is that they lead to the wrong kind of immune response. Theres a big difference between an immune response and a protective immune response, Yeaman says. To be effective, a vaccine must do more than merely provoke the body to make antibodies. Those antibodies must also be able to neutralize the virus so it can no longer invade host cells. A good vaccine should also prompt the right sort of activity from the bodys T cells, the part of the immune system thats responsible for orchestrating the bodys immune response to the virus. Vaccines that do these things well in lab animals often disappoint in human trials, and only testing can weed out these failures.

Sometimes, vaccines can even make a disease worse. Two different processes can cause this. In one, certain types of antibodies induced by the vaccine can help the virus more easily invade a host cell. They do so by attaching both to the virus and to a receptor for antibodies on the cell surface, serving as a bridge between the two.

In the other process, the vaccine primes the immune system too vigorously, so that an infection by the virus later on provokes an immune overreaction a cytokine storm that can prove lethal.

Both of these problems have been reported in the past with animal studies of coronavirus vaccines, including vaccines that were being developed for SARS and MERS. But there is as yet no indication that people would react in the same way. I dont think the risk is extremely high not as much as the risk of not having a vaccine and having the kind of mortality were going to have if everyone becomes infected with this virus, Graham says.

Its possible, but unlikely. There are a few viruses out there that have stubbornly resisted all efforts to develop a vaccine, including hepatitis C, herpes simplex and HIV. But many of these viruses have special features that help the virus evade a vaccine. There is no indication that the virus causing Covid-19 has any such features, Yeaman says.

On the positive side, veterinary researchers have successfully developed vaccines for other coronaviruses that infect livestock. And earlier attempts to develop vaccines for SARS and MERS both closely related to the Covid-19 virus showed promising initial results before those diseases receded and the vaccine programs were abandoned. Were hopeful that this virus is going to be amenable to vaccine, Graham says.

Indeed, in mid-May, Grahams group, working with Moderna, reported that eight healthy volunteers who received their candidate Covid-19 RNA vaccine developed a protective antibody response. (Much testing remains to be done, of course. It is still unknown whether the antibody response actually prevents disease, and Moderna has yet to share its full results.) Also in May, other researchers reported a promising T-cell response in patients who had recovered from Covid-19. Taken together, these results suggest that a vaccine is likely to succeed, Yeaman says.

Its still better than nothing. Some existing vaccines flu is a good example are useful even though vaccinated people still sometimes get sick, because they reduce the incidence of severe illness and death, Bottazzi says. Its also possible that a partially effective vaccine, in combination with a partially effective antiviral drug, could add up to nearly full protection, Yeaman points out.

Not yet. Even at the point when manufacturers are producing vast quantities of a vaccine, the job isnt done. A vaccine is not just going to magically appear in peoples homes, says Bruce Y. Lee, a vaccine logistics expert at the City University of New York. Coming up with a clear distribution and implementation plan is very important and its challenging.

Lee studies the supply chain for vaccines that is, the intermediary steps needed to deliver vaccines from the manufacturer to the point of vaccination. This chain can involve many layers. During the 2009 influenza pandemic, for example, vaccine manufacturers shipped to central hubs, which then delivered to individual states, and those state governments distributed the doses more locally. The system was plagued by mismatches between supply and demand, with far too little vaccine early on, and too much later.

At every step, this distribution process requires people, space and often refrigeration, because many vaccines are unstable at room temperature. A sudden surge of hundreds of millions, or even billions, of Covid-19 vaccine doses is likely to overwhelm the system, especially in lower-income countries where adequate refrigeration is already an issue. The existing supply chains are not ready for this, Lee says.

Even if vaccine production ramps up gradually, the supply chain will need to ensure that the vaccine initially goes to those in greatest need, such as health care workers, the elderly and others at higher risk. Health officials may also want to integrate vaccination with testing, Lee suggests, so that scarce vaccines do not go to people who have already had Covid-19.

Even something as simple as the size of vials for the vaccine and their packaging can make a huge difference in ease of delivery. Packaging for a rotavirus vaccine distributed in the early 2000s, for example, was so bulky that it clogged supply chains in Latin America and slowed distribution of all vaccines until manufacturers reformulated to allow smaller packaging, Lee says.

The problem gets even harder if the Covid-19 vaccine, like some existing vaccines, turns out to require two doses. Not only would that double the number of doses to be shipped, but front-line workers would need to do careful tracking to ensure that each recipient got exactly two doses, with the proper interval between them.

These logistical issues need attention now, not when the vaccine is ready, Lee says. Indeed, supply chain requirements might even affect which candidate vaccines we choose to pursue. A single-dose, unrefrigerated vaccine, for example, would be much preferable to a two-dose vaccine with strict refrigeration needs. This has to be looked at as a whole-system issue, Lee says.

In a sense, the world caught a break with Covid-19. We were lucky, in this case, that this was a coronavirus, because we sort of knew how to make an antigen, Graham said in an online lecture in April.

We might not be so lucky next time and there will be a next time.

To have the best chance of developing a vaccine quickly, experts should start now to develop at least one prototype vaccine for each virus family known to infect people, Graham says. (So far, thats only been done for about half of the roughly two dozen families.) That way, whatever virus emerges next, vaccine developers will have a known starting point, as they did with the Covid-19 virus. The more information you can have ahead of time, the better off youre going to be in responding, Graham says.

New vaccine technologies, such as RNA vaccines, would allow authorities to build vaccine factories that could quickly adapt to produce new vaccines, since the same production line could copy any RNA sequence, whereas producing proteins or whole viruses requires more bespoke production. This would eliminate the need for new construction. Such vaccines could also be made in smaller, more decentralized factories, which could ease supply-chain problems.

This time around, we probably wont have a vaccine until next spring at the earliest, or perhaps the fall of 2021. Eighteen months may seem like a long time to wait, but its worth remembering that if scientists hit that optimistic target, they will have developed a vaccine far faster than its ever been done before.

Bob Holmesis a science writer based in Edmonton, Canada. This article originally appeared inKnowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor fromAnnual Reviews. Read the original storyhere.

Original post:
The Time of Trials: Waiting for a Coronavirus Vaccine - Discover Magazine

Read More...

Page 6«..5678..2030..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick