Coronavirus Has Mutated into More Aggressive Infection, Say Scientists

Posted on by • Posted in Clinical Research, Clinical Research Funding, Coronavirus, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Mutation, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://interestingengineering.com/coronavirus-has-mutated-into-more-aggressive-infection-say-scientists?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Article&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=Mar06&fbclid=IwAR1uIWQYvlWNvx6BfTbkb7bburGW2-zikXr4KCYhAhoozm2xyx2efPRqQ2s

Coronavirus Has Mutated into More Aggressive Infection, Say Scientists

Coronavirus has undergone mutation into two distinct strains, one of which is far more aggressive and efficient.

Coronavirus has undergone mutation into two distinct strains, and one of them is far more aggressive than the other, according to scientists. This development may slow global attempts to develop a viable vaccine.

Coronavirus: “L” and “S” types

Researchers at Peking University’s School of Life Sciences and the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai witnessed the deadly virus evolve into two major lineages — called “L” and “S” types.

The “S-type” is the older, milder and less infectious type, while the evolved “L-type” spreads more rapidly, and presently accounts for roughly 70% of cases. While the L strain seemed to be more prevalent than the S strain, the S-type of the coronavirus is the ancestral version, reports The Guardian.

Genetic analysis of a man residing in the U.S. who was confirmed infected with coronavirus on Jan. 21 demonstrated to scientists that double-infection is possible.

In other words, anyone can be infected with both types.

Early origin of mutation

The scientists who carried out the genetic analysis used 103 samples of the virus, taken from patients in Wuhan and other cities. This suggests that both the L and S strains emerged early in the early days of the coronavirus, according to The Guardian.

It’s important to note that all viruses mutate over time, and the virus causing COVID-19 is no exception. In other words, while it’s natural to be dismayed, this was and is an expected development.

How widespread it ultimately becomes depends on the evolutionary process of natural selection — the types capable of propagating fastest and most efficiently within the human body achieve the most “success.”

 

 

Is COVID-19 really any worse than normal seasonal flu?

Posted on by • Posted in Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Research, Clinical Research Funding, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Public Health, Public Safety, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/covid-19-vs-flu

  • Many are suggesting coronavirus is just flu-season business as usual. It’s not.
  • No sensible comparison can be made anyway, for a few reasons.
  • The one that’s less bad — whichever that is — can still kill you.

A lot of people are trying to get a sense of whether COVID-19 is any more dangerous than normal seasonal flu strains. Unfortunately, making meaningful comparisons between them is just not possible yet. From a “what should I do/worry about?” point of view, though, it’s pretty pointless to compare the two.

Whichever one you select as the ultimate Big Bad, they’re both out there: You have a decent chance of contracting either illness, and they both can be fatal for certain demographic segments. Trying to choose which one is worse is like trying to choose whether you’d rather be hit by a bus or a truck.

At this point, the best advice remains the same for both: Start washing those hands well and frequently, and follow the CDC’s recommendations for avoiding infection.

Here’s why we can’t know which is worse

There are some fundamental differences between the statistics available on seasonal flu and COVID-19, and they make a direct comparison impossible.

  • Seasonal flu is an annual phenomenon (even though strains change). There’s lots of multi-year data on rates of infection and mortality in the hands of numerous national health authorities. COVID-19, on the other hand, has been around for only about two months, and most of the available data comes from just one country, China, where it first emerged.
  • Related to this is that it’s impossible to calculate the spread of COVID-19 from such a limited amount of data, both in terms of time and geography. The disease is now apparently racing around the globe outside China, but how fast will it circulate and what will be its final infection rate? It’s impossible to know.
  • There are remedies and vaccines for seasonal flu strains — neither exist for COVID-19. While existing therapies are being tested for their efficacy against coronavirus, no silver bullet has yet been found and there’s no way to know when/if one will. Hilary Marston, a medical officer and policy advisor at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases says of a coronavirus vaccine, “If everything moves as quickly as possible, the soonest that it could possibly be is about one-and-a-half to two years. That still might be very optimistic.” This makes a comparison of the death rates between seasonal flu and COVID-19 unfair: One has a cure, the other doesn’t.

Things people are saying, and what’s real

You’re more likely to get the seasonal flu.

Um, maybe, at the moment. Be aware that COVID-19 is being found in new areas pretty much every day. Harvard epidemiologist Mark Lipstich says, “I think the likely outcome is that it will ultimately not be containable.”

On top of that, we don’t know how fast it will spread in the wild. If it continues to travel at the rate it has in the last two months, hoo boy. However, contagion doesn’t usually remain linear. So it could get better. Or worse. Will seasons affect it? Proper sanitation? Other factors? With only two months of data, we can’t possibly know, but Lipstich predicts 40% to 70% of us will get it.

COVID-19 is 20 times more deadly than seasonal flu.

Sorry. It’s likely a lot worse than that. Last week, COVID-19’s mortality rate was thought to be 2.3%. Now it’s considered to be 3.4%, or .034 of the total number of infections. The CDC estimates the seasonal flu mortality rate this year is .001% — the number of deaths divided by the number of total infections. So, as of March 4, the latest figure for COVID-19’s mortality rate is 34 times greater than seasonal flu, nearly double what you’ve been hearing.

Of course, the lack of effective treatment is a key factor in COVID-19’s mortality rate. When/if one is identified, that rate will go down.

Most people get through COVID-19 just fine.

This is true, However, while in one sense it’s great that the vast majority of people who contract COVID-19 get over it easily, it also means that a lot of people have the coronavirus without realizing it and are continuing to spread the infection. In stark — and tragic — contrast, one of the reasons Ebola eventually stopped infecting people was that most of its victims typically died before they could spread the disease. COVID-19, on the other hand, can travel quite invisibly far and wide before being recognized.

Epidemiologist Jennifer Nuzzo tells The Washington Post that the recent U.S. diagnoses confirm “what we have long suspected — that there is a good chance there already are people infected in this country and that the virus is circulating undetected. It points to the need for expanded surveillance so we know how many more are out there and how to respond. It’s also likely that person-to-person spread will continue to occur, including in the United States.”

So stop comparing and just be safe

Regardless of which disease is worse, they’re both potentially dangerous, so be safe and follow safety guidelines. Take hand-washing seriously: Rub your hands together with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. (Sing the alphabet at a moderate speed and you’ll be about right.)

 

Coronavirus Covid-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE

Posted on by • Posted in Coronavirus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Pandemic • Leave a comment

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Image result for coronavirus covid 19 global cases by johns hopkins csse

128 cases have been reported in the U.S., along with nine related deaths, all in Washington state, as of 9 a.m., March 4. Eight people have recovered from the disease.

 

 

 

 

 

Another new first for CRISPR

Posted on by • Posted in Biotech, Clinical Research, Clinical Research Funding, Gene Editing, Gene Therapy, Genetics, Health Policy, National Institute of Health (NIH) • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-38324a12-c0f6-4610-bbc9-675192c94df1.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for crispr gene editing

For the first time, scientists have used the gene-editing technique CRISPR inside the body of an adult patient, in an effort to cure congenital blindness, Bryan reports.

Why it matters: CRISPR has already been used to edit cells outside a human body, which are then reinfused into the patient.

  • But the new study could open the door to using gene editing to treat incurable conditions that involve cells that can’t be removed from the body, like Huntington’s disease and dementia.

Details: The research was sponsored by biotech companies Editas Medicine of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Allergan of Dublin, Ireland, and was carried out at Oregon Health and Science University.

  • Scientists led by Eric Pierce of Harvard Medical School injected microscopic droplets carrying a benign virus into the eye of a nearly blind patient suffering from the genetic disorder Leber congenital amaurosis.
  • The virus had been engineered to instruct the cells to create CRISPR machinery. The hope is that CRISPR will edit out the genetic defects that cause blindness, restoring at least some vision.
  • “We literally have the potential to take people who are essentially blind and make them see,” Charles Albright, chief scientific officer at Editas, told AP.

“It gives us hope that we could extend that to lots of other diseases — if it works and if it’s safe,” National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins told NPR.

 

 

 

 

Pharma is on a stock buyback spree

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Research, High Drug Prices, Pharmaceutical Industry, Research and Development, Stock Buybacks • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-38324a12-c0f6-4610-bbc9-675192c94df1.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for stock buybacks

Pharmaceutical companies spending on R&D and buybacks.

In 2018, the year the Republican tax law went into full effect, 12 of the largest pharmaceutical companies spent more money buying back their stock than they spent on drug research and development, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

The big picture: When billions of dollars became available to the biggest drug companies, their main priority was to juice earnings, along with the paydays of their executives and investors — not investments in new treatments or relief for patients who can’t afford their drugs.

By the numbers: Axios analyzed the stock buybacks and R&D expenses of the 12 largest American pharmaceutical companies, by revenue, between 2016 and 2019.

  • These companies repurchased $69.1 billion of their stock in 2018, while spending $65.9 billion on researching new medicines.
  • Over the entire four-year period, stock buybacks for these 12 companies totaled $183 billion, and research expenses were $251 billion. They’re sitting on another $47 billion that has been earmarked for stock buybacks.
  • Two drugmakers — Amgen and Biogen — spent more on stock buybacks for the entire period than they spent on R&D. Amgen’s stock repurchases ($31.6 billion) were more than twice as much as research ($15.3 billion).

What they’re saying: Amgen said in a statement that it repurchased large quantities of stock because the tax law allowed the company to bring home cash that was parked overseas. Biogen submitted a statement saying it has a “deep commitment to R&D,” but did not address questions about its stock buybacks.

 

 

Congress releases $8.3B coronavirus funding package. Here’s what’s in it

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Research, Clinical Research Funding, Coronavirus, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Diagnostic Testing, Health Policy, Medicare, Preparedness, Telemedicine, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals-health-systems/congress-releases-8-3b-coronavirus-funding-package-here-s-what-s-it?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpZek1tWm1NakprWTJaaSIsInQiOiJFYkFWWlwvYzc5c09JOWNiV1ZmSXlqclZsSU5RYnNBQ1NGd2EyQTdiYUdoa3BpV2ZwMTlyZ0xwcWNSNkthZ0pnbDRxR0IrWGNwZmFrcDhWQ3FjNkdzSUx6YTRKM3RHVWhPaitCXC8wRE5rRHM1a3dSRVBNTFdodnBiY0tkclQxSTVRIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

Image result for Congress releases $8.3B coronavirus funding package. Here's what's in it

Congress is expected to pass a major $8.3 billion spending package to help providers and local governments handle the spread of the coronavirus and to boost the development of vaccines and tests of the virus.

Here are key parts of the spending package released Wednesday:

  • $500 million for an emergency telehealth waiver. The bill would waive certain Medicare restrictions for telehealth, including that a Medicare beneficiary can use telehealth services even if they aren’t in a rural community. “This provision would also allow beneficiaries to receive care from physicians and other practitioners in their homes,” a summary of the package said;
  • $2.2 billion to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help state and local health agencies. The funding would include a provision to reimburse state or local costs for coronavirus response and preparedness activities from Jan. 20 to the end of this supplemental;
  • Nearly $1 billion to buy drugs and medical supplies. This procurement will include $500 million for drugs, masks and personal protective equipment that can be distributed to state and local health agencies in areas that are in shortage. It also includes funding for increasing the supply of biocontainment beds, which are secured areas used for patients with highly contagious diseases; and
  • More than $3 billion to support the research and development of vaccines, diagnostics and other treatments for the coronavirus. Any vaccine or diagnostic developed via taxpayer funds must also “be available for purchase by the federal government at a fair and reasonable price,” the summary said. The bill also enables the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure any vaccine or diagnostic can be affordable in the commercial market, but doesn’t elaborate on how.

The package sailed through the House on Wednesday and could be taken up quickly by the Senate.

Provider groups bracing for a coronavirus outbreak praised the spending package.

“This bill will provide essential assistance to caregivers and communities on the front lines of this battle,” said Chip Kahn, president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals, in a statement.