FDA Authorizes Second COVID-19 Antiviral Pill (theverge.com) 64
The Food and Drug Administration authorized a second at-home antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 on Thursday. From a report:The clearance for the drug, called molnupiravir, came a day after the agency signed off on Pfizer's COVID-19 antiviral, called Paxlovid. Both drugs reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in people diagnosed with COVID-19 and at risk of having a severe case of the disease. Molnupiravir, made by pharmaceutical company Merck, is authorized for people 18 years of age and older who are at a high risk of getting seriously ill if they contract the coronavirus. It's a higher age cutoff than Paxlovid, which is cleared for people 12 and up, because molnupiravir might affect bone and cartilage growth, the FDA said in a statement.
Re:Trust the science? (Score:4, Informative)
Trust the science when the results are replicated. Until results are replicated, it's not science. So far, the results don't seem to be reproducible in other studies.
The bad data in some of the studies showing efficacy of ivermectin tend to make the other results suspect. https://www.medpagetoday.com/s... [medpagetoday.com]
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it may be no coincidence that the studies that show efficacy of ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug, have been only the ones conducted in countries with endemic parasitic disease (e.g., the one you link was conducted in Bangladesh.)
How to annoy trolls? (Score:1)
But propagating their trash Subjects sure doesn't seem to help, even if the trash content is ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
"Trust the science when the replicated results AND the replicated contrary results have been conclusively summarized in a systematic review published in a high impact factor journal." Sadly, that does not trip of the tongue like "trust the science", but real world science nearly always produces contrary results when first examining any complicated question.
Contradictory results are always to be expected when testing any anti-parasitic drug for anti-viral effect. Ivermectin and hydroxycholorquine are have
Read the context (Re:Trust the science?) (Score:2)
Until results are replicated, it's not science.
I wish you pseudoscientists would stop with this crap, you aren't doing anyone any good most certainly not people who practice science.
Learn to read context, it's important,.
The statement was a direct response to somebody who used "trust the science" in the context of a result that should not be trusted because, it (so far) has failed replication (*). Yes, initial non-replicable results are part of the scientific process. But no, "trust the science" doesn't mean "believe everything you hear that's labelled science."
Until the results are replicated, don't trust it.
I might use the phrase "look for a scientific consensus" but the kind o
Re: (Score:2)
So far, the results don't seem to be reproducible in other studies.
It's happening in all sciences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Trust the science! Just not this science [nih.gov].
Even if a five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 after you catch COVID-19 actually does reduce the duration of the illness that is still damage control after the fact. Vaccines are preventative. You might as well be arguing that fixing your car up after a serious crash is better than not getting involved in a car crash in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, the way you stated that is pure BS.
To be truthful instead try, it probably prevented most of those that would have gone to the hospital and/or died of covid.
Most people are not going to the hospital or dying in general.
Most people with covid are not going to the hospital or dying.
The 1% dying and 5% hospitalized of those that get covid (+ or - half the value depending on which numbers you find believable) is bad enough. Just trying to exaggerate it is why people tune out any rational discussion now.
Re:Trust the science? (Score:4, Informative)
Scientists: "So in our very limited trial we saw that, on average, people with mild COVID infections got better a little faster when given small doses of Ivermectin. We think a larger and more thorough investigation is warranted."
Also scientists: "After hundreds of millions of people successfully vaccinated around the world, we can confidently say these new vaccines provide very effective protection with low incidents of side effects, and even when there is a rare breakthrough infection the cases are far less severe with faster recovery compared to infections among unvaccinated people."
Idiots: *eating veterinary dewormer by the spoonful* "I DON'T TRUST VACCINES I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THEM!"
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also scientists: "After hundreds of millions of people successfully vaccinated around the world..."
Man, try billions. The world has now delivered more shots than there are people in the entire planet.
It is exhausting still having to deal with these morons in the middle of what's effectively the largest vaccination campaign in history.
Re:Trust the science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust the science! Just not this science [nih.gov].
The study in question was done with 72 people in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Parasitic infections are common in places like this and the study didn't note if it screened these patients for that. It's entirely possible that the Ivermectin simply cleared underlying parasitic infections allowing their immune systems to better combat COVID on its own. If so, this would certainly make an anti-parasitic drug look better than it is for treating a viral infection. I trust science, but I don't trust this study as it barely counts and either a study or science.
Even the last sentence of the Abstract is suspect:
Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
I would argue that "test" would be a much better word than "confirm" in this case.
Does it (Score:2)
Come in paste form and apple flavored? That’s all I care about. Did Fauci have a say in it’s creation? Will it help me pwn the libs?
Re: Does it (Score:2)
No, but it does have a plausible way of introducing genetic mutations. In fact, that's how it's meant to reduce viral replication: it's supposed to cause it to mutate itself to death.
It'll take my vaccines and daily vitamins, thank you.
Re: (Score:3)
Into RNA not DNA probably ok if your RNA gets a little screwed up, it will get cleaned up and new copies will come from DNA
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not how the immune system works. You have a thymus to kill immune cells that train on to your body's receptors, your body already generates random DNA so your immune system has a near infinite amount of random antibodies, some of them train on to your bodies cells, and the thymus kills them. As long as you have a functioning thymus, you'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite as ridiculous to think it *might have* worked against COVID as you make it sound. I believe it's now in Phase 2 trials for use against Chikungunya virus.
It wasn't unreasonable to look at ivermectin for potential usefulness, but it wasn't a surprise when it didn't work out either.
Re: Does it (Score:1)
No, but the problem with the way it's been "looked into" is that the claim that's made is "x prevents mild cases from turning severe" or "x works as a prophylactic against severe covid if taken regularly" but the studies that have been made answer the question "will giving x to patients under medical care for covid help?"
The subset of people already under medical care for covid is exclusive of the people who might be taking it prophylacticly and the people who have mild symptoms.
This isn't always the case w
Re: (Score:2)
Come in paste form and apple flavored? That’s all I care about. Did Fauci have a say in it’s creation? Will it help me pwn the libs?
We used t ogive our horse the apple flavored version. He tended to spit out the regular stuff.
Ha never got Covid 19 flu.
A coincidence? It think NOT! Wake up America! 8^/
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Republican PACs will be sending them to all of their Republican voters to keep them alive. (Because they are all anti-vaxxers.)
How is this going to compete? (Score:5, Informative)
Molnupiravir (Merck/this pill) initially appeared to cut the risk of hospitalization and death by about half in a clinical trial. Additional evaluation, though, found that it was only around 30 percent effective. That’s far less effective than Paxlovid (Pfizer pill), which reduced hospitalizations and deaths for high-risk groups by 89 percent in a clinical trial.
The Pfizer pill reportedly reduces hospitalizations and deaths by 89% and the Merck pill only by 30%, why would anyone want the latter instead of the former? They're probably going to similarly priced and covered by insurance, probably 100% covered as it would be way less expensive than covering hospital treatment for COVID.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Pfizer pill reportedly reduces hospitalizations and deaths by 89% and the Merck pill only by 30%, why would anyone want the latter instead of the former? They're probably going to similarly priced and covered by insurance, probably 100% covered as it would be way less expensive than covering hospital treatment for COVID.
The approval for the Merck pill specifically says it's only recommended for use if none of the other treatment options are available.
Re: (Score:2)
The approval for the Merck pill specifically says it's only recommended for use if none of the other treatment options are available.
Thanks, I hadn't heard/seen that; good to know.
Re: (Score:1)
This. The VRBPAC discussion on this (which I watched) in particular noticed that in most cases monoclonal antibodies would be preferable to the Merck pill, but that was for various reasons not an option for some patients.
(And of course that discussion was before the meeting on the Pfizer pill.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Pfizer pill reportedly reduces hospitalizations and deaths by 89% and the Merck pill only by 30%, why would anyone want the latter instead of the former?
Individual tolerance. If someone can't handle the Pfizer.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pfizer pill reportedly reduces hospitalizations and deaths by 89% and the Merck pill only by 30%, why would anyone want the latter instead of the former?
Individual tolerance. If someone can't handle the Pfizer.
Good point. Of course, unless someone has a known allergy to it or one of its components, they won't know until after taking the pill. Hopefully, the pill will still work for them and any adverse reaction will still be better than continuing with COVID untreated. In those cases, if the reaction was severe, they can take the Merck pill next time.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pfizer pill reportedly reduces hospitalizations and deaths by 89% and the Merck pill only by 30%, why would anyone want the latter instead of the former?
Individual tolerance. If someone can't handle the Pfizer.
Good point. Of course, unless someone has a known allergy to it or one of its components, they won't know until after taking the pill. Hopefully, the pill will still work for them and any adverse reaction will still be better than continuing with COVID untreated. In those cases, if the reaction was severe, they can take the Merck pill next time.
True, dat. Ever seen the prescription drug commercials where they tell people not to take the drug if they are allergic to it. Like you said, you have to try it to see if you are allergic.