Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Government United States

US Secures World Stock of Key COVID-19 Drug Remdesivir (theguardian.com) 391

The U.S. has bought up virtually all the stocks of remdesivir, perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat COVID-19. The Guardian reports: Remdesivir, the first drug approved by licensing authorities in the U.S. to treat Covid-19, is made by Gilead and has been shown to help people recover faster from the disease. The first 140,000 doses, supplied to drug trials around the world, have been used up. The Trump administration has now bought more than 500,000 doses, which is all of Gilead's production for July and 90% of August and September. "President Trump has struck an amazing deal to ensure Americans have access to the first authorised therapeutic for Covid-19," said the U.S. health and human services secretary, Alex Azar. "To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. The Trump administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for Covid-19 and secure access to these options for the American people."

The drug, which was trialled in the Ebola epidemic but failed to work as expected, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it. The cost is around $3,200 per treatment of six doses, according to the US government statement. The deal was announced as it became clear that the pandemic in the U.S. is spiralling out of control. Anthony Fauci, the country's leading public health expert and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Senate the U.S. was sliding backwards.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Secures World Stock of Key COVID-19 Drug Remdesivir

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:05AM (#60252994) Homepage

    I wonder if Orange Man has shares in this company?

    (quick google)

    Why yes. Yes, he does.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Confirmed [fool.com], worth six figures back in 2016. Wonder what they're worth now.

      • by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
        Rich people have investments in everything news at 11.
      • Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rally2xs ( 1093023 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @05:09AM (#60253330)

        Say, if he has stock in this drug company, then why was he promoting the 6 cents per pill hydroxychloroquine? The president's critics seldom make sense, and this is one of those times. Just amazing... people say whatever occurs to them, without regard to facts or even if it makes sense.

      • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by azcoyote ( 1101073 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @05:40AM (#60253428)
        Now I am not an accountant, but there's two things that make me question the narrative that he is merely profiteering here. First, it sounds like his stock in Gilead is held through an investment firm, so he probably does not directly choose the specific investments. It says something that the same article makes a big deal of "between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Monsanto." That's a small amount for someone like Trump, and whether people dislike it or not, it was a major company with plenty of investors. Secondly, this article is suspicious of Trump's stock in Gilead because of its controversial overpricing of two Hepatitis C drugs, which reduces access to those in need. However, a different page [equitashealth.com] says that since Trump came into office his administration has actually sued Gilead because of its similar overpricing of two HIV drugs. (This lawsuit was possible because of some patents owned by the U.S. government.) I'm not saying that he isn't profiting, but this is hardly conclusive proof that Trump's first motive is money. In fact, it seems more likely that his first motive is re-election.
        • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Thursday July 02, 2020 @07:07AM (#60253564) Homepage

          While I tend to think (and truly hope) you are correct, this underscores the biggest issue with Trump. The fact he refused to divest himself from his companies and assets leads to legitimate speculation about things like this. We didn't worry about this with other presidents because their assets were all in a blind trust so they didn't know exactly what was in there. Since Trump refused to do this and refused to divest himself from his companies, even if he is acting in good faith (which I am not saying he is doing) there will be questions about it because he very well could be acting in bad faith. By him keeping everything, it leads to these exact questions about whether the president is doing things for the country or only for himself, which leads to division and lack of faith in the administration.

          • Obama did not use a blind trust, clinton used a blind trust that they had knowledge about the contents and at various times sold stock holdings that they thought would be a political disadvantage, Both Bushs did use them.
    • well that explains why he was happy to pay 30000% the cost of making it per dose.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Remember when we ordered all those masks from the person who never made masks Or the all the stock of malaria drugs that actually killed the veterans it was tested on. Not saying we have a pig in poke, just that it is early days for this drug. The best we can say is it takes four days off recovery. Time will tell if those four days are worth the side effects.
    • Trump declared his confidence in HCQ before this. If HCQ works there is little - or at least less - reason to use the much more expensive Remdesivir.
      It's a stupid hypothesis. This decision is not guided by Trump thinking 'what are my Gilead shares telling me'.

    • by Dr. Tom ( 23206 )
      Huh. It's illegal for federal employees to own stock in companies for which the employee knows they have a financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter

      https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/E4B0AAE5BC3A3FDF852582B40061FDA6/$FILE/Assets.pdf

      Huh. A federal employee involved in funding decisions for a company, who also owns stock in that company, can _go_to_jail_. Such ethics violations are covered under the criminal code.
    • Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @09:46AM (#60254020) Journal
      Do you own an S&P 500 index fund? Congratulations! You're an owner of Gilead [gilead.com], too!
  • Open it up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Orlando ( 12257 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:13AM (#60253012) Homepage

    If the drug is actually effective how about Gilead opens it up to other companies to manufacture as well? Or the Government forces them to. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

    • Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

      What does that have to do with anything?

    • Perhaps all the companies whose drugs are currently being trialed as potential COVID-19 treatments should cross-license the rights to produce all the drugs to each other.

    • ... be the right thing to do?

      US government ensures the 'haves' dictate economic policy to the rest of the planet and have political power plus the 'have-nots' haven't political power.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      If the drug is actually effective how about Gilead opens it up to other companies to manufacture as well? Or the Government forces them to. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

      Not fast enough. Should there actually be a long-term demand higher than capacity for this stuff, this will happen. But making pharmaceuticals is nothing you can set up in a few days or weeks. Remember that quality problems may well maim or kill here and open the manufacturer up to liability and loss of reputation.

    • Re:Open it up (Score:5, Informative)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:38AM (#60253070)

      If the drug is actually effective how about Gilead opens it up to other companies to manufacture as well? Or the Government forces them to. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

      Many countries have laws that if the company refuses, they can force licensing of the patent, if not just ignore it altogether. Which means if it proves useful, it's only really a decree away from being made by the generics.

      So the US may have bought up the supply, but if it proves highly useful many countries could simply ignore the patent and manufacture it under public health exemptions.

      It's also silly, since it's made in Canada and packaged in the US, and the US-Canada border is currently closed. So politics can come into play by simply blocking the export of the raw drug to the US packaging facility too.

      Then again, it's fairly expensive - $390/vial, with a recommended course of 6 vials over 4 days so a course of treatment is nearly $2400, so 500k doses ...

      • Re:Open it up (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:45AM (#60253080) Homepage
        The real question to ask is why the US suddenly feels it needs to lock in 500k courses of an expensive drug that is only really applicable to people in critical care? Oh, sure, there needs to be a float, but wasn't Trump bragging about being able to get the Federal stock of ventilators anywhere they were needed at the drop of a hat a few weeks back? Surely they could do that for vials of medicine too?

        Not only does this send a lousy international political message (panders to his "US first" base though, which is the point), that may well see the US at the back of the queue if a vaccine is developed elsewhere, but if you're reading between the lines it's also a good indication of just how bad the White House believes things are going to get, regardless of what they are saying in public.
        • Re: Open it up (Score:5, Insightful)

          by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @03:15AM (#60253118) Homepage

          The real question to ask is why the US suddenly feels it needs to lock in 500k courses of an expensive drug that is only really applicable to people in critical care?

          According to the article it's 500k doses, not courses. At 6 doses per patient that's about 83k courses, which is on the low side given that the US has already had in excess of 100k deaths.

        • Cronyism. Don't make the mistake of thinking the USA government suddenly gives a shit about COVID-19.

        • The real question to ask is why the US suddenly feels it needs to lock in 500k courses of an expensive drug that is only really applicable to people in critical care?

          For the same reason people panic-hoarded toilet paper when all this started instead of just buying as much as they need?

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Can someone explain who pays for this medication? Say you get COVID-19 and are also unemployed, no healthcare, can you get it?

        • How much is your life worth to you? Surely you can figure something out, and if not that’s what credit reports are for.
        • Can someone explain who pays for this medication? Say you get COVID-19 and are also unemployed, no healthcare, can you get it?

          If you're unemployed, you should be able to sign up for medicaid, which would pay for it.

          The healthcare problem in the USA for provisioning is basically a "doughnut hole" problem.

          If you have BELOW a certain income, you can get "free" healthcare from the government.
          If you're ABOVE a different, higher, income, you can afford to buy insurance without any real problems.

          The problem exists for those that are between the two, especially just above the cutoff for medicaid or fully subsidized plans from the exchange

    • If there is an emergency, it is accepted that the drug can be manufactured bypassing patent. The W.H.O. support that and , IIRC, India has used it already back decades ago to manufacture H.I.V. anti virals. Heck back in April tehre was a law about emergency drug treatment for Covid 19 in Germany by passing patent.
      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Yeah. There may be subsequent payments for a backdated licence, but Governments are going to manufacture a life saving drug if they have to.

    • There is as much proof of Remdesivir working as there is of HCQ working. There is no decisive proof pro or against for either.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There are several studies now showing that Remdesivir works well at speeding up the recovery from Covid 19 by a few days.

        On the one hand, this is good - in a second spike situation (alternatively, USA Plan A Extended First Spike) you can get people out of the way quicker and thus increase the number of people you can care for. Also in private healthcare nations, $4k for medication is cheaper than 4 days healthcare.

        But it also doesn't help with death rates, or bad cases. It simply speeds up recovery.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by rally2xs ( 1093023 )

        Hmmmm... no proof of HCQ working.

        Note here:

        https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]

        that India has a "deaths per million" rate of 13, while the same website shows the USA as having a deaths per million rate of 395.

        See here:

        https://medicalxpress.com/news... [medicalxpress.com]

        that India like HCQ and see here:

        https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]

        that India is doubling down on the drug.

        The Indians have been gulping this stuff like tic-tacs, and their rank in Deaths per million amongst all nations is 103rd. The USA's rank in deaths per milli

        • unless you believe in ridiculous coincidence that something else is saving Indians from the virus

          Phaal curry. That stuff is spicy enough to burn ANY infection to a crispy cinder!

    • If you mean the government to incentivise the patent owner to allow others to manufacture under license (and pay royalties of course), then absolutely the right thing.

      If you mean the government to allow other companies to copy the drug and ignore the patent, a really bad and shortsighted idea. Forget the short term effects of the government stealing intellectual property, but even assuming they can assert their iron fist and squash any legal challenges, no biotech company out there will ever work on any pot

  • Like any ass just thinking of themselves.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @03:22AM (#60253130) Homepage Journal

      It could backfire very badly too. Say the Oxford trial or that Germany company develops a viable vaccine in Europe, or the one in China works out. Countries that just got screwed by the US buying up all the stock are unlikely to be feeling generous towards it now.

    • I'm not one to defend the orange retard, but this is precisely something the government *should* be doing. Ultimately it's in the best interest of a country to put it's people first. I said back when the story broke about the alleged negotiations between Trump and a German vaccine manufacturer. Ironically all the Trump supporters were jumping on the "fake news" bandwagon, which was curious to me since it's the job of the president to put their people first. While it's a dick move to the rest of the world it

  • Costs $10 to make (Score:3, Informative)

    by rminsk ( 831757 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:35AM (#60253066)
    https://icer-review.org/wp-con... [icer-review.org]

    For remdesivir, we used evidence on the cost of producing the next course of therapy from an article by Hill et all in the Journal of Virus Eradication (2020). Their methods sought to determine the “minimum” costs of production by calculating the cost of active pharmaceutical ingredients, which is combined with costs of excipients, formulation, packaging and a small profit margin. Their analysis calculated a total cost of producing the “final finished product” of $9.32 US for a 10-day course of treatment. We rounded that amount up to $10 for a 10-day course. If a 5-day course of treatment becomes a recommended course of therapy, then the marginal cost would accordingly shrink to $5.

    • by ReneR ( 1057034 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:41AM (#60253076)
      The profit on medicine should be regulated. There is a reason drugs and health is so much more affordable in Canada or Europe, ...
      • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @07:43AM (#60253678) Journal

        > The profit on medicine should be regulated.

        Compare the annual net profit in the pharmaceutical industry vs other industries, such as say software development, dentistry, real estate, whatever. You'll find pharmaceuticals make about as money as other businesses, though making medicine isn't in the top 10 most profitable industries.

        How can that be so and why, when you hear the marginal cost of producing another dose?

        Mostly, 88% of drugs that get researched and developed to the point of trials don't get approved an generate zero revenue. Meaning Gillead has to spend a couple billion dollars to work o with ten different medications in order to have one that they can sell at all.

        https://www.policymed.com/2014... [policymed.com]

        The one medication that makes it has to pay for the nine that didn't, or the company is out of business and we have no medicine.

        I said the profit is regulated. How so?
        Suppose a world existed in which auto industry has a profit of about 5%, entertainment 6%, pharmaceuticals 55%. You're Warren Buffet or Michael Bloomberg or Rene R. Would you invest your money in a new car company, a new entertainment company, or a new pharmaceutical company? If pharmaceuticals would earn you ten times as much, which would you invest in?

        Obviously if pharmaceutical companies made a lot more money, everyone would invest in making new pharmaceutical companies! When we had 50,000 new pharmaceutical companies competing, what do you think that would do to profit margins, if there 50,000 new competitors?

        Self-interest ensures that the profitability of particular types of companies is never much higher than any other type. Not for long. (After adjusting for risk, you'd probably choose a guaranteed 5% profit over an unlikely possibility of making 15%, but probably losing all of your money).

        Self-interest, investor "greed" regulates profits in an industry. Because if pharmaceutical companies made a ton of profit, investors would keep making more pharmaceutical companies, until there were more companies than there are people.

        > There is a reason drugs and health is so much more affordable in Canada or Europe, ...

        Drugs cost less essentially because Canada gets the US leftovers - they don't develop new medicines. The US develops new medicines and pays the cost of doing so.

        Health care arguably costs more in Canada. Calling your health insurance bill a tax doesn't make it dissappear. Then you get to wait six weeks to see a specialist whom you could see the next day in the US.

    • by LubosD ( 909058 )

      But you're forgetting the cost of development and testing.

    • Re:Costs $10 to make (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @03:43AM (#60253176) Homepage Journal
      As part of Medicare Part D, which covered drugs for welfare recipients, Bush gave a sweetheart deal to the drug pushers. The US government cannot negotiate price. We the taxpayer have to pay list for the welfare drug habit
  • by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @02:54AM (#60253088)

    Gilead gave a free license to 5 Indian companies to make a Generic copy 2 months back and the first batch of 40000 vials just got delivered to Indian hospitals this week. till now they have been using the doses donated by Gilead. Out of the million doses Gilead donated, 750K went to countries around the world. US, Mexcio and Brazil are probably the only ones running out of RDV at this point. The Indian companies are authorized to sell the generic in 127 poorer countries while Gilead supplies the 80 richer ones. The copy made by the Indian companies are 80 dollars a vial. If richer countries run out of the donated doses and the Gilead suppply is hogged by US, they will get it from India.

  • If this drug was working, then any western country could say "f*** that, we make it ourselves". What is Gilead going to do? Black lives, white lives, and all other lives matter more than company profits.
    • by LubosD ( 909058 )

      But if you do ignore the patents, who will invest in developing the next important drug, knowing others will just steal the tech from them?

      • As long as the pharma companies have a fair pricing instead of raising prices when a drug becomes more popular then they should be fine. Extortionists as Mylan (EpiPen), Abbot (Norvir), Gilead (sofosbuvir) should be stopped from taking unfair advantage of their position.
        • by LubosD ( 909058 )

          Raising the price if demand far exceeds production capacities is a natural thing happening with everything on the free market. It is beneficial, because it motivates other companies to join the race in developing alternatives.

      • by U0K ( 6195040 )
        Although of course it makes a valid point somewhere, since infringing on patents and copyrights does harm, the Chinese economy has been doing this to innovations from the West for decades now. Innovation still happens here in the West and it's still thriving.

        So that makes the argument sound a lot like a fallacious slippery slope. A slippery slope is not a good argument on a basis of "what if" followed by a string other "what if also". It's only valid if one step inevitably leads to the next.

        On top of tha
        • by LubosD ( 909058 )

          Yes, the Chinese steal foreign innovations, but they cannot sell copied products on western markets, so it's not a good example.

          • by U0K ( 6195040 )
            They can and they do.
            While there are also counterfeit products which will be sanctioned if found out in our markets, it's not those that I'm talking about here.

            It often went the way that some product researched and developed in the West was manufactured at some point in China because it's cheap to manufacture there. Then the contract and license to manufacture the genuine product on the side of the Chinese might run out, but they get to keep the manufacturing equipment and knowledge of how to do it. Then
  • IP Laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by npcole ( 251514 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @03:45AM (#60253178)

    Actions like this make one seriously consider whether products like this should be protected by IP laws in the way that they are -- and whether public funding for research and development should be twinned with a lack of IP protection.

  • They probably need it the most considering the gross mismanagement.

  • Looking at the alarming US numbers (50,000 cases per day), they'll need much more than 500,000 doses. Although remdesivir is probably most used in severe cases.
  • by Ilona_ ( 6941736 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @04:01AM (#60253224)
    Secures the world stock? Rather "US continues on isolationist path by outbidding any other country for a drug that could save lived everywhere. The country makes little to no efforts to keep the spread of covid-19 under control, or at least clearly fails to keep the pandemic under control, and will now use up all the drugs that can save the lives of people in countries doing a good job." Not being able to play fair with the other children in the class is seen as very negative behaviour anywhere in the world.
  • by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @04:12AM (#60253238) Homepage

    And now, after being paid $70 million [citizen.org] to develop remdesivir, Gilead want $3200 for six doses?

    Hoarding like this is ultimately self-defeating [theconversation.com], because if the rest of the world is deprived of treatment then they'll just continually reinfect the hoarders anyway.

    Note that the UK is doing it too, with dexamethasone [www.gov.uk].

  • "The drug, which was trialled in the Ebola epidemic but failed to work as expected, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it. "

    They don't give a shit, if they need it they'll make it themselves, just like with all the other drugs before.

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...