teedubbya
6 years ago
Lets hope. There is some desperation involved but that's how things happen sometimes. Trial and error.

I just posted links to the plasma research. It's pretty limited at the moment but will grow quickly.
teedubbya
6 years ago
At the risk of info overload I found this interesting. It goes in to more detail but I will spare you

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

●Among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), up to one-quarter require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. (See 'Introduction' above and 'Epidemiology' above.)

●Profound hypoxemic respiratory failure from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the dominant finding in critically ill patients. Common complications include acute kidney injury (AKI), elevated liver enzymes, and the late development of cardiac injury, including sudden cardiac death. Sepsis, shock, and multi-organ failure are less common. (See 'Clinical features in critically ill patients' above.)

●For most critically ill patients with COVID-19, we prefer the lowest possible fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) necessary to meet oxygenation goals, ideally targeting a peripheral oxygen saturation between 90 and 96 percent. (See 'Respiratory care of the nonintubated patient' above and 'Oxygenation targets' above and 'Low flow oxygen' above.)

•The use of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is controversial based on infection control concerns and the frequent need for mechanical ventilation despite these measures. The decision to initiate noninvasive modalities requires balancing the risks and benefits to the patient, the risk of exposure to healthcare workers, and best use of resources; this approach should be reassessed as new data becomes available. (See 'Patients with higher oxygen requirements' above.)

•In patients with COVID-19 who have acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and higher oxygen needs than low flow oxygen can provide, we suggest selective use of noninvasive measures be used rather than routinely proceeding directly to intubation (Grade 2C). As an example we might trial HFNC in younger patients without comorbidities who can tolerate nasal cannulae. In contrast, we may proceed directly to early intubation in patients at higher risk (eg, elderly patients and patients with comorbidities or risk factors for progression).

•Among the noninvasive modalities we suggest HFNC rather than NIV (Grade 2C). Our preference for HFNC is based upon limited and inconsistent data, which, on balance, favors HFNC compared with NIV in HFNC in patients with non-COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. NIV via a full face mask (with a good seal) may be appropriate in patients with indications that have proven efficacy including acute hypercapnic respiratory failure from an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and sleep disordered breathing. (See "Heated and humidified high-flow nasal oxygen in adults: Practical considerations and potential applications", section on 'Medical patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure' and "Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure in adults", section on 'Patient selection'.).

•For patients with COVID-19 who receive HFNC or NIV, vigilant monitoring is warranted for progression with frequent clinical and arterial blood gas evaluation every one to two hours to ensure efficacy and safe ventilation. The threshold to intubate such patients should be low.

●For critically ill patients with COVID-19, intubation should not be delayed until the patient acutely decompensates since this is potentially harmful to both the patient and healthcare workers. We have a low threshold to intubate those who have (see 'Timing' above):

•Rapid progression over a few hours

•Failure to improve despite HFNC >40 L/min and FiO2 >0.6

•Development of hypercapnia

•Hemodynamic instability or multiorgan failure

●Intubation is a high risk procedure for aerosol dispersion in patients with COVID-19 and attention should be paid to donning full personal protective equipment (PPE) with airborne precautions (figure 1 and figure 2) as well using equipment that minimizes dispersion (eg, video laryngoscopy) and the development of protocols for the procedure (eg, check lists) (figure 5). (See 'Precautions' above and "Safety in the operating room", section on 'COVID-19'.)

●We use low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) targeting ≤6 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) (range 4 to 8 mL/kg PBW (table 1 and table 2)) that targets a plateau pressure ≤30 cm H2O and applies positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) according to the strategy outlined in the table (table 3). For patients with COVID-19 that fail LTVV, prone ventilation is the preferred next step (table 4 and table 5). (See 'Ventilator management of acute respiratory distress syndrome' above and "Ventilator management strategies for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome" and "Prone ventilation for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome" and "Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in adults".)

●Several procedures, including the collection of respiratory specimens, bronchoscopy, extubation, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation are aerosol-generating and should be avoided or minimized, if possible. All procedures should be grouped when possible. (See 'Interventions' above.)

●Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who are mechanically ventilated for ARDS should receive the usual daily surveillance, and supportive care including conservative fluid management (unless patients have sepsis or volume depletion). Measurement of surveillance cardiac troponins and a low threshold to perform transthoracic echocardiography is appropriate for the early detection of cardiac injury. (See 'Supportive care' above and 'Surveillance' above.)

•In critically ill patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS who do not have a specific indication (eg, acute bronchospasm or refractory septic shock), we suggest not administering glucocorticoids (Grade 2C). The rationale for not administering glucocorticoids in this population is that the data supporting any benefit in the non-COVD-19 population did not include a sufficient proportion of patients with viral pneumonia to inform safety and that data in patients with ARDS due to viral pneumonia (eg, severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS], influenza) suggested harm. (See "Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Supportive care and oxygenation in adults", section on 'Glucocorticoids'.)

•For acute bronchodilation, we prefer the use of in-line metered dose inhalers (MDIs) rather than administration via a standard jet or vibrating mesh nebulizer due to the lower risk of aerosolization associated with MDIs. Individual institutions should work with their pharmacy regarding compassionate use of investigational medications and trial enrollment. We suggest the development of protocols by individual ICUs for the off-label use of investigational agents. (See 'Nebulized medication' above and "Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)", section on 'Investigational approaches'.)

●For patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who develop ARDS, the prognosis is poor with mortality ranging from 52 to 67 percent. The highest rates of death occur in those ≥64 years. (See 'Prognosis' above.)

●A greater level of anxiety and trauma among patients and families should be anticipated and combatted with clear communication strategies and early palliative care involvement. (See 'End of life issues' above.)

●Several measures should be adopted to accommodate a surge in COVID-19 cases including included expanding ICU care into non-ICU spaces, utilizing non-critical care trained staff to participate in delivering critical care, and innovative approaches to obtain, conserve, and increase the efficiency of physical equipment (eg, personal protective equipment and mechanical ventilators). (See 'Surge capacity and scarce resource allocation' above.)
victor809
6 years ago
Interesting note about the intubation...
KingoftheCove
6 years ago
Lord help us...
Pudding Mittens
6 years ago
.
Okay, so citing an interview with a patient on, say, CNN, or printed in the New York Times or Washington Post etc., leads to nothing much here except maybe, "Interesting, thanks for the link Mittens".

Citing the same interview if it happened to be on Fox leads to me being insultingly lectured in incredibly obvious things like how sometimes people get better spontaneously so we need placebo controls (WOW, NO WAY, NEVER KNEW THAT!) and how the media sometimes cherry-picks what they cover and isn't entirely fair (WOW REALLY!?!?!?! THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME, I NEVER NOTICED!).

Conclusion -- citing Fox causes a knee-jerk reaction in certain people causing them to instantly assume you MUST BE a retarded simpleton and not, say, someone intelligent who understands statistical issues and study design and the history and practice of placebo controls, voraciously reads and watches information in tons of media outlets, notices and adjusts for their biases appropriately while integrating all that data from many many sources together for maximum understanding, but in this case SIMPLY WANTS TO POINT AT A DAMNED FIRST-PERSON ANECDOTAL INTERVIEW THAT IS SOMEWHAT INTERESTING!

Or as MACS put it:

So we all know the media is biased as a mofo... all of them are left. Fox is barely right. OAN is right.

We're able to process information, with that knowledge, and come to our own conclusions, yeah?? This was a dude who had the virus, took the effing meds and told us his experience. WTF does it matter what show he was on?

MACS wrote:


Bingo.
.
teedubbya
6 years ago
I’d say the same for cnn et al if I noticed it. I’ve seen plenty of first person anecdotal interviews however well intended that were bunk. Michael Moore makes a living off such things as does Alex Jones and Laura Ingram. It’s an age old tactic.

But why still argue about it? Disagreement isn’t personal or the end of the world. Believe what you want.
teedubbya
6 years ago
And don’t get lost in the tangent. That drug combination is hopeful but cautiously hopeful given the lack of clear data at the moment. Hopefully that last part changes.

I hope it’s so effective we all dose for a week and the whole thing goes away.
Pudding Mittens
6 years ago

I heard today that a new study that accounts for those who had mild symptoms, and those who had the virus with little or no symptoms has lowered the mortality rate of COVID19 to 0.6%. The study also suggests that as testing becomes wide spread, the number will drop even lower. I can't find the study online, so I have nothing to link to. If true, that's at least some good news.

Mrs. dpnewell wrote:


Yup. The denominator is getting bigger with mass testing, which means the death rate will hopefully keep dropping.

Also heard today that a hospital in Texas was experimenting with giving patients in serious condition blood plasma from folks who have recovered. The hope being to infuse antibodies to the seriously ill. Kinda the old Omega Man thing. Of the 6 patients this was performed on, 5 have recovered, and the 6th is still alive. Again, I have nothing to link to, so take it with a grain of salt.


I mentioned this in an earlier post of mine in this thread. "Convalescent plasma therapy" it's called. VERY promising so far. Formal controlled studies pending of course. See also TW's pastes of info about it, above.

as for the controversy over the efficacy of hydrochloroquine and the anti-bacterial combo, is it an actual cure, meaning it reverses the damage done to the lungs?

or does it only work to prevent the lungs from getting damaged, meaning it has to be applied early?

delta1 wrote:


Well, forget about the drugs for a moment, and realize that COVID-19 has been observed to result in both reversible lung "damage" and irreversible damage. Some patients have lung scans full of nasty-looking "ground glass anomalies" as they're called (not real glass of course, just how they look on the images) but these often go away when the patient recovers, and this is what usually happens. Other anomalies never go away and are permanent, but this is relatively rare.

The drugs seem to inhibit the replication of the virus and/or help the body's immune system react to it better and in more productive and less damaging ways (e.g. probable prevention of damaging "cytokine storm" response by immune system, etc.)

Several prominent doctors using the 2-drug treatment or its zinc-sulfate-supplemented version say they DO NOT give the treatment to people with no/mild symptoms and no risk factors who will probably self-recover but will give the treatment to them if they worsen. They DO give the treatment to people with risk factors or who have more severe symptoms. That's the protocol for now among these guys. It's all "seat of the pants" of course, but they're doing what seems to work best and what seems most appropriate.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated 699 COVID-19 patients with very impressive results (0 died, 0 intubated, only 4 hospitalized), specified his actual dosing regimen recently, and it's 200mg of hyroxycholoroquine twice daily, 500mg of azithromycin once daily and 220mg of zinc sulfate once daily, FYI.

Not placebo-controlled of course, but still "wow" preliminary numbers and results. There's evidence that hydroxychloroquine helps zinc get inside human cells, where the zinc proceeds to seriously inhibit viral replication. So, the addition of zinc sulfate to the other two drugs may be why Dr. Zelenko is having such great success.

Stay tuned, as always.
.

.
teedubbya
6 years ago
See 621 and 622 for plasma
victor809
6 years ago

.
Okay, so citing an interview with a patient on, say, CNN, or printed in the New York Times or Washington Post etc., leads to nothing much here except maybe, "Interesting, thanks for the link Mittens".

Citing the same interview if it happened to be on Fox leads to me being insultingly lectured in incredibly obvious things like how sometimes people get better spontaneously so we need placebo controls (WOW, NO WAY, NEVER KNEW THAT!) and how the media sometimes cherry-picks what they cover and isn't entirely fair (WOW REALLY!?!?!?! THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME, I NEVER NOTICED!).

Conclusion -- citing Fox causes a knee-jerk reaction in certain people causing them to instantly assume you MUST BE a retarded simpleton and not, say, someone intelligent who understands statistical issues and study design and the history and practice of placebo controls, voraciously reads and watches information in tons of media outlets, notices and adjusts for their biases appropriately while integrating all that data from many many sources together for maximum understanding, but in this case SIMPLY WANTS TO POINT AT A DAMNED FIRST-PERSON ANECDOTAL INTERVIEW THAT IS SOMEWHAT INTERESTING!

Pudding Mittens wrote:



I mean.... you can say that.
But I did a search for your name and "interview" over the last month and not a single post using the term "interview" indicates the interview was from CNN or the New York Times etc... the only ones you identified by source were Fox news.

Maybe a more likely answer is the first time an interview got posted it got "interesting" because it's an interesting anecdote.
The 3rd and 4th time it has not added any actual additional statistical evidence, so people started pointing out that posting individual cherry picked interviews stops being "interesting" after the first. After that the next step that would be "interesting" would be double blinded studies.

But I'm just speaking for myself.
Pudding Mittens
6 years ago
.
TW, great big-ass pastes of good, detailed info. Keep 'em coming.
.
frankj1
6 years ago

I've given references to quite a number of these, concerning these two drugs used together. Look back in this thread.
.

Pudding Mittens wrote:


point taken.
Pudding Mittens
6 years ago
.
Supposedly there's a new study on hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 that is randomized and placebo-controlled, but has a small sample size of 62 and is out of China, so it might not be accurate, or might simply be all lies. But for what it's worth, assuming they're not lying, it found statistically-significant reductions versus control/placebo in symptoms duration and pneumonia. No mention of azithromycin or zinc sulfate, I think they only used hydroxychloroquine. This would fit the initial French study that showed hydroxychloroquine helping significantly but not nearly as much as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together

Also Dr. Steve Smith, an infectious disease specialist near NYC, again reported that he and his group have been treating all their COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and have had to intubate zero patients after Day 2 of the treatment. He acknowledged this data is not controlled, but even still, he pointed out the odds of this being by chance are very, very tiny. He went out on a limb and said that he believes that this treatment is, quote, "the beginning of the end of this pandemic."

His words not mine, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just passing this along. Let's hope he's right.
.
KingoftheCove
6 years ago
This is the kind of miracle we need....
delta1
6 years ago
meanwhile some reports that lupus patients and others that need the hydrochloroquine meds can't get their prescriptions filled...

many doctors are reported to be buying up supplies, writing off label scripts, and hording them for possible use for infected family and friends
Pudding Mittens
6 years ago
.
The widespread current in-field use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 worldwide, even with a severe lack of large, controlled studies on its effectiveness, somewhat reminds me of the famous Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire in Boston on November 28, 1942.

They had lots of people with really bad burns. Some of them became some of the first humans to ever be treated with penicillin, which Merck rushed from New Jersey to Boston. The idea was that these people were likely to die anyway, so there was nothing to lose. The result was impressive, and actually convinced the US military to authorize use of penicillin for the armed forces, and of course widespread civilian use followed too.

Here we have a leg up on that historical example though, because while they had to worry about penicillin possibly hurting the patients it was used on, hundreds of millions have already been treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin separately, so their safety separately is very thoroughly understood and has been for decades. The only issue here is safety when combined (which seems fine, plus there's an initial study showing no incremental risk with them used together) and of course effectiveness for this new use against COVID-19, which we'll find out soon.

The overall common element is, "Screw it, we have little to lose and much to gain, let's give it and do the big formal controlled studies later, this is wartime!"
.
victor809
6 years ago
So this is interesting.
I think this is a great example of interpretation of scientific information.

A french study of 80 patients was released... preliminary data. I think this came out a few days ago.

The daily wire (a conservative site) touts this as great news.

Here's the study:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf 

and while the study wants to be positive, we need to look at this critically.
80 patients entered the study. All patients received hospitalization-level medical care for the entire 6 days they were in the study.
Average time from symptoms to entering the study was a little over 5 days

Of these 80 patients, 1 dropped out of the study because of medication conflicts... ok
Of the remaining 79 patients, 1 died. So there's your >1% death rate right there. They've almost reached the expected mortality rate of the virus right off the bat.
They then continue to treat until 65 patients are released. Ok, great.

I can't figure out what happened to the others exactly. But at the time this was put out at least 2 were still in the infectious disease unit, and 1 was in the ICU.

I simply don't see how this is beating the numbers we hear about already. Again, this is why you need control groups.

We'll see what happens when a study with controls is released.
victor809
6 years ago
Pudding, I think the china study with 62 patients was done in Feb.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v2 

full text
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v2.full.pdf 
tonygraz
6 years ago
Well, if they find the cure, how long will we have to wait or the medications. Give our current record of necessary supply, it could be a long wait.
MACS
6 years ago
Lost one of our own because of this... may he Rest in Peace. 🙏
Users browsing this topic