
Coronavirus protein treatment trial 'a breakthrough' - headmelted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53467022
======
topicseed
> The results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor has the
> full data been made available; so the BBC cannot confirm the claims made for
> the treatment.

How are these claims any different than the few other ones heard over the last
few weeks? They always sound incredibly promising..... and then nothing!

Is this different?

edit: typos

~~~
chvid
What is worse this is a public traded company:

[https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=OMY...](https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=OMY:FRA)

Up more than 200% today!!!

~~~
dmix
To be fair the stock wasn't worth much before today... It's far easier to get
big sounding percentages with small numbers.

~~~
system2
Still, if you put 100k, you get 200k back.

~~~
dalore
If you use leverage and take options you can put in 1k and get 200k back.

~~~
im3w1l-alt
A large company is guaranteed to have been analyzed very carefully by skilled
analysts. If you have a small sum to invest, a big risk appetite and you are
willing to do your homework then you are better off trying your luck with
understudied companies in inefficient markets.

It follows from the theory of comparative advantage. The big players can
extract a lot more than you can from big companies but only a little more from
the small ones.

------
twic
Readers may find this brief statistical review useful:

[https://zenodo.org/record/3952241](https://zenodo.org/record/3952241)

------
rich_sasha
This is a big effect size at least, so less likely to be a fluke. Also many
previous results indicate interferons (whatever they are, I don’t actually
know!) are useful. I believe differences in interferon production between
sexes also explain why men get worse Covid. So there is existing background
information that makes it more likely to be true.

Could still be a flop of course...

------
unnouinceput
Quote: "Interferon beta is commonly used in the treatment of multiple
sclerosis."

Now here is my million dollar question. Is there any statistics/data available
to view about COVID infections on those people who already receive Interferon
beta for their sclerosis? Because that right there it would be the telling
sign for this extraordinary claim.

~~~
evansd
Its use in MS involves injecting it into the muscle, whereas this trial was
using nebulisers to deliver it directly to the lungs so I don't think looking
at MS patients would tell us anything useful.

But, as a general point, this is exactly the sort of question people should be
asking about proposed treatments, as we've done recently for inhaled
corticosteroids:
[https://twitter.com/OpenSafely/status/1277989037446438912](https://twitter.com/OpenSafely/status/1277989037446438912)

------
irjustin
For a quick synopsis of other treatments, NYTimes has a helpful page:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-
drugs-treatments.html)

------
nicktelford
I was curious about how administering a cytokine could improve survival,
especially since there's evidence of cytokine storm in severe cases.

A cursory look on wikipedia[1]:

> Since there is evidence that insufficient production of interferon beta-1a
> in lung cells in older people can lead to their increased susceptibility to
> respiratory viral infections such as SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, replenishing
> the deficiency of this interferon can protect against the dire effects of
> these diseases. Company Synairgen began clinical tests of SNG001, a special
> inhalation formulation of interferon beta-1a in patients with COVID-19

So it sounds like this treatment (assuming it is effective) would only be
especially effective in older people (or younger people with some kind of
Interferon beta-1-a deficiency I guess), and only if administered relatively
early in the course of the disease - i.e. before development of pneumonia.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferon_beta-1a#Clinical_tr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferon_beta-1a#Clinical_trials)

~~~
cytowhatever
_Cytokine_ just means ‘cell signalling molecule’.

The word doesn’t tell us anything, or anything much at all, about what those
cell signalling molecules do, where they came from, nor what their target /
recipients are.

Source: studied a bit of anatomy and physiology & pathophysiology along the
way.

From Wikipedia: _The word comes from Greek: cyto, from Greek "κύτος" kytos
"cavity, cell" \+ kines, from Greek "κίνησις" kinēsis "movement"._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine)

------
pvsukale3
Link to company announcement: [https://www.synairgen.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/200720-...](https://www.synairgen.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/200720-Synairgen-announces-positive-results-from-
trial-of-SNG001-in-hospitalised-COVID-19-patients.pdf)

------
phtrivier
I don't really understand the requirement for public-traded companies to make
the results of such preliminary tests "public" _before_ publishing them in
peer-reviewed journals.

Doesn't that sound a bit backward ? As in, the company is incentivized to
disclose very optimistic preliminary results, so that it appears in the BBC
newssite, and make it's share price go up ; and then, much later, to submit an
article in much more obscure academic journal where all the buzz will be toned
down, hopping that Joe-The-Trader does not notice ?

(Honestly curious, I'm not familiar with the legislation here.)

~~~
LatteLazy
If you submit something for peer review, by definition it has to go to a wider
audience, it has to go to people who may share it with others, it has to leave
the companies control etc. You generally don't even get to know who it goes
to, let alone force NDAs on them. At that point you cannot hope to keep it
private. So what you're doing is releasing price-sensitive information, but
only to a select few (reviewers, their teams, journal admin staff, printers
etc). That's unfair as they may well trade on the information defrauding
others.

So you have to release it to everyone to be fair.

But you put a disclaimer on it to say its "not peer reviewed, preliminary
etc".

Then if an expert wants to trade on it, they can and they're not left out just
for not being part of the peer review circuit. And if an idiot doesn't read
the disclaimer, that's his problem.

I agree that we get 1000s of dumb articles from hacks based on a non-peer-
reviewed, "we're only releasing this statement because we're required to"
data. But the issue there is journalists being lazy, editors refusing to do
their jobs and readers rewarding them IMHO, not too much transparency. At
least that's what I thought before people started drinking pool cleaner...

~~~
phtrivier
Oh, thanks, of course, I forgot about the insider's knowledge fraud. That
makes sense.

~~~
LatteLazy
No worries, it is a bit obscure...

------
cameldrv
There was another RCT about six weeks ago released that showed that a
combination of Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Ribavirin, and Interferon Beta 1a beat
just Lopinavir/Ritonavir in time to PCR negative (7 days vs. 12 days).
Presumably this was either due to the Interferon or the Ribavirin.

[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)31042-4/fulltext)

------
gertrunde
Original press release:

[https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-
article/tidm/headli...](https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-
article/tidm/headline/14620519)

(Has more details/statistics etc)

~~~
system2
It is so strange to see covid19 news coming from stock exchange websites.

~~~
abalashov
Da, welcome to kapitalism, komrade. :/ There is a not-insignificant number of
people who view such developments primarily or exclusively through the prism
of financial returns.

------
Havoc
Stats sound promising. Let’s hope they hold up to scrutiny

------
nkingsy
I learned last night that the US has been buying up all the worlds supply of
various promising medicines in an historic effort to fast track a cure for the
US population, at the expense of everyone else.

It now looks like there’s a decent chance a vaccine could be available to
Americans before the election. Very surprised I haven’t heard more about that
as the lack of coverage could help make it into a real silver bullet for
Trump’s re-election if it happens.

Edit: this effort is called “OWS”

~~~
salmon30salmon
That is Operation Warp Speed[1] and it is a very large investment by the US
Government to find a vaccine. You should be thankful that the United States
has the money to invest in this global research, instead of spreading FUD that
the USA is blocking others from getting treatment. In fact, the Oxford trial
that was announced today was heavily funded by this program, with the NHS
being some of the first to be vaccinated if the treatment is approved. How
dare the USA help the NHS, amirite?

Seriously, would you rather the USA didn't make this investment? What is your
optimal outcome here?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed)

~~~
nkingsy
I assume you’re responding to “at the expense of”. My understanding is that
the US bought almost the whole global supply of remdesivir, among other
things, which will make it harder for other entities searching for a
vaccine/treatment to operate. OWS is targeting producing 300 million vaccines
as quickly as possible, which seems very “America first”.

I don’t really place a value judgement on it, but I stand by the statement. I
find it strange I haven’t heard more about this, only that trump is “ignoring”
COVID. I was pointing out that this narrative will really backfire if OWS
produces a viable vaccine before the election.

~~~
salmon30salmon
To be fair, Remdesivir is an under-patent medicine designed by an American
company, it isn't all that outlandish that the USA would procure as much as
possible. The "among other things" is doing a _lot_ of heavy lifting in your
statement. I do not see any evidence that the USA bought anything that would
limit the ability for other countries to develop a vaccine. Only to use
Remdesivir as a treatment. Which, I can see both sides of that really.

I also don't have a problem with the USA targeting 300 mil doses through OWS.
They simply mean they will buy that many, not that other countries can't buy
more etc. As I said, the leading vaccine right now is from a British
university and a Swedish/British company funded by the USA (in part). I think
it is totally fair for the USA to make a large investment and "pre-order" 300
million doses. If they were ordering 600 million doses and demanding that the
patent be transferred to a US company, that would be shady.

But yeah, OWS is certainly part of Trump's re-election campaign. I despise
Trump, and I hope OWS is successful well before November. If it gets him re-
elected so be it. People are dying.

