[Goose]

Here are some links to possible therapies based on T Cell approaches. One good thing about both these approaches is that they are easily adapted to other virus. Having something like this immediately available could really help the next time a "novel" virus threatens a pandemic.

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/...ed-natural
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2...ritic-Cell

It is early days in both instances, but both these approaches could work.

[Goose]

Here are some links to possible therapies based on T Cell approaches. One good thing about both these approaches is that they are easily adapted to other virus. Having something like this immediately available could really help the next time a "novel" virus threatens a pandemic.

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/...ed-natural
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2...ritic-Cell

It is early days in both instances, but both these approaches could work.

[dabigv13]

Very novel approaches. Don't think this sort of thing has been used against an infectious disease ever before. Doubt it will be of any value against covid, but worth a flier for the biotech companies for perhaps a stock bump and/or fed money.

[dabigv13]

Very novel approaches. Don't think this sort of thing has been used against an infectious disease ever before. Doubt it will be of any value against covid, but worth a flier for the biotech companies for perhaps a stock bump and/or fed money.

[BostonCard]

Well, mRNA vaccine development, which has been going on for about 10 years has yet to result in an approved product, but may prove helpful against COVID-19.  Likewise, the Oxford vaccine was developed based on a vaccine against the original SARS that was developed "too late" to be useful, but came very much in handy for this pandemic.  In other words, the cutting edge research people are doing now against COVID is unlikely to be helpful in this pandemic, but may help us against the next pandemic.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, mRNA vaccine development, which has been going on for about 10 years has yet to result in an approved product, but may prove helpful against COVID-19.  Likewise, the Oxford vaccine was developed based on a vaccine against the original SARS that was developed "too late" to be useful, but came very much in handy for this pandemic.  In other words, the cutting edge research people are doing now against COVID is unlikely to be helpful in this pandemic, but may help us against the next pandemic.

BC

[Goose]

Well, mRNA vaccine development, which has been going on for about 10 years has yet to result in an approved product, but may prove helpful against COVID-19.  Likewise, the Oxford vaccine was developed based on a vaccine against the original SARS that was developed "too late" to be useful, but came very much in handy for this pandemic.  In other words, the cutting edge research people are doing now against COVID is unlikely to be helpful in this pandemic, but may help us against the next pandemic.

BC

I certainly agree that one of the possible benefits of the two therapies proposed is that they may be "broad spectrum" and can easily be used in the future for novel virus. We need to have this capability to prevent economic and medical disasters in the future.

However, I also wouldn't discount what we may need during this current outbreak. We don't yet have a vaccine, and it may be a while before we do. Having a therapy that can be given to COVID-19 patients that will in many instances prevent them from becoming seriously ill would go a long way towards allowing "normal life" in the interim. We don't have that yet, so anything that could provide it should be evaluated.

[Goose]

Well, mRNA vaccine development, which has been going on for about 10 years has yet to result in an approved product, but may prove helpful against COVID-19.  Likewise, the Oxford vaccine was developed based on a vaccine against the original SARS that was developed "too late" to be useful, but came very much in handy for this pandemic.  In other words, the cutting edge research people are doing now against COVID is unlikely to be helpful in this pandemic, but may help us against the next pandemic.

BC

I certainly agree that one of the possible benefits of the two therapies proposed is that they may be "broad spectrum" and can easily be used in the future for novel virus. We need to have this capability to prevent economic and medical disasters in the future.

However, I also wouldn't discount what we may need during this current outbreak. We don't yet have a vaccine, and it may be a while before we do. Having a therapy that can be given to COVID-19 patients that will in many instances prevent them from becoming seriously ill would go a long way towards allowing "normal life" in the interim. We don't have that yet, so anything that could provide it should be evaluated.

[BostonCard]

However, I also wouldn't discount what we may need during this current outbreak. We don't yet have a vaccine, and it may be a while before we do. Having a therapy that can be given to COVID-19 patients that will in many instances prevent them from becoming seriously ill would go a long way towards allowing "normal life" in the interim. We don't have that yet, so anything that could provide it should be evaluated.

I would place my bets on convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies (or cocktails of them).  It's technology that has proven effective for viruses (Ebola, for example).  It should be possible to both use it to prevent patients with COVID-19 from becoming more ill, and as prophylaxis for high risk people who don't have it (for example, household contacts, healthcare workers, skilled nursing facility residents).  

BC

[BostonCard]

However, I also wouldn't discount what we may need during this current outbreak. We don't yet have a vaccine, and it may be a while before we do. Having a therapy that can be given to COVID-19 patients that will in many instances prevent them from becoming seriously ill would go a long way towards allowing "normal life" in the interim. We don't have that yet, so anything that could provide it should be evaluated.

I would place my bets on convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies (or cocktails of them).  It's technology that has proven effective for viruses (Ebola, for example).  It should be possible to both use it to prevent patients with COVID-19 from becoming more ill, and as prophylaxis for high risk people who don't have it (for example, household contacts, healthcare workers, skilled nursing facility residents).  

BC

[dabigv13]

Yeah, monoclonal Abs much more promising for covid than these stem cell therapies, as intriguing as they may be for the future. I'm not sure if they will beat the vaccines to market though. So may not even see those too often.

Don't get me wrong, I think these are interesting approaches that I hope work. But its pretty sci-fi stuff that maybe will be helpful years down the line.

[dabigv13]

Yeah, monoclonal Abs much more promising for covid than these stem cell therapies, as intriguing as they may be for the future. I'm not sure if they will beat the vaccines to market though. So may not even see those too often.

Don't get me wrong, I think these are interesting approaches that I hope work. But its pretty sci-fi stuff that maybe will be helpful years down the line.

[BostonCard]

Nothing is for certain until the FDA gives the go ahead (and even then, imagine if the agency has to pull a vaccine off the market).

Not everyone can or will want to be vaccinated.

The vaccine will not be 100% effective.  The FDA has said that a 50% effective vaccine is approvable, and most predictions put it around 70% effectiveness.  That still leaves a lot of cases of COVID-19.

We don't know how long-lasting immunity will be.

So even if a vaccine is approved, there will be room for treatment paradigms.

BC

[BostonCard]

Nothing is for certain until the FDA gives the go ahead (and even then, imagine if the agency has to pull a vaccine off the market).

Not everyone can or will want to be vaccinated.

The vaccine will not be 100% effective.  The FDA has said that a 50% effective vaccine is approvable, and most predictions put it around 70% effectiveness.  That still leaves a lot of cases of COVID-19.

We don't know how long-lasting immunity will be.

So even if a vaccine is approved, there will be room for treatment paradigms.

BC

[Goose]

However, I also wouldn't discount what we may need during this current outbreak. We don't yet have a vaccine, and it may be a while before we do. Having a therapy that can be given to COVID-19 patients that will in many instances prevent them from becoming seriously ill would go a long way towards allowing "normal life" in the interim. We don't have that yet, so anything that could provide it should be evaluated.

I would place my bets on convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies (or cocktails of them).  It's technology that has proven effective for viruses (Ebola, for example).  It should be possible to both use it to prevent patients with COVID-19 from becoming more ill, and as prophylaxis for high risk people who don't have it (for example, household contacts, healthcare workers, skilled nursing facility residents).  

BC

I would agree that monoclonal antibodies should play a large role in helping with this virus. It is a relatively mature technology and it can be operated at appropriate scale. I am less sanguine about convalescent plasma, because as a "biologic" it is not as predictable in it's composition or effect. In any case, there are plenty of people already doing the work in monoclonal antibodies.
There is some indication that antibody therapy may not be sufficient to clear COVID-19 infections.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/  It may be that certain T Cell activity is necessary to do so. For that reason, I would like to see those therapies explored. I would like to see the T Cell therapies get some serious consideration because 1) in the future they may provide a "quick response" to novel virus, and 2) they may be necessary to actually clear the disease. Antibodies alone may not be enough. This effect may require a review of our approach to a vaccine.

It all gets very complicated very fast, but more shots on goal is a good thing. You have probably seen https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...f-45602434. The whole thing can make one's head hurt.

[Goose]

However, I also wouldn't discount what we may need during this current outbreak. We don't yet have a vaccine, and it may be a while before we do. Having a therapy that can be given to COVID-19 patients that will in many instances prevent them from becoming seriously ill would go a long way towards allowing "normal life" in the interim. We don't have that yet, so anything that could provide it should be evaluated.

I would place my bets on convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies (or cocktails of them).  It's technology that has proven effective for viruses (Ebola, for example).  It should be possible to both use it to prevent patients with COVID-19 from becoming more ill, and as prophylaxis for high risk people who don't have it (for example, household contacts, healthcare workers, skilled nursing facility residents).  

BC

I would agree that monoclonal antibodies should play a large role in helping with this virus. It is a relatively mature technology and it can be operated at appropriate scale. I am less sanguine about convalescent plasma, because as a "biologic" it is not as predictable in it's composition or effect. In any case, there are plenty of people already doing the work in monoclonal antibodies.
There is some indication that antibody therapy may not be sufficient to clear COVID-19 infections.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/  It may be that certain T Cell activity is necessary to do so. For that reason, I would like to see those therapies explored. I would like to see the T Cell therapies get some serious consideration because 1) in the future they may provide a "quick response" to novel virus, and 2) they may be necessary to actually clear the disease. Antibodies alone may not be enough. This effect may require a review of our approach to a vaccine.

It all gets very complicated very fast, but more shots on goal is a good thing. You have probably seen https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...f-45602434. The whole thing can make one's head hurt.