Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine United Kingdom Science

First Pill To Treat Covid Gets Approval in UK (bbc.com) 92

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
The first pill designed to treat symptomatic Covid has been approved by the UK medicines regulator. From a report: The tablet -- molnupiravir -- will be given twice a day to vulnerable patients recently diagnosed with the disease. In clinical trials the pill, originally developed to treat flu, cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about half. Health Secretary Sajid Javid said the treatment was a "gamechanger" for the most frail and immunosuppressed. In a statement he said: "Today is a historic day for our country, as the UK is now the first country in the world to approve an antiviral that can be taken at home for Covid."

Molnupiravir, developed by the US drug companies Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is the first antiviral medication for Covid which can be taken as a pill rather than injected or given intravenously. The UK has agreed to purchase 480,000 courses with the first deliveries expected in November. Initially it will be given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients through a national study, with extra data on its effectiveness collected before any decision to order more. The drug needs to be given within five days of symptoms developing to be most effective. It's not immediately clear how it will be distributed so quickly by the NHS. It's thought some care homes may be offered supplies while other elderly or vulnerable patients may be prescribed it by their GP after testing positive for Covid.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Pill To Treat Covid Gets Approval in UK More

First Pill To Treat Covid Gets Approval in UK

Comments Filter:

  • List of ingredients? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @12:07PM (#61957413)
    I assume it's just a mix of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?
    • No, it's an antiviral drug. Not a mixture of a malaria drug and a dewormer.

      • Re:List of ingredients? (Score:5, Informative)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @12:31PM (#61957513)

        "But the discovery and early development of molnupiravir actually began in 2013 with a focus on finding an orally available, direct acting antiviral agent for the treatment of infection by the encephalitic New World alphavirus VEEV (Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus)."

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

        It's a horse de-viruser. The irony.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus is a mosquito-borne viral pathogen that causes Venezuelan equine encephalitis or encephalomyelitis (VEE). VEE can affect all equine species, such as horses, donkeys, and zebras.

          I don't believe in god, but this level of coincidence makes me wonder if god exists and that he hates corrupt blow hards.

        • Virus being the important word, not parasite.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

            The MSM machine was dialed into "horse" as the narrative.

            "Ivermectin explained: Why the so-called 'horse drug' has emerged in COVID fight"
            https://news.yahoo.com/ivermec... [yahoo.com]

            "Why Are People Taking Horse Medication for COVID-19 Infections?"
            https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal... [msn.com]

            "People Are Eating Horse Paste To Fight COVID. These Doctors Are One Reason Why."
            https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]

            At the end of the day it could have been a HUMAN medication and an ANTI-VIRAL and SAFE but the media would still demonize it.
            If t

            • Hey genius, Fox is now the MSM. You have to retire that tired phrase. https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

                > Hey genius, Fox is now the MSM.

                Sadly, I'm well aware. They were calling uncounted blue states at the same time as other MSM outlets.

                Fox news anchors are even capable of naming the next President before the electoral vote.

                https://www.bitchute.com/video... [bitchute.com]

                Like professional wrestling... it's all fake.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        OP was a joke and deserves Funny moderation. Probably not productive of a constructive discussion, however.

        I'm unsure if any of the actual ingredients are new. Did they need to start with developing the ingredients through deep research? Or was most of the delay a matter of searching through the vast space of possibilities created by the drugs we already know about? (But even there we mostly know little.)

        I think the deeper aspects of this discussion would involve the perverse motivations of the big drug com

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )
          Hard to be insightful when gunning for first-post. Someone was going to say it, so I figured it may as well be me. I'm just glad it's being taken as a joke, as it was intended to be.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shanen ( 462549 )

            The first reply seemed to be taking you seriously. Maybe he was playing with Poe's Law?

            I'm not sure if FP should be seen as a problem needing a solution because it's hard to see what the best solution approach might be. However there are definitely some trollish people around here who treat FP as a game to abuse.

      • Is it a protease inhibitor by any chance? because well...

        • Is it a protease inhibitor by any chance?

          No, its target is the virus' RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (it's an analogue that looks like a base, the exact mechanism is that it looks like either a C or a U and thus when making further copies, the copy might have a G (correct) or an A (completely wrong), it thus causes a lot of mutation in the replicate viral RNA).

          But unlike remdesivir, it somehow it *also* manages to evade the proof-reading done by the virus' Exonulcease (ExoN) so it doesn't get removed as an error.
          (Free-balling an on-the-spot hypothe

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The most important property of the new pill is that it's patented.

    • Don't forget the Trump branded bleach.

      Actually, no. It is molecule that becomes a Ribonucleoside analog which messes up the virus replication process. The mechanism of action is understandable. Just like it is understood why hydroxychloroquine doesn't work because it can only block 1 of 2 pathways for a virus to infect human lung cells (although it can work in monkey kidney cells which lack the second pathway!).

    • I assume it's just a mix of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?

      With bleach and a time-release core that emits UV light ...

    • But also with some sugar to add an extra placebo effect.

  • Ivermercktin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by colonslash ( 544210 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @12:09PM (#61957421)
    Molnupiravir is the reason for so much Ivermectin FUD; Molnupiravir is $700 for a week, and Ivermectin is closer to $7.

    • Re:Ivermercktin (Score:4, Insightful)

      by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @12:16PM (#61957435)
      Milk is even cheaper than Ivermectin. Probably because it doesn't cure anything.

      • If you have to feed the troll, how about fixing the Subject in passing? But you aren't going to persuade the troll of anything, so I'd recommend a joke. Assuming the seeds of humor can be found in the stupidity. Some humor is based in foolishness or foolish errors, but when the stupid goes vicious, it's harder to find.

        Covid-19 is a medical problem. Yes, it had economic ramifications (and I still don't understand what's wrong with the TIDI idea to handle the economic aspects), but Covid-19 NEVER should have

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        > Milk is even cheaper than Ivermectin.

        iSn't THat WhAT calVes drink?!!!!

        These people are drinking cow food, lol hahaha, hehehe, hoo hoo ho, bwahaha, ree hee hee hee - Don Lemon

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Z80a ( 971949 )

        Ivermectin cures you from several kinds of parasites, that would otherwise make you frail and easier to kill by viral infections such as covid.
        Of course, if you have no parasites, it will do nothing.

      • Milk can be an important part of preventing osteoporosis, from https://www.healthline.com/nut... [healthline.com]:

        Milk is an excellent source of the nutrients your body relies on to properly absorb calcium, including vitamin D, vitamin K, phosphorus and magnesium. Adding milk and dairy products to your diet may prevent bone diseases like osteoporosis. Studies have linked milk and dairy to a lower risk of osteoporosis and fractures, especially in older adults (23Trusted Source, 24Trusted Source, 25Trusted Source).

    • Molnupiravir is the reason for so much Ivermectin FUD; Molnupiravir is $700 for a week, and Ivermectin is closer to $7.

      Nope. It's because of these people [yahoo.com] who believe goat paste created for parasites will have any effect on a virus [businessinsider.com].

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      The reason why there is so much FUD around ivermectin is because it's all about owning the libs. If today Biden announced that lead was found to be toxic republicans would be eating it by the spoonful.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by FuegoFuerte ( 247200 )

      Interestingly, there are a bunch of actual legitimate studies I found (from NIH, universities, etc.) showing that Ivermectin has at least some efficacy against a broad range of viruses, including HIV, some type of hepatitis (I forget which one), etc.

      I'm still not in the camp of "let's all go take horse/cow de-wormer that we bought at the farm supply store," but I started from a position of "this sounds like total quackery" and have moved to more of a "maybe this really does merit more studies/trials" positi

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

        Most of those studies are bullshit when examined further. https://www.bbc.com/news/healt... [bbc.com] The knowledge gained through recent mRNA research is going to be a game changer.

        • Most of those studies are bullshit when examined further. https://www.bbc.com/news/healt [bbc.com]... The knowledge gained through recent mRNA research is going to be a game changer.

          I would ask where the paper debunking all of these peer reviewed papers (which are not even explicitly (Minus Elgazzar) named) are... yet that would be a rhetorical question because no such thing exists not even in preprint form.

          Hell at this point I would settle for an itemized list of problems and papers but even that doesn't appear to exist.

          What's so sad is that after all of this time there is so little high quality data on Ivermectin. The PRINCIPAL trial and possibly others will finally put this issue t

          • Read the fucking link it explains all the problems. Bad math, impossible numbers, data copied and pasted between studies.

            • Read the fucking link it explains all the problems. Bad math, impossible numbers, data copied and pasted between studies.

              The link is worthless. All it contains are a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and cites literally nothing.

              Where is the fucking evidence to go with these claims?

              When there are dozens of peer reviewed papers on one side of the scale and on the other side a news article that posts claims based on literally nothing not even a preprint... why should anyone waste their time with the news article? Because it reinforces your personal beliefs?

              Where is the beef? Where can I even view a list of specific claims again

          • Reviews that incorporate Elgazzar are also invalid.
            Just this week, another study showing a benefit was retracted for serious errors [newshub.co.nz], and another major study [kpkesihatan.com] found (again) it was useless, and a new study on toxicity from misuse [nejm.org] came out.

            This is a long settled issue. You can google ivermectin retraction and find all the info on them you'd like.

            • Reviews that incorporate Elgazzar are also invalid.
              Just this week, another study showing a benefit was retracted for serious errors, and another major study found (again) it was useless, and a new study on toxicity from misuse came out.

              The word for this is prejudice. Rather than addressing each peer reviewed RCT (of which there are dozens) on the merits (these are NOT meta-analysis of other peoples data) you cherry pick that which comports to your preferred outcome.

              Just because one paper is retracted or two papers or however many has no relationship whatsoever on other papers which have no relationship at all with the retracted papers. You are creating a class and deriding all members of the class because there are problems with individ

        • A journalist claims a bunch of scientific studies are false, obviously all the clinicians who did the various studies are morons and fraudsters. Journalists are the ultimate arbiters of scientific truth, afterall.

          Or possibly the journalist doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of science.

          Here's a retired UK nurse reviewing the BBC article:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          Warning: the video actually covers science and involves numbers. Not suitable for most viewers.

      • The "total quackery" part is the pure and unadulterated belief that it works against covid-19 despite lack of evidence. Just because it might work against some viruses is no reason at all to start self medicating with it. Yes, because it does work against some viruses in some situations, medical researchers have investigated using it against covid-19, however found no evidence that it was effective.

        "Total quackery" also adds in the core belief that everything the government or mass media says is wrong and

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by labnet ( 457441 )

        Archie and Darrinbob are just repeating MSM talking points to support the vaccination or expensive pills are the only solution.

        https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
        They even used the same nurse in this trial to give medication.

        Utterpradash in India have reduced their covid to almost zero by using Ivermectin in emergency kits.

        Ivermectin is effective but at 10c per pill, not terribly profitable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Then look at fluvoxamine, that unlike ivermectin appears to have some positive effect on patient outcome in proper randomised controlled trials. The effect is only about 10% but still better than nothing and it's a generic & cheap drug.

      Anyway, the problem with ivermectin is that some people are fucking idiots. They're scared of needles and and they are susceptible to conspiracy think that a dewormer has magical curative properties just because right wing social media says it does. And consequently a l

      • The scared of needles thing feels odd to me. And I actually do have a phobia and I know what that feels like. But... a quick jab, hold your breath and get it over with, versus a slow death with covid-19, or long term after effects with covid? I dunno, the vaccine seems like the sane thing to do.

        If someone really is scared of needles, then the decision should be: one or two shots know, versus being intubated in a hospitable bed with daily shots, IVs, blood draws, etc. If you're scared of a needle then

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Bleach is a dollar a bottle.

    • Also, Molnupiravir works on viruses, Ivermectin does not. Molunipiravir is also new, which generally is more expensive, whereas Ivermectin is not.

      Water is free. Hold a glass of it up to sunlight for a few minutes then drink that. Just like when you get the flu and the doctor tells you to drink plenty of fluids and get bed rest, the fluid he's referring to is watch enhanced by solar healing agents.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Molnupiravir is the reason for so much Ivermectin FUD; Molnupiravir is $700 for a week, and Ivermectin is closer to $7.

      You only need about a week of it. When you get symptoms and test positive, you're between day 3-7 of it. That's when you take molnupiravir - when you're infected, and hopefully it works before COVID does much damage.

      It's not needed if you're entering the hospital because by the time you go to the ICU, COVID has long gone from your system and it's useless to take.

      You see, once COVID passes,

    • Dexamethasone is dirt cheap too yet became a standard severe covid treatment. Why? It actually works and there is no conspiracy to suppress cheap treatments. See also: fluvoxamine, an up and comer that everyone thinks is very promising. Dirt cheap.
      • Ivermectin is also used to prevent Covid-19, as well as to treat it, but the corticosteroids are only being used to treat it. And that's not even official, from the NIH:

        The Panel recommends against the use of dexamethasone or other systemic glucocorticoids to treat outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization or supplemental oxygen (AIII). There is currently a lack of safety and efficacy data on the use of these agents, and systemic glucocorticoids may cause harm in these patients. Patients who are receiving dexamethasone or another corticosteroid for other indications should continue therapy for their underlying conditions as directed by their health care providers (AIII).

        Fluvoxamine has the issues of other SSRIs, but it does look promising. Personally, I wouldn't want to mess with my hormone balance when there are alternatives available.

  • The researchers found that statin use prior to hospital admission for COVID-19 was associated with a more than 50 percent reduction in risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared to those with COVID-19 but not taking statins.

    https://health.ucsd.edu/news/r... [ucsd.edu]

    I'm fully vaccinated, but statins are my backup plan for a breakthrough case. They are cheap and it shouldn't be any problem getting a prescription for them for almost any American that eats like an American.

    In fact, if you read between the lines there.

    • In fact, if you read between the lines there...you can actually see why America has had a higher mortality rate than a lot of countries.

      Because Americans are fatter than people in most other countries?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I don't know what's in those vaccines!
        *takes bite of Big Mac and then hits a vape pen*

      • You beat me to saying the same thing. And since statins are prescribed for COVID19 does that mean that the statins have a direct effect, that lower cholesterol helps, or is there some correlation between statin users and better outcomes (like being able to afford statins) that is totally unrelated to the drug.

  • Good News (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ink ( 4325 )

    Looking forward to conservatives pillorying it and demanding their constitutional rights to refuse it.

  • So we see where all the anti vax propaganda was heading. People such as Senator Burr and his brother in law who sold stock knowing what was really going on.

    The Pfizer vaccine costs the US $20 a shot. There are a lot of competitors. South America is using the Chinese vaccine. Not as effective at preventing mild infection but very effective at preventive hospitalization and death. No one is going to get as wealthy as they do with opioids

    On the other hand, five days of this drug is going to cost $500-$100

    • And the government [youtu.be] paid for a lot of it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jabuzz ( 182671 )

      You are aware it has been approved for use in the UK where 1st dose uptake is at 87.1% and 2nd dose uptake is at 79.6%?

      Though in my part of the UK (aka Scotland) the uptake rate for 1st does is 92.5% and for 2nd does is 87.6%. For the over 60's the uptake rate for two doses is >99.95% (the data is only displayed to the nearest 0.1% and it is showing as 100%).

      So while the cesspit of anti-vax conspiracies that is the USA might have different figures I am not entirely sure how that is quite relevant to some

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fermion ( 181285 )
        Presumably that is why the UK is giving the drug. With a few breakthrough cases, it is cheaper than the NHS caring for the even fewer that will require hospital care. In the US however, most are covered be private insurance where we have to pay for non generic drugs and hospital stays.

    • According to Fox News 99% of hospitalizations are those not fully vaccinated.

      Source? Or do you just make things up to back your arguments? Nowhere have I seen anyone claiming that only 1% of hospitalizations are fully vaccinated, let alone Fox News.

      • This was not hard to find:
        https://www.foxnews.com/health... [foxnews.com]
        Headline: "COVID-19: 99% of hospital admissions were among those not fully vaccinated"

        • Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 30, about 99 percent of hospital admissions were among those who hadn’t been fully inoculated

          You do realize that on Jan 1, 100% of Americans were not fully vaccinated right? On Jan 1 only 1.7% had a single dose, and 0.0% had two doses.
          This statistic is pretty much meaningless, because it is not indicating what percentage of vaccinated people are getting COVID. Since 100% of people at the beginning of this time period were not yet vaccinated, 100% of the hospitalizations were not vaccinated, and so the numbers are going to be skewed drastically higher across this date range.

          So again, this statistic

          • Fascinating.

            First you accuse the OP of inventing data and sources out of whole cloth. After that's shown to be demonstrably false, instead of acknowledging (or even easier, ignoring) that error, you pivot to accusing me of not understanding a claim I did not make!

            this statistic is meaningless
            It's imperfect; as you note, it covers a wide time range. But the disparity is amazingly large:
            "As of Aug. 30, a little over 1.6 million Americans were hospitalized with COVID-19 - but only about 0.65 percent of them, o

    • No, Mulnuiravir has been in the works for a long time, before covid-19 appeared, and is very likely to be approved for several other virus types in the future.

      Why the high cost? Because there are several years of research and testing to be paid for. Price should go down. If the price does not go down then blame Big Pharma, but blaming them on day one for not being a 100% charitable institution is a bit misguided. The cost will be covered by all health care systems in the US anyway, those same health ins

  • This is a paper that says molnupiravir's metabolite is mutagenic in cell cultures [nih.gov] (in vitro).

    But if you listen to these virologists [microbe.tv] they say that in vivo animal studies are part of standard FDA approval.

    So, we will see ...

    Oh, and molnupiravir is named after Mjolnir, Thor's Hammer.

  • Molnupiravir - Mole-NUH-PEER-a-VEER... I think...

    Couldn't the just call it "NoCov-19?" Bah. Sm:)e.

  • Personally I'd rather skip the potential mutagenic properties and go for something that has over 30 years of safe use in Asia. It's called Bucillamine and the study is completing before the end of the year. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov]
  • Trump, when he got covid, was given some treatment which to my knowledge is not generally publicly available yet, and he was feeling better within days. I don't think this pill is the same thing.

  • Molunipiravir works by being highly mutagenic for the virus, so much that the virus stops working entirely. Apparently it's safe for mammalian cells, but the mechanism of action seems a little unsettling...

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close