8 ms·

It's great news, but they're observing a 30% mortality rate for the "cure". Absent medical intervention there is still a nontrivial survival rate (mortality rat

It's great news, but they're observing a 30% mortality rate for the "cure". Absent medical intervention there is still a nontrivial survival rate (mortality rate of 75-90%). With supporting medical treatment before this new treatment - fluid support, etc - I think it's up to 50%? It sounds like the monoclonal antibody treatment has improved odds of survival from 1:10-1:2 to 2:3. edit: The 6% figure is population restricted to early interventions. I am uncomfortably out of my limited knowledge here, but I think that early intervention numbers are better across the board. I'd want to compare the 6% number to the control. And I don't want to see a control! It is such a good result no matter how you look at it that they wisely halted the trial.

sp332 7y ago
Other treatments mentioned in the same paragraph cut mortality rates to 34% or 29%.
- squeaky-clean 7y ago
  If I'm reading this right, the 29% and 6% are the same drug. It has a 6% mortality rate when administered very early in the illness. > The monoclonal antibody cocktail produced by a company called Regeneron Pharmaceuticals had the biggest impact on lowering death rates, down to 29 percent, while NIAID’s monoclonal antibody, called mAb114, had a mortality rate of 34 percent. The results were most striking for patients who received treatments soon after becoming sick, when their viral loads were still low—death rates dropped to 11 percent with mAb114 and just 6 percent with Regeneron’s drug, compared with 24 percent with ZMapp and 33 percent with Remdesivir.
nsxwolf 7y ago
Article says 6% unless I'm misunderstanding something.
- _Nat_ 7y ago
  Their best-overall reduced down to 29%. The 6%-figure was for a sub-population of victims who received one of the treatments early. There's probably a sub-sub-population of young-adult victims who're in good health and received early treatment who had a near-0% rate, too. From glancing at Wikipedia's numbers, it seems that the average Ebola victim faces about 50% odds, so this'd improve that to about 29%. But, with-or-without this treatment, people who receive care, especially early, enjoy better odds than their peers who don't.
taneq 7y ago
If I were facing a 75-90% chance of dying, I think I’d be pretty happy to reduce that to 6-30%.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- millisecond 7y ago
  But I wouldn’t call the disease “cured”.
  - fluffything 7y ago
    Particularly if I was in the 30% that still dies from it. Although if I were to die from it I wouldn't probably be able to call it anything.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    But that is cureable, just not guaranteed. You are more likely to live than die with this treatment.
  - jzymbaluk 7y ago
    That's probably why they use the word "curable"
  - cjblomqvist 7y ago
    Or cure just mean for the people which it works for, they are cured. Contrast with medicines slowing down the effects such as HIV medicine. In other words, cure is probably the right word, just not for everybody.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Just as a point of comparison: Toxic epidermal necrolysis, a severe form of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, has about a 30% mortality rate. I understand it to be a first world problem typically caused by taking certain strong medications. It's a severe and often deadly allergic reaction. (I'm not going to provide links because both Wikipedia entries have disturbing photos. I've verified that I'm spelling both correctly so you can google it if you want. However, you probably would be hard pressed to find an article about either condition that didn't have similarly graphic photos.) To clarify: epidermal means it's a skin condition. Skin conditions that kill people tend to not be pretty and the symptoms are highly visible.
- baxtr 7y ago
  Puh. The photos are really disturbing. I really recommend anyone not to do what I just did...
  - contravariant 7y ago
    We really need some kind of image-less Wikipedia for things like this.
    - tomrod 7y ago
      elinks browser for the win! I bet images can be blocked by extension as well.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        You're solving entirely the wrong problem. The issue is linking to the article, not "how do I personally view a page a certain way?"
  - benj111 7y ago
    I was about to reply and say they weren't too bad, 2 of them really not, 2 of them a couple of stages on from really bad sunburn. I was picturing that scene from Raiders of the lost Ark before hand, it's not that bad.
jseliger 7y ago
The results were most striking for patients who received treatments soon after becoming sick, when their viral loads were still low—death rates dropped to 11 percent with mAb114 and just 6 percent with Regeneron’s drug, compared with 24 percent with ZMapp and 33 percent with Remdesivir.
leereeves 7y ago
Of the 11 people who've been treated for Ebola in the US, only 2 have died. That's a small sample, but only an 18% mortality rate with the best available treatment, before this cure.
- Fomite 7y ago
  Several of those people got the therapies being tested in this trial.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

sp332 7y ago

Other treatments mentioned in the same paragraph cut mortality rates to 34% or 29%.

squeaky-clean 7y ago
If I'm reading this right, the 29% and 6% are the same drug. It has a 6% mortality rate when administered very early in the illness. > The monoclonal antibody cocktail produced by a company called Regeneron Pharmaceuticals had the biggest impact on lowering death rates, down to 29 percent, while NIAID’s monoclonal antibody, called mAb114, had a mortality rate of 34 percent. The results were most striking for patients who received treatments soon after becoming sick, when their viral loads were still low—death rates dropped to 11 percent with mAb114 and just 6 percent with Regeneron’s drug, compared with 24 percent with ZMapp and 33 percent with Remdesivir.

nsxwolf 7y ago

Article says 6% unless I'm misunderstanding something.

_Nat_ 7y ago
Their best-overall reduced down to 29%. The 6%-figure was for a sub-population of victims who received one of the treatments early. There's probably a sub-sub-population of young-adult victims who're in good health and received early treatment who had a near-0% rate, too. From glancing at Wikipedia's numbers, it seems that the average Ebola victim faces about 50% odds, so this'd improve that to about 29%. But, with-or-without this treatment, people who receive care, especially early, enjoy better odds than their peers who don't.

taneq 7y ago

If I were facing a 75-90% chance of dying, I think I’d be pretty happy to reduce that to 6-30%.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
millisecond 7y ago
But I wouldn’t call the disease “cured”.
- fluffything 7y ago
  Particularly if I was in the 30% that still dies from it. Although if I were to die from it I wouldn't probably be able to call it anything.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  But that is cureable, just not guaranteed. You are more likely to live than die with this treatment.
- jzymbaluk 7y ago
  That's probably why they use the word "curable"
- cjblomqvist 7y ago
  Or cure just mean for the people which it works for, they are cured. Contrast with medicines slowing down the effects such as HIV medicine. In other words, cure is probably the right word, just not for everybody.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Just as a point of comparison: Toxic epidermal necrolysis, a severe form of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, has about a 30% mortality rate. I understand it to be a first world problem typically caused by taking certain strong medications. It's a severe and often deadly allergic reaction. (I'm not going to provide links because both Wikipedia entries have disturbing photos. I've verified that I'm spelling both correctly so you can google it if you want. However, you probably would be hard pressed to find an article about either condition that didn't have similarly graphic photos.) To clarify: epidermal means it's a skin condition. Skin conditions that kill people tend to not be pretty and the symptoms are highly visible.

baxtr 7y ago
Puh. The photos are really disturbing. I really recommend anyone not to do what I just did...
- contravariant 7y ago
  We really need some kind of image-less Wikipedia for things like this.
  - tomrod 7y ago
    elinks browser for the win! I bet images can be blocked by extension as well.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      You're solving entirely the wrong problem. The issue is linking to the article, not "how do I personally view a page a certain way?"
- benj111 7y ago
  I was about to reply and say they weren't too bad, 2 of them really not, 2 of them a couple of stages on from really bad sunburn. I was picturing that scene from Raiders of the lost Ark before hand, it's not that bad.

jseliger 7y ago

The results were most striking for patients who received treatments soon after becoming sick, when their viral loads were still low—death rates dropped to 11 percent with mAb114 and just 6 percent with Regeneron’s drug, compared with 24 percent with ZMapp and 33 percent with Remdesivir.

leereeves 7y ago

Of the 11 people who've been treated for Ebola in the US, only 2 have died. That's a small sample, but only an 18% mortality rate with the best available treatment, before this cure.

Fomite 7y ago
Several of those people got the therapies being tested in this trial.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]