I noted a while back that pharmaceutical companies were racing to produce oral antiviral medication for Covid, but it appears Merck is just about to win the race:
How Merck's antiviral pill could change the game for Covid-19, National Geographic.
Merck pill could cut COVID risk in half but won't be a 'miracle' cure for coronavirus, scientists say, abc.net.au.
Merck's trial was stopped early because it was so successful (ethical rules say you can't continue a trial with a group unprotected by placebos when it's clear a drug is effective). There were 8 deaths in the placebo group and none in the medicated group. in the placebo group, 14.1% were hospitalised within the 29 days of the study while the medicatation halved that rate in those taking the medication. Considering that those in both groups were high risk and were all shown by testing to be be Covid-positive (including with Delta and Mu variants) before the trial began, that's not bad. Merck is now applying for emergency use authorisations in the US and around the world.
The benefit of this drug is that it comes in a course of tablets: 4 pills twice a day for 4 days. There is currently no oral antiviral medication for Covid. Patients can be treated at home and that would free up beds in hospitals.. On the other hand, monoclonal antibodies, whilst effective, are administered intravenously and that obviously needs to be done by medical staff.
Of course, it'll earn Merck a pretty packet. The US Govt has already bought courses at US$700 a pop. But the Federal Govt would no doubt put it on the PBS scheme which would reduce its cost to patients and providing it free would be cost-effective when you look at the cost of hospitalising someone for a month or so. Presumably, it might only be available to those who were enrolled in the trial, in other words those who have at least 1 risk factor including being over 60, obese, immunocompromised from other conditions or having underlying heart or pulmonary disease, among others. But I can just imagine the flipside of the argument that the over-60s made that they shouldn't be shut out of Pfizer just because they're over 60: 59 year olds will argue there's no basis for shutting them out if someone just a year older is eligible.
Apparently, monoclonal antibodies are more effective still (85% effective in reducing hospitalisation and death) but cost 3 times more. Does Medicare provide these currently? Can the oral medications be a first line of defence and then monoclonal antibodies might be provided if they fail?
In any event, it would be great if this drug is available to treat patients before the hospitals are overrun.
How Merck's antiviral pill could change the game for Covid-19, National Geographic.
Merck pill could cut COVID risk in half but won't be a 'miracle' cure for coronavirus, scientists say, abc.net.au.
Merck's trial was stopped early because it was so successful (ethical rules say you can't continue a trial with a group unprotected by placebos when it's clear a drug is effective). There were 8 deaths in the placebo group and none in the medicated group. in the placebo group, 14.1% were hospitalised within the 29 days of the study while the medicatation halved that rate in those taking the medication. Considering that those in both groups were high risk and were all shown by testing to be be Covid-positive (including with Delta and Mu variants) before the trial began, that's not bad. Merck is now applying for emergency use authorisations in the US and around the world.
The benefit of this drug is that it comes in a course of tablets: 4 pills twice a day for 4 days. There is currently no oral antiviral medication for Covid. Patients can be treated at home and that would free up beds in hospitals.. On the other hand, monoclonal antibodies, whilst effective, are administered intravenously and that obviously needs to be done by medical staff.
Of course, it'll earn Merck a pretty packet. The US Govt has already bought courses at US$700 a pop. But the Federal Govt would no doubt put it on the PBS scheme which would reduce its cost to patients and providing it free would be cost-effective when you look at the cost of hospitalising someone for a month or so. Presumably, it might only be available to those who were enrolled in the trial, in other words those who have at least 1 risk factor including being over 60, obese, immunocompromised from other conditions or having underlying heart or pulmonary disease, among others. But I can just imagine the flipside of the argument that the over-60s made that they shouldn't be shut out of Pfizer just because they're over 60: 59 year olds will argue there's no basis for shutting them out if someone just a year older is eligible.
Apparently, monoclonal antibodies are more effective still (85% effective in reducing hospitalisation and death) but cost 3 times more. Does Medicare provide these currently? Can the oral medications be a first line of defence and then monoclonal antibodies might be provided if they fail?
In any event, it would be great if this drug is available to treat patients before the hospitals are overrun.