Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ebola Is Now Curable

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#21

Post by _Nat_ »

nsxwolf wrote: post #11
throwaway5752 wrote: post #5

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 rest…

Article says 6% unless I'm misunderstanding something.

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.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#22

Post by DoreenMichele »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #5

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 rest…

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.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#23

Post by duskwuff »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #12

I want to know how long it will take for Ebola to evolve a resistance to this therapy.

This therapy is intended for use in an intensive care environment. If the patient is able to pass on their infection in that environment, something is very wrong.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#24

Post by _Nat_ »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #12

I want to know how long it will take for Ebola to evolve a resistance to this therapy.

Viruses tend to evolve pretty quickly. In fact, Ebola's already not just one strain, so differing Ebola strains are likely more prone to different versions of this treatment.

In practice, it'll probably work out to be sorta like the issue with flu vaccinations, where health organizations will have to predict which strains are likely to be out there and then prepare accordingly.

Still, even if Ebola somehow rapidly evolved to completely ward off the current treatments, it's moreso the technology that created these treatments that's a breakthrough. So, if Ebola adapts, presumably they'd just update the treatments.

That said, the current treatments probably aren't very optimized yet, either. These are early successes; future results seem liable to be much better.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#25

Post by worldsayshi »

mars4rp wrote: post #15
Medicalidiot wrote: post #12

I want to know how long it will take for Ebola to evolve a resistance to this therapy.

How you would know that? You only could know after it happened. Evolution is random.

Well, going out on a limb here, there should still be some way to give a statistical apprehension of how likely such mutation could be over time. But I'm not aware if there's any feasibility of doing that today.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#26

Post by baxtr »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #22
throwaway5752 wrote: post #5

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 rest…

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…

Puh. The photos are really disturbing. I really recommend anyone not to do what I just did...

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#27

Post by xkcd-sucks »

pkaye wrote: post #3

Aren't monoclonal antibodies harder and thus more expensive to manufacturer though?

The only reason they need to be monoclonal is for drug safety regulations. It's easier to estimate efficacy with a drug of known composition, and safety is much easier too because immune responses to different proteins are tricky to predict.

With a polyclonal, manufacturers would need to prove safety on every single antibody and guarantee composition of the mixture.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#28

Post by xkcd-sucks »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #22
throwaway5752 wrote: post #5

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 rest…

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…

Unpacking the name totally is even more brutal!

"necro" -- "death"

"lysis" -- "busting open"

"epidermal" -- "skin"

"syndrome" -- "no known cause"

However, it's a little unclear why TEN is a point of comparison to Ebola, as one is a transmissible disease and one is something that happens to unlucky people typically in response to common small-molecule drugs. I guess TEN sounds like a probable side effect of antiviral immune therapy, but it's not mentioned in the article. And it seems a little tricky to separate the side effects from the disease when dealing with hemorrhagic diseases in particular

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#29

Post by dankohn1 »

There is no news I enjoy reading more than that a clinical trial had to be ended early because the treatment was so effective that it would be unethical to continue with alternative treatments (or a placebo).

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#30

Post by lonelappde »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #28
DoreenMichele wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unpacking the name totally is even more brutal! "necro" -- "death" "lysis" -- "busting open" "epidermal" -- "skin" "syndrome" -- "no known cause" However, it's a little unclear why TEN is a point of comparison to Ebola, as one is a transmissible disease and one is something that happens to unlucky people typically in response to common small-molecule drugs. I guess TEN sounds like a probable side effect of antiviral…

The comparison is to show that even in technologically advanced societies, there are diseases with 30% survival rates.
Post reply on HN