re: Ebola successfully treated with HIV drug

quote:

---

remember reading something a few years ago about HIV drugs working by interfering with cell replication

---

Careful not to lump all HIV drugs together:
Nucleotide/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (like this)- stop DNA replication by being purine/pyridine analogues without a free 3'OH to further the chain. They basically knock off the OHS group and substitute it with other stuff. They've got the most promise in treatment of non-HIV conditions in other people.

non-nRTIs are weird, novel molecules that bind in/near the specific HIV viral polymerase's active site and prevent its action. They probably won't work well outside of HIV

Protease Inhibitors inhibit HIV's protease (unique) which cleaves proteins in certain places, activating them. The virus gets replicated, but it doesn't become "activated"


Fusion inhibitors...eek. Check me on this, but I think they target the CCR5 on T cells (cd4 and 8 both, I think) and prevent entrance into the host cell? If not, ccr5 is a target for future drugs. Basically, some things on human cells bind HIV and let it in. These drugs are supposed to stop that from happening, but it's possible I'm confusing them with another class who's name I don't know.


There's a handful of other novel drugs that fit outside of these classes, including vaccines, but I don't think any have been particularly effective. Probably worth noting that my last serious research in the disease is on the order of 5-6 years or so ago, and I haven't really kept up with the newer, more novel meds.

quote:

---

Saving lives is his focus, not lawyers, which is how it should be.

---

He's got a point. Protocol in novel ways of treating a condition leads to better care and, eventually, more lives saved. It's got nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with the actual power/meaning of the results.

That is awesome

quote:

---

The trial was stopped prematurely, according to prespecified rules,

---

Without the presence of prespecified rules, a trial will continue unless one group benefits while the other has high morbidity/mortality. In other words, the stakes must be high for this consideration. If a trial comparing migraine drug vs placebo totally eliminates migraines in one group and doesn't change them in the other, it's not going to end because migraines don't kill you or alter your life so dramatically that you become bed-ridden.

Also, despite pre-specified requirements being met, there was an all-cause reduction in hospitalization and mortality associated with the drug in the study to which you're referring. The point, again, being if you're giving one group of people sugar, and they're dying while the other group gets medicine and die much less frequently, you stop giving sugar to the first group.

This also occurs in drug v drug v other method analyses like the propafenone arm of the CASH trial.


ETA: the quote above is from a publication concerning trial you mentioned.

Exactly. By the way you had responded earlier, I wasn't clear whether you meant in this case or trials in general. Trials, in general, shutting down because one drug is superior is far from the norm. In this case, if the mortality rate holds the same for about 50 patients, you'll likely see the use of Epivir skyrocket.

Already ordered some to put in the bugout bag. Hahahah

Your tact and information is the best I've read on this board in about a year

Too soon. Let more of those maggots perish first.

quote:

---

frick off you POS. I work in West Africa.

---

You're not there now, are u. You work all over, so what.

quote:

---

There's a good chance my company will be moving me there as a resident soon. So I'd like to see this outbreak under wraps. I'm working/living in a border country right now. I'm sure it won't be long before it hops the border.

It's also made my job astronomically more difficult.

---

Well first of all my post was tongue-in-cheek. Secondly, I obviously wasn't talking about you.

Be safe.