advertisement
Supported by
Speed and scale can be more than absolute effectiveness in tests, masks, remedies and vaccines.
By Joshua T. Schiffer
Dr. Schiffer is an infection specialist.
It is a fundamental intuition of clinicians and researchers of infectious diseases to seek and prescribe prophylactic or remedies that are almost guaranteed to gain advantages for patients who entrust us with their care.
With Covid-19, this can be counterproductive.
The new coronavirus crosses populations too temporarily and unpredictably, so we can wait to fight it until we have found near-perfect solutions. The widespread implementation of imperfect prevention measures, treatments and vaccines would possibly be the fastest way to reach the crisis.
Even communities in the United States that oppose the virus relatively well today are still dangerously close to a turning point: infection rates and deaths can rise suddenly, as they did in several states this summer, but there are also others imaginable. turning point in the other direction.
With more complete use of prevention and remedy strategies, even in effective moderation, cases of infection and death can simply be minimized, especially within a few weeks. Then it would be safer to reopen schools and alleviate physical distance restrictions.
There are potential benefits of affordable paper strip testing for coronavirus infections, even if they are less accurate than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which can test positive for small amounts of viruses or long after a person has done so. ceased to be contagious. Paper tests have a fast response time; if implemented broadly and frequently, they can be an effective tool for the first stumble.
And a simple, imperfect measure that has already saved many lives: the mask.
A mask, especially in tissue, is a primitive block opposed to virus breathing, and in terms of effectiveness, it is probably pale compared to condom, the popular gold of barriers to save you from infectious diseases. the individual point, especially in the genuine world, where use is intermittent and imperfect, and where other people wear types of masks, is a diabolical challenge.
But based on mathematical models, my organization of studies discovered, as described in a recent prepress (an article that has not yet been peer-reviewed), that a mask that is used through an inflamed user that filters only 50% of the virus that the user exhales Decrease the possibility of transmitting the virus to another person between 10 and 60% (depending on the amount of viruses carried by the inflamed user at that time). When an inflamed user and some other user are masked, the transmission threat decreases from 40 to 80%.
According to our model, even when masking doesn’t prevent others from becoming infected, it decreases the amount of virus they’ve been exposed to about 10 times, which in turn can restrict the likelihood of them spreading a serious illness. . form of Covid-19.
When these effects extend to the entire population, the overall effect on can be profound and, when implemented with other measures, can mean the difference between the number of cases that are suddenly triggered and the suppression of a local epidemic. Since the spread of occasions seems to be the main cause of the pandemic, even slightly greater masking practices in others who cannot avoid conditions that encourage groups of epidemics, such as prolonged time in crowded and poorly ventilated environments, can simply bring massive benefits.
Marginal innovations in the effectiveness of the mask itself can also particularly reduce the number of new cases. Substantial investments must be made in the design of more protective and comfortable masks, and their commercialization with labels describing their coverage point and the most productive way to use. Them.
Similarly, the widespread deployment of even partially effective treatment can put the United States in a much safer position.
One of the genuine reactions of our reaction to the pandemic has been slow progression or antiviral testing, drugs designed to prevent a virus from infecting our cells or restricting harmful degrees of inflammation. Only a small minority of other international inflamed people have participated in clinical trials to date, and many of them had already experienced severe symptoms when they enrolled.
In a primary review of remdesivir, which paralyzes the enzymes that viruses want to replicate, the drug shortened the duration of Covid-19 symptoms in hospitalized patients in approximately 4 days. Another examination of the effects of dexamethasone, a non-unusual steroid, showed a slight minimize mortality. But with any of these drugs, studies have estimated that only one in 20 people who have won the remedy would be saved from death.
This is no wonder. A severe case of Covid-19 is similar to an out-of-control forest chimney. Many of the lungs and vascular tissues are inflamed; Damage occurs in several organs. Treatment is more likely to succeed when it is in the early stages of infection, when the fireplace is small and localized. This is the case with viruses such as influenza, Ebola, shingles and HIV.
Starting treatment as soon as the first symptoms of Covid-19 appear, it would not only help save your death; you can also reduce the rate of hospitalization by reducing some of the burden on emergency departments and extensive care units.
Several trials are currently underway to examine the early remedy of Covid-19 with antivirals, or reused drugs commonly used for other diseases, or antibodies opposed to this coronavirus that have been mass-designed and produced; however, it is not known whether these studies can be completed temporarily enough to particularly reduce hospitalization or death rates before a vaccine develops and spreads widely.
This is partly because control drugs are sometimes evaluated on the basis that hospitalizations decrease, but hospitalization rates may not be the only or most productive criterion for comparing clinical trials, not when time runs out. -19 patients affected in early U. S. remedy trials tended to be less than 5%, meaning that an examination that hopes to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between a drug and a placebo requires the participation of more than 1,000 people.
Other parameters may be explained in addition to decreased hospitalization rates for comparing trials; One of them might be if certain medications decrease the duration of patients’ symptoms. These criteria would allow rigorous but much faster tests involving, for example, fewer than one hundred participants. Smaller, more agile studies would also help compare more promising drugs. , all with a view to bringing effective medicines to market as temporarily as possible.
The ultimate domain in which the pursuit of perfection can be at the expense of the usual smart ones is the development, evaluation and approval of vaccines.
As with antiviral therapies, a vaccine will not be distributed to the public without its protection and efficacy first demonstrated in randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials, but the question is how we decided to describe effectiveness.
The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has not been able to do so. But it’s not the first time It sometimes approves vaccines that are at least 50% effective at saving the disease, but even a vaccine that is less effective than that can particularly decrease the number of cases of coronavirus infection and Covid-19-related deaths. if it were temporarily deployed and administered to the fullest first, it would likely inflame or infect others. As others have argued, vaccines don’t just save you a disease; can save you the pathogen that causes its transmission.
Mass vaccination systems gain benefits not only for vaccinated people, but also for everyone else, as they are less likely to come into contact with an inflamed person. For example, widespread inoculation of young people in the United States with an pneumococcal vaccine, which is not unusual. cause of pneumonia, has been shown to reduce deaths and hospitalizations due to the disease in adults.
Similarly, some of the others are at peak risk of severe cases of Covid-19 (the elderly, other immunocompromised people) may not respond adequately to a vaccine, but they may also be through a single woman if sufficient. proportion of the total population was inoculated.
And even a vaccine that is not opposed to Covid-19 can be very useful if it causes receptors to bring less coronavirus and are therefore presumably less contagious.
The potentially enormous benefits of implementing temporary low-sensitivity tests that are increasingly identified as a viable avenue for, for example, the reopening of school campuses and professional sports leagues. If, over the next six months, we can also make small iterative gains with masking and modestly effective treatments and vaccines, then the worst of the pandemic would possibly soon be left behind. For this to happen, however, we will have to avoid the temptation to look for the best solutions.
Dr. Joshua T. Schiffer is an associate professor in the Division of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington at Seattle.
The Times is committed to publishing one of the letters to the publisher. We would like to know what you think of this article or one of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: lettres@nytimes. com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion segment on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
advertisement