7 ms·

A human monoclonal 1 antibody blocking SARS-CoV-2 infection

209 points by TeeWEE 7y ago

TeeWEE 7y ago
This is the paper submitted for review https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1 If it passesthe review stage it will probably be published in the scientific Journal Nature. Note: this is not a vaccine. Its a treatment option for people who are already sick.
- FreshEconomist 7y ago
  Frankly, I'm far more worried about the current cases, given the death rate of people who are on the older end. For most healthy middle aged/young people it's basically a cold from what I gather.
  - woofie11 7y ago
    ... no. Unless you're a child, it's not a cold. Good shot of ending up in the ICU.
    - dmos62 7y ago
      Anyone has sources?
      - choeger 7y ago
        The numbers vary massively but I have seen a number of about 20% hospitalized cases. This includes the elderly and people with preconditions. But still, you would not want to develop any pneumonia when your local hospital is running over its capacity.
        forkexec 7y ago
        It's a given that American hospitals will be running out of ventilators, beds, and nurses will be stretched too thin. And if you need an ECMO and/or organ transplant in the near future, good luck with that.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - greatest-ape 7y ago
        Unsurprisingly, smoking seems to be a huge risk factor [1]: “[..] the multivariate logistic analysis indicated that age (OR, 8.546; 95% CI: 1.62844.864; P = 0.011), history of smoking (OR, 14.285; 95% CI: 1.57725.000; P = 0.018), maximum body temperature at admission (OR, 8.999; 95% CI: 1.03678.147, P = 0.046), respiratory failure (OR, 8.772, 95% CI: 1.94240.000; P =0.016), albumin (OR, 7.353, 95% CI: 1.09850.000; P =0.003) and C-reactive protein (OR, 10.53; 95% CI: 1.22434.701, P = 0.028) were risk factor for disease progression [Table 4].” [1] https://journals.lww.com/cmj/Abstract/publishahead/Analysis_of_factors_associated_with_disease.99363.aspx https://journals.lww.com/cmj/Abstract/publishahead/Analysis_...
      - thatswrong0 7y ago
        https://miro.medium.com/max/3660/1*-O84hhKDRHmgMVAslvgj-Q.png https://miro.medium.com/max/3660/1*-O84hhKDRHmgMVAslvgj-Q.pn... Here's a chart made from a study in China. It's actually a bit unclear, but I'm assuming it's 18.5% of confirmed cases that require hospitalization. Now, the question is how many of those that got sick at all got confirmed in China, and how many people presented symptoms (those are unknown). So it seems like it's less than 18.5%. On top of this, Chinese men are heavy smokers and the air quality in China is pretty terrible, so that may play a part as well.
  - andy_ppp 7y ago
    We don’t know enough about it to be sure of making sweeping statements like this...
  - RivieraKid 7y ago
    It's definitely worse than a cold, the symptoms of a cold are very mild, for me it's usually painful swallowing, runny nose and slight and short-term increase in temperature and tiredness.
    - giu 7y ago
      Absolutely. From the WHO page [0] > Common signs of infection include respiratory symptoms, fever, cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure and even death. The problem is that some people forget that between "common signs" and "severe cases" there's a vast area of very uncomfortable symptoms until you get to the severe cases, and we're currently still learning about this very gray area. Just yesterday the following link was posted on Hacker News: "Coronavirus: Some recovered patients may have reduced lung function", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22568100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22568100 [0] https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus
  - cowmoo728 7y ago
    I believe I have it although I haven't been tested yet. I'm a healthy and physically active 28 year old. I have a high fever, general body aches, difficulty swallowing, dry painful cough. This is the third day of symptoms with no improvement. No pressure or tightness in my chest as of yet. However, if I have it, my wife probably has it too. Her only symptoms are a mild sore throat and an ache in her back. It's much less severe than mine. I had the bad luck of getting swine flu in 2009 and this is just as bad.
    - FreshEconomist 7y ago
      I think I absolutely misrepresented what I think. I didn't mean for it to come off that it wasn't more serious than a normal cold. I meant that many won't be affect more than that,. However the ones that get more sever cases/more exposure are at high risk, not to mention the older populace in general. I'm absolutely terrified for everyone right now.
  - delhanty 7y ago
    It's not just live or die you know. Reduced quality of life is a possible out come too: >Similar to patients with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, some patients with 2019-nCoV develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with characteristic pulmonary ground glass changes on imaging. In most moribund patients, 2019-nCoV infection is also associated with a cytokine storm, ... in those who survive intensive care, these aberrant and excessive immune responses lead to long-term lung damage and fibrosis, causing functional disability and reduced quality of life. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30305-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - forkexec 7y ago
      Yep. Both SARS viruses can damage the lungs. And short of lung transplantation and likely a lifetime of anti-rejection medications, lost lung function doesn't return.
  - lsiebert 7y ago
    No, this is worse than a cold. Worse than the flu as well. For 18 to 49, the death rate for flu last year was 1.8 per 100,000 people. Corona virus's death rate is unknown but even among 20 somethings they are talking about an estimated .2% death rate. That's 200 per 100,000 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
    - endorphone 7y ago
      Further, that assumes that the healthcare system can perform heroic efforts. In cases where the system is overloaded, such as seen in Italy, mortality numbers can get much worse. Now add that some/many patients have lung scarring that can hold with them for life. With all of the information available demonstrating that it clearly is pretty serious, I've come to identify people downplaying it as essentially the exercising of wishful thinking: If I tell everyone it's nothing, maybe it will be. I hope it's nothing. At the same time I understand the responses that have occurred.
    - speleding 7y ago
      That's a bit alarmist. Based on the numbers from Wuhan, where the disease has progressed furthest and the numbers are most clear, it's about 5 times worse than a seasonal flu. There is considerable uncertainty at this stage, of course, but the lower numbers look more realistic. Source: https://www.economist.com/international/2020/03/12/fatality-rates-for-covid-19-could-vary-enormously https://www.economist.com/international/2020/03/12/fatality-...
    - FreshEconomist 7y ago
      Yeah what I typed came across badly, I wasn't intending to download like it seemed from that comment.
  - pritovido 7y ago
    Most children can be host without suffering it and transmit it to other people. For middle age people, if you are unlucky and get other virus at the same time(because you met with lots of people in a place), like the flu, it can be extremely dangerous. Last year I catched two virus at the same time and it was so painful. My body reacted too strong with an autoimmune reaction, attacking my own body, my joints, my muscles. It took me two months to properly recover, and I live a very healthy lifestyle. I sleep and eat well and exercise. The doctor told me that someone in the same situation that smokes for example could develop lots of complications.
    - forkexec 7y ago
      Get a flu shot, wash your hands, and stay away from large groups and don't exercise to exhaustion during periods of peak transmission.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mcintyre1994 7y ago
  Do you know how the timetable from Nature to patients would look compared to the year+ being widely discussed for a vaccine?
  - janoc 7y ago
    It would likely go in parallel, that's why the paper is published on the preprint server. Paper reviews in major journals like Nature can easily take over a year but that is mostly to get the scientific "bragging rights" these days. It has little effect on further research and drug development since the information is out there already. The part that is most relevant for the development of a new drug/treatment is the safety and efficiency testing in the clinical studies - and that alone will take many months. It can be shortened if it is a drug that has been used before for something else (e.g. that chloroquine for malaria) and is only repurposed because there we know the drug is safe already. For a completely new drug it could take a year or more just to do the testing and get the approvals. So I wouldn't have high hopes to see this being deployed widely any time soon.
    - ericb 7y ago
      > For a completely new drug it could take a year or more just to do the testing and get the approvals. > So I wouldn't have high hopes to see this being deployed widely any time soon. I don't know, I mean, this is one of those things where compassionate use seems likely? Won't we end up trying that and doing studies on them after?
      - janoc 7y ago
        You can't "do studies on them after". These aren't studies for the sake of publishing papers but to determine whether or not the drug is safe to use and whether it is actually effective. If the drug or vaccine you are developing ends up killing more people than saving it is not much of a cure, is it? The same if the drug isn't effective - in that case it would be wasting critical resources and probably causing the sick to not get a really effective treatment. That said, this process will be certainly sped up to maximum amount possible, given the situation, but it will still take a long time.
- dtech 7y ago
  Yeah, some translated important notes from the Dutch article: > This is the first known antibody that blocks the infections > The antibodies have to be tested in humans, which can take months > The research still has to be peer reviewed > It stops the virus from further internal infections, allowing the patient to recover > They are trying to get a pharmaceutical company to mass-produce it > A vaccine would be a real solution, others are working on it. Vaccine development can take 2 years
m00dy 7y ago
Antibodies are special type of proteins that can connect to viruses. It basically marks the virus so that immune system can shoot it down. Please let me know if this is not correct.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  They do more than that. Some antibodies block off the part of the virus that is needed to infect a cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody#Function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody#Function
- agumonkey 7y ago
  I wonder if they wouldn't worsen the immune storm
  - danaris 7y ago
    This isn't Spanish Flu—there's no cytokine storm with COVID-19. That's why the deaths are almost entirely the very old and immunocompromised.
    - agumonkey 7y ago
      really ? .. word of mouth was wrong then (how surprising.) is it bacterial infection post virus harm then ?
    - newcrobuzon 7y ago
      > there's no cytokine storm with COVID-19. Could you provide a source?
      - danaris 7y ago
        I don't know of anywhere that provides a comprehensive list of things COVID-19 isn't. Could you provide a source that suggests that there is one? Everything I've seen so far (eg, [0]) points to the virus itself damaging respiratory tissue, and normal body immune response aggravating that locally to some extent. A cytokine storm [1] is, as I understand it, a massive systemic immune overreaction causing way too much inflammation, overwhelming the body all at once. That Wikipedia entry suggests that SARS may have caused a cytokine storm, at least in some patients, but from it and everything I understand about the phenomenon, it's recognizable in epidemiology largely by the greatly increased incidence of deaths among young, healthy patients—which is not at all what we see in COVID-19. [0] https://www.uticaod.com/zz/news/20200313/what-does-coronavirus-infection-do-inside-your-body https://www.uticaod.com/zz/news/20200313/what-does-coronavir... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome
archi42 7y ago
For those who speak no dutch (neither do I), from what I understand the title gives the most important point. The google translation also seems pretty good: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2327076-wetenschappers-rotterdam-en-utrecht-claimen-vondst-antilichaam-tegen-corona.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  Am Dutch, can confirm the article is reasonably summed up with the title. From the article: Some scientists still had these antibodies from previous research, and so far it looks promising. It has not been tried on humans yet, which can take months. There’s a reasonable chance this might eventually become the medicine.
  - onetimemanytime 7y ago
    suppose X is dying and everyone in his family circle consents, why not try it? Being an emergency and all. Nothing to lose
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      > why not try it? I imagine not everyone feels comfortable potentially killing someone with a creation of theirs that they're not confident in, even if others are willing to risk it.
      - markgavalda 7y ago
        It's the other way around though: it's not them or their creation that is killing the patient, it's the virus. There's a big difference between their creation being unable to save the patient and actively killing them.
        Gasp0de 7y ago
        That's the thing with giving people stuff that hasn't been tested on anyone before: It might actively kill them, not just not prevent them from being killed by the virus.
kokey 7y ago
Monoclonal antibodies are difficult to produce at scale, that's why existing therapies with these are so expensive.
- dnhz 7y ago
  Or because biotech companies charge what insurance companies will bear for them?
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > Or because biotech companies charge what insurance companies will bear for them? Do you actually have any evidence that substantiates your claim? Wild speculations and conspiracy theories should not have a place in discussions regarding serious matters.
    - 0x1221 7y ago
      Making a claim without providing evidence is different from "wild speculations and conspiracy theories".
      - rumanator 7y ago
        If there is no evidence to substantiate or support the claim then it falls deep in the wild speculation category. And the comment is quite literally a theory on how someone is conspiring.
        forkexec 7y ago
        No, you're being intellectually dishonest.
        rumanator 7y ago
        > No, you're being intellectually dishonest. Asking for evidence that supports a hefty claim was never, at any point in time or space, dishonesty. It's in fact the basis for the scientific method, and the basis for laws against libel and slander. Throwing personal attacks like yours, however, particularly while intentionally turning a blind eye to the lack of substance or support of a few claims based on a conspiracy theory, speaks volumes about you.
nobrains 7y ago
A vaccine dose proactively creates memory cells (memory B cells) in the body, which allow the body to IMMEDIATELY create fighter cells (plasma cells) when the body is infected with the actual virus, thus stopping it in its tracks. Without vaccine, when virus infects, the body takes times to learn the virus and create the memory cells and fighter cells, and hence the infection gets worse. The weapons the fighter cells use are antibodies. In this case, the discovery has directly produced antibodies, which are helpful in fighting the virus (but cannot be used to proactively create memory cells). Antibodies have the advantage that they don't trigger the body's immune system, which means less issues to deal with. Hope this (and other efforts being done) pass testing and get in the field as soon as possible.
- shawnz 7y ago
  Does this mean someone treated with antibodies won't be immune to the virus in future?
  - sudhirj 7y ago
    Sounds like it. This is not a vaccination. It may be possible that while these antibodies are working the body might also “learn” the virus, thus providing immunity, but that would be a side effect of the infection.
    - nullc 7y ago
      For other coronaviruses that infect humans there the adaptive immune response isn't particularly strong and doesn't last. E.g. immunity to HCoV-OC43 lasts no more than about 12 months. This is a reason to suspect that a vaccine may not be easily developed; so antibody therapy (and/or anti-virals) might be the best we can do. If the antibody therapy was highly effective and could be produced at scale for a tolerable cost, it would probably be a pretty effective tool. Though monoclonal antibodies aren't known for being particularly affordable.
  - rleigh 7y ago
    It's likely. The body will be less likely to have undergone the immune response to generate antibodies of its own. Additionally, as the immune response develops, the antibody affinity to its target is refined through a process called "affinity maturation", so any antibodies which are produced might not have high affinity and hence result in a weaker immune response. Treatment with antibodies might be useful as an immediate fix, but vaccination or infection and the development of a proper immune response is the long term requirement for resistance.
boshomi 7y ago
bioRxive link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1.full.pdf+html https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1....
- ignoramous 7y ago
  r/covid19 link: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fietp4/dutch_erasmus_mc_finds_anti_body_research_is_up/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fietp4/dutch_erasm... A commentor posted English translation: 'Erasmus MC and Utrecht University find antibody against corona' A group of ten scientists from the Erasmus Medical Center and Utrecht University say they have found an antibody against the coronavirus, reports Erasmus Magazine. "To our knowledge, this is the very first antibody that we know blocks the infection and there is a good chance that it will also become a drug on the market," said Professor of Cell Biology Frank Grosveld. It has yet to be tested on humans, which takes months. The publication about the find is at the discretion of colleagues, after which it may be published in the leading trade journal Nature. "Prevention is better than cure, of course," says Grosveld. "A real solution is therefore a vaccine, others are working on that. However, developing a vaccine takes two years."
blueboo 7y ago
Let's say we discovered a cure. For simplicity's sake, this is a hypothetical vaccine that instantly destroys the infection. How long would it take for such a product to go from the lab to application in the general population?--what are the key variables that factor into such an estimate? Is there some expedited process in the case of a pandemic?
- _ph_ 7y ago
  This depends whether it is a "cure", that is a medicine to be given to the people who are sick, or a vaccine, which is given to the general (healthy) population. For a medicine, a lot of the red tape can be cut, as you might test it on otherwise hopeless cases. There is a limited risk associated (that one person might die) and the results in the case it works are also easy to monitor. With vaccines, things become complicated. - vaccines are given to healthy population, and to large parts of the population. So they need to be extremely safe, or you end up killing more than the disease would have had. This is obviously not acceptable and extensive safety testing needs to be done. - you need to find out, whether the vaccine works at all. Creating a working vaccine against a virus like corona is very tricky - we don't for example have a working vaccine against the cold. So making sure the vaccine has the intended effect takes a long time, especially, if you consider that all tests have to be done with healthy people. So currently some antiviral medicine is being tested at sick people and some results could be out soon, but for a vaccine, mid-2021 are the most optimistic timelines I heard.
abhiminator 7y ago
This is encouraging, but the key would be pushing this to clinical trials ASAP. Efforts need to be made to drastically trim the time-span it takes for a successfully trialed COVID-19 vaccine to get from laboratories to hospitals and into patient's veins. I'm sure many countries and billion-dollar companies are at it, but making it affordable to people who need it the most is a challenge in itself.
H8crilA 7y ago
The title is silly. Of course antibodies exist against the virus - otherwise the fatality rate would be 100%. You don't just survive an infection, your body creates antibodies, and they stay in your body for a very very long time. That's the whole point of vaccination. Once this blows over I'll go get my blood tested for antibodies for the virus - will be interesting to know if I had it.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  Deducing that something exists and identifying something are two different activities. The article is about the latter.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Of course antibodies exist against the virus - otherwise the fatality rate would be 100%. That was the starting point of the research project. Then, after some work, the team actually managed to identify one, and one that also neutralizes the virus.
Vinnl 7y ago
Note that this is a Dutch news channel, and the article is in Dutch. Usually, when they report on a discovery done by Dutch researchers, it is considered newsworthy because the researchers are Dutch, not because the research itself is particularly noteworthy. So in addition to the usual reservations that one should have when noteworthy discoveries make the news, there's an extra reason not to hold your breath until you see this appear in international publications as well.
- dang 7y ago
  This comment was about https://nos.nl/l/2327076 https://nos.nl/l/2327076, which was the submitted URL. (A moderator has since changed it.)
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > Usually, when they report on a discovery done by Dutch researchers, it is considered newsworthy because the researchers are Dutch, not because the research itself is particularly noteworthy. "Usually"? Do you have examples?
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    Just consider how many of these articles made international news, even though the research theoretically applies internationally: https://nos.nl/zoeken/?q=%22Nederlandse+onderzoekers%22 https://nos.nl/zoeken/?q=%22Nederlandse+onderzoekers%22
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      That is just a generic search query. I checked the top 10 search results (in two browsers). These were all internationally reported one, even specifically on HN, or they're only locally relevant (such as who in NL won the Spinoza award). Please link some specific examples.
      - Vinnl 7y ago
        Sorry, it's just an observation I've made over time, and I didn't save every example I came across. If you want to see it for yourself, keep it in mind when you come across news about Dutch researchers in Dutch news in the future.

209 points by TeeWEE 7y ago

This is the paper submitted for review https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1 If it passesthe review stage it will probably be published in the scientific Journal Nature. Note: this is not a vaccine. Its a treatment option for people who are already sick.

FreshEconomist 7y ago
Frankly, I'm far more worried about the current cases, given the death rate of people who are on the older end. For most healthy middle aged/young people it's basically a cold from what I gather.
- woofie11 7y ago
  ... no. Unless you're a child, it's not a cold. Good shot of ending up in the ICU.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    Anyone has sources?
    - choeger 7y ago
      The numbers vary massively but I have seen a number of about 20% hospitalized cases. This includes the elderly and people with preconditions. But still, you would not want to develop any pneumonia when your local hospital is running over its capacity.
      - forkexec 7y ago
        It's a given that American hospitals will be running out of ventilators, beds, and nurses will be stretched too thin. And if you need an ECMO and/or organ transplant in the near future, good luck with that.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - greatest-ape 7y ago
      Unsurprisingly, smoking seems to be a huge risk factor [1]: “[..] the multivariate logistic analysis indicated that age (OR, 8.546; 95% CI: 1.62844.864; P = 0.011), history of smoking (OR, 14.285; 95% CI: 1.57725.000; P = 0.018), maximum body temperature at admission (OR, 8.999; 95% CI: 1.03678.147, P = 0.046), respiratory failure (OR, 8.772, 95% CI: 1.94240.000; P =0.016), albumin (OR, 7.353, 95% CI: 1.09850.000; P =0.003) and C-reactive protein (OR, 10.53; 95% CI: 1.22434.701, P = 0.028) were risk factor for disease progression [Table 4].” [1] https://journals.lww.com/cmj/Abstract/publishahead/Analysis_of_factors_associated_with_disease.99363.aspx https://journals.lww.com/cmj/Abstract/publishahead/Analysis_...
    - thatswrong0 7y ago
      https://miro.medium.com/max/3660/1*-O84hhKDRHmgMVAslvgj-Q.png https://miro.medium.com/max/3660/1*-O84hhKDRHmgMVAslvgj-Q.pn... Here's a chart made from a study in China. It's actually a bit unclear, but I'm assuming it's 18.5% of confirmed cases that require hospitalization. Now, the question is how many of those that got sick at all got confirmed in China, and how many people presented symptoms (those are unknown). So it seems like it's less than 18.5%. On top of this, Chinese men are heavy smokers and the air quality in China is pretty terrible, so that may play a part as well.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  We don’t know enough about it to be sure of making sweeping statements like this...
- RivieraKid 7y ago
  It's definitely worse than a cold, the symptoms of a cold are very mild, for me it's usually painful swallowing, runny nose and slight and short-term increase in temperature and tiredness.
  - giu 7y ago
    Absolutely. From the WHO page [0] > Common signs of infection include respiratory symptoms, fever, cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure and even death. The problem is that some people forget that between "common signs" and "severe cases" there's a vast area of very uncomfortable symptoms until you get to the severe cases, and we're currently still learning about this very gray area. Just yesterday the following link was posted on Hacker News: "Coronavirus: Some recovered patients may have reduced lung function", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22568100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22568100 [0] https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus
- cowmoo728 7y ago
  I believe I have it although I haven't been tested yet. I'm a healthy and physically active 28 year old. I have a high fever, general body aches, difficulty swallowing, dry painful cough. This is the third day of symptoms with no improvement. No pressure or tightness in my chest as of yet. However, if I have it, my wife probably has it too. Her only symptoms are a mild sore throat and an ache in her back. It's much less severe than mine. I had the bad luck of getting swine flu in 2009 and this is just as bad.
  - FreshEconomist 7y ago
    I think I absolutely misrepresented what I think. I didn't mean for it to come off that it wasn't more serious than a normal cold. I meant that many won't be affect more than that,. However the ones that get more sever cases/more exposure are at high risk, not to mention the older populace in general. I'm absolutely terrified for everyone right now.
- delhanty 7y ago
  It's not just live or die you know. Reduced quality of life is a possible out come too: >Similar to patients with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, some patients with 2019-nCoV develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with characteristic pulmonary ground glass changes on imaging. In most moribund patients, 2019-nCoV infection is also associated with a cytokine storm, ... in those who survive intensive care, these aberrant and excessive immune responses lead to long-term lung damage and fibrosis, causing functional disability and reduced quality of life. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30305-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - forkexec 7y ago
    Yep. Both SARS viruses can damage the lungs. And short of lung transplantation and likely a lifetime of anti-rejection medications, lost lung function doesn't return.
- lsiebert 7y ago
  No, this is worse than a cold. Worse than the flu as well. For 18 to 49, the death rate for flu last year was 1.8 per 100,000 people. Corona virus's death rate is unknown but even among 20 somethings they are talking about an estimated .2% death rate. That's 200 per 100,000 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
  - endorphone 7y ago
    Further, that assumes that the healthcare system can perform heroic efforts. In cases where the system is overloaded, such as seen in Italy, mortality numbers can get much worse. Now add that some/many patients have lung scarring that can hold with them for life. With all of the information available demonstrating that it clearly is pretty serious, I've come to identify people downplaying it as essentially the exercising of wishful thinking: If I tell everyone it's nothing, maybe it will be. I hope it's nothing. At the same time I understand the responses that have occurred.
  - speleding 7y ago
    That's a bit alarmist. Based on the numbers from Wuhan, where the disease has progressed furthest and the numbers are most clear, it's about 5 times worse than a seasonal flu. There is considerable uncertainty at this stage, of course, but the lower numbers look more realistic. Source: https://www.economist.com/international/2020/03/12/fatality-rates-for-covid-19-could-vary-enormously https://www.economist.com/international/2020/03/12/fatality-...
  - FreshEconomist 7y ago
    Yeah what I typed came across badly, I wasn't intending to download like it seemed from that comment.
- pritovido 7y ago
  Most children can be host without suffering it and transmit it to other people. For middle age people, if you are unlucky and get other virus at the same time(because you met with lots of people in a place), like the flu, it can be extremely dangerous. Last year I catched two virus at the same time and it was so painful. My body reacted too strong with an autoimmune reaction, attacking my own body, my joints, my muscles. It took me two months to properly recover, and I live a very healthy lifestyle. I sleep and eat well and exercise. The doctor told me that someone in the same situation that smokes for example could develop lots of complications.
  - forkexec 7y ago
    Get a flu shot, wash your hands, and stay away from large groups and don't exercise to exhaustion during periods of peak transmission.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mcintyre1994 7y ago
Do you know how the timetable from Nature to patients would look compared to the year+ being widely discussed for a vaccine?
- janoc 7y ago
  It would likely go in parallel, that's why the paper is published on the preprint server. Paper reviews in major journals like Nature can easily take over a year but that is mostly to get the scientific "bragging rights" these days. It has little effect on further research and drug development since the information is out there already. The part that is most relevant for the development of a new drug/treatment is the safety and efficiency testing in the clinical studies - and that alone will take many months. It can be shortened if it is a drug that has been used before for something else (e.g. that chloroquine for malaria) and is only repurposed because there we know the drug is safe already. For a completely new drug it could take a year or more just to do the testing and get the approvals. So I wouldn't have high hopes to see this being deployed widely any time soon.
  - ericb 7y ago
    > For a completely new drug it could take a year or more just to do the testing and get the approvals. > So I wouldn't have high hopes to see this being deployed widely any time soon. I don't know, I mean, this is one of those things where compassionate use seems likely? Won't we end up trying that and doing studies on them after?
    - janoc 7y ago
      You can't "do studies on them after". These aren't studies for the sake of publishing papers but to determine whether or not the drug is safe to use and whether it is actually effective. If the drug or vaccine you are developing ends up killing more people than saving it is not much of a cure, is it? The same if the drug isn't effective - in that case it would be wasting critical resources and probably causing the sick to not get a really effective treatment. That said, this process will be certainly sped up to maximum amount possible, given the situation, but it will still take a long time.
dtech 7y ago
Yeah, some translated important notes from the Dutch article: > This is the first known antibody that blocks the infections > The antibodies have to be tested in humans, which can take months > The research still has to be peer reviewed > It stops the virus from further internal infections, allowing the patient to recover > They are trying to get a pharmaceutical company to mass-produce it > A vaccine would be a real solution, others are working on it. Vaccine development can take 2 years

m00dy 7y ago

Antibodies are special type of proteins that can connect to viruses. It basically marks the virus so that immune system can shoot it down. Please let me know if this is not correct.

maxerickson 7y ago
They do more than that. Some antibodies block off the part of the virus that is needed to infect a cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody#Function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody#Function
agumonkey 7y ago
I wonder if they wouldn't worsen the immune storm
- danaris 7y ago
  This isn't Spanish Flu—there's no cytokine storm with COVID-19. That's why the deaths are almost entirely the very old and immunocompromised.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    really ? .. word of mouth was wrong then (how surprising.) is it bacterial infection post virus harm then ?
  - newcrobuzon 7y ago
    > there's no cytokine storm with COVID-19. Could you provide a source?
    - danaris 7y ago
      I don't know of anywhere that provides a comprehensive list of things COVID-19 isn't. Could you provide a source that suggests that there is one? Everything I've seen so far (eg, [0]) points to the virus itself damaging respiratory tissue, and normal body immune response aggravating that locally to some extent. A cytokine storm [1] is, as I understand it, a massive systemic immune overreaction causing way too much inflammation, overwhelming the body all at once. That Wikipedia entry suggests that SARS may have caused a cytokine storm, at least in some patients, but from it and everything I understand about the phenomenon, it's recognizable in epidemiology largely by the greatly increased incidence of deaths among young, healthy patients—which is not at all what we see in COVID-19. [0] https://www.uticaod.com/zz/news/20200313/what-does-coronavirus-infection-do-inside-your-body https://www.uticaod.com/zz/news/20200313/what-does-coronavir... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome

archi42 7y ago

For those who speak no dutch (neither do I), from what I understand the title gives the most important point. The google translation also seems pretty good: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2327076-wetenschappers-rotterdam-en-utrecht-claimen-vondst-antilichaam-tegen-corona.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

stingraycharles 7y ago
Am Dutch, can confirm the article is reasonably summed up with the title. From the article: Some scientists still had these antibodies from previous research, and so far it looks promising. It has not been tried on humans yet, which can take months. There’s a reasonable chance this might eventually become the medicine.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  suppose X is dying and everyone in his family circle consents, why not try it? Being an emergency and all. Nothing to lose
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    > why not try it? I imagine not everyone feels comfortable potentially killing someone with a creation of theirs that they're not confident in, even if others are willing to risk it.
    - markgavalda 7y ago
      It's the other way around though: it's not them or their creation that is killing the patient, it's the virus. There's a big difference between their creation being unable to save the patient and actively killing them.
      - Gasp0de 7y ago
        That's the thing with giving people stuff that hasn't been tested on anyone before: It might actively kill them, not just not prevent them from being killed by the virus.

kokey 7y ago

Monoclonal antibodies are difficult to produce at scale, that's why existing therapies with these are so expensive.

dnhz 7y ago
Or because biotech companies charge what insurance companies will bear for them?
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Or because biotech companies charge what insurance companies will bear for them? Do you actually have any evidence that substantiates your claim? Wild speculations and conspiracy theories should not have a place in discussions regarding serious matters.
  - 0x1221 7y ago
    Making a claim without providing evidence is different from "wild speculations and conspiracy theories".
    - rumanator 7y ago
      If there is no evidence to substantiate or support the claim then it falls deep in the wild speculation category. And the comment is quite literally a theory on how someone is conspiring.
      - forkexec 7y ago
        No, you're being intellectually dishonest.
        rumanator 7y ago
        > No, you're being intellectually dishonest. Asking for evidence that supports a hefty claim was never, at any point in time or space, dishonesty. It's in fact the basis for the scientific method, and the basis for laws against libel and slander. Throwing personal attacks like yours, however, particularly while intentionally turning a blind eye to the lack of substance or support of a few claims based on a conspiracy theory, speaks volumes about you.

nobrains 7y ago

A vaccine dose proactively creates memory cells (memory B cells) in the body, which allow the body to IMMEDIATELY create fighter cells (plasma cells) when the body is infected with the actual virus, thus stopping it in its tracks. Without vaccine, when virus infects, the body takes times to learn the virus and create the memory cells and fighter cells, and hence the infection gets worse. The weapons the fighter cells use are antibodies. In this case, the discovery has directly produced antibodies, which are helpful in fighting the virus (but cannot be used to proactively create memory cells). Antibodies have the advantage that they don't trigger the body's immune system, which means less issues to deal with. Hope this (and other efforts being done) pass testing and get in the field as soon as possible.

shawnz 7y ago
Does this mean someone treated with antibodies won't be immune to the virus in future?
- sudhirj 7y ago
  Sounds like it. This is not a vaccination. It may be possible that while these antibodies are working the body might also “learn” the virus, thus providing immunity, but that would be a side effect of the infection.
  - nullc 7y ago
    For other coronaviruses that infect humans there the adaptive immune response isn't particularly strong and doesn't last. E.g. immunity to HCoV-OC43 lasts no more than about 12 months. This is a reason to suspect that a vaccine may not be easily developed; so antibody therapy (and/or anti-virals) might be the best we can do. If the antibody therapy was highly effective and could be produced at scale for a tolerable cost, it would probably be a pretty effective tool. Though monoclonal antibodies aren't known for being particularly affordable.
- rleigh 7y ago
  It's likely. The body will be less likely to have undergone the immune response to generate antibodies of its own. Additionally, as the immune response develops, the antibody affinity to its target is refined through a process called "affinity maturation", so any antibodies which are produced might not have high affinity and hence result in a weaker immune response. Treatment with antibodies might be useful as an immediate fix, but vaccination or infection and the development of a proper immune response is the long term requirement for resistance.

boshomi 7y ago

bioRxive link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1.full.pdf+html https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.11.987958v1....

ignoramous 7y ago
r/covid19 link: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fietp4/dutch_erasmus_mc_finds_anti_body_research_is_up/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fietp4/dutch_erasm... A commentor posted English translation: 'Erasmus MC and Utrecht University find antibody against corona' A group of ten scientists from the Erasmus Medical Center and Utrecht University say they have found an antibody against the coronavirus, reports Erasmus Magazine. "To our knowledge, this is the very first antibody that we know blocks the infection and there is a good chance that it will also become a drug on the market," said Professor of Cell Biology Frank Grosveld. It has yet to be tested on humans, which takes months. The publication about the find is at the discretion of colleagues, after which it may be published in the leading trade journal Nature. "Prevention is better than cure, of course," says Grosveld. "A real solution is therefore a vaccine, others are working on that. However, developing a vaccine takes two years."

blueboo 7y ago

Let's say we discovered a cure. For simplicity's sake, this is a hypothetical vaccine that instantly destroys the infection. How long would it take for such a product to go from the lab to application in the general population?--what are the key variables that factor into such an estimate? Is there some expedited process in the case of a pandemic?

_ph_ 7y ago
This depends whether it is a "cure", that is a medicine to be given to the people who are sick, or a vaccine, which is given to the general (healthy) population. For a medicine, a lot of the red tape can be cut, as you might test it on otherwise hopeless cases. There is a limited risk associated (that one person might die) and the results in the case it works are also easy to monitor. With vaccines, things become complicated. - vaccines are given to healthy population, and to large parts of the population. So they need to be extremely safe, or you end up killing more than the disease would have had. This is obviously not acceptable and extensive safety testing needs to be done. - you need to find out, whether the vaccine works at all. Creating a working vaccine against a virus like corona is very tricky - we don't for example have a working vaccine against the cold. So making sure the vaccine has the intended effect takes a long time, especially, if you consider that all tests have to be done with healthy people. So currently some antiviral medicine is being tested at sick people and some results could be out soon, but for a vaccine, mid-2021 are the most optimistic timelines I heard.

abhiminator 7y ago

This is encouraging, but the key would be pushing this to clinical trials ASAP. Efforts need to be made to drastically trim the time-span it takes for a successfully trialed COVID-19 vaccine to get from laboratories to hospitals and into patient's veins. I'm sure many countries and billion-dollar companies are at it, but making it affordable to people who need it the most is a challenge in itself.

H8crilA 7y ago

The title is silly. Of course antibodies exist against the virus - otherwise the fatality rate would be 100%. You don't just survive an infection, your body creates antibodies, and they stay in your body for a very very long time. That's the whole point of vaccination. Once this blows over I'll go get my blood tested for antibodies for the virus - will be interesting to know if I had it.

guerrilla 7y ago
Deducing that something exists and identifying something are two different activities. The article is about the latter.
rumanator 7y ago
> Of course antibodies exist against the virus - otherwise the fatality rate would be 100%. That was the starting point of the research project. Then, after some work, the team actually managed to identify one, and one that also neutralizes the virus.

Vinnl 7y ago

Note that this is a Dutch news channel, and the article is in Dutch. Usually, when they report on a discovery done by Dutch researchers, it is considered newsworthy because the researchers are Dutch, not because the research itself is particularly noteworthy. So in addition to the usual reservations that one should have when noteworthy discoveries make the news, there's an extra reason not to hold your breath until you see this appear in international publications as well.

dang 7y ago
This comment was about https://nos.nl/l/2327076 https://nos.nl/l/2327076, which was the submitted URL. (A moderator has since changed it.)
Fnoord 7y ago
> Usually, when they report on a discovery done by Dutch researchers, it is considered newsworthy because the researchers are Dutch, not because the research itself is particularly noteworthy. "Usually"? Do you have examples?
- Vinnl 7y ago
  Just consider how many of these articles made international news, even though the research theoretically applies internationally: https://nos.nl/zoeken/?q=%22Nederlandse+onderzoekers%22 https://nos.nl/zoeken/?q=%22Nederlandse+onderzoekers%22
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    That is just a generic search query. I checked the top 10 search results (in two browsers). These were all internationally reported one, even specifically on HN, or they're only locally relevant (such as who in NL won the Spinoza award). Please link some specific examples.
    - Vinnl 7y ago
      Sorry, it's just an observation I've made over time, and I didn't save every example I came across. If you want to see it for yourself, keep it in mind when you come across news about Dutch researchers in Dutch news in the future.