New treatment for covid?

[393847593478resu]

www.statnews.com/2021/10/01/mercks-antiviral-pill-reduces-hospitalization-of-covid-patients-a-possible-game-changer-for-treatment/

A lot of people feel that things will never get better than they are now, so what's the point in even trying to keep a lid on the spread of covid any more, by being a bit cautious or wearing masks if we can. I get that feeling and share it to some extent, but this news shows that we're still a long way from the end of the story of what covid will be like when it's endemic. How it is now is not necessarily how it will be forever, or even in six months time.

this treatments are good for those that catch the virus, the virus wont go away so if by treatments we save lives then it's good.

The hope of new treatments coming through that will reduce morbidity and mortality is a very good reason to delay infection if we at all can.

@herecomesthsun

The hope of new treatments coming through that will reduce morbidity and mortality is a very good reason to delay infection if we at all can.

There are treatments already that are helping those that catch the virus to recover.

Okay, so my point is that by delaying catching covid, you are not merely delaying deaths that would otherwise inevitably happen when the person gets covid, say 6 months later.

If the treatments improve in the interim, people will be saved who would otherwise have died.

@herecomesthsun

Okay, so my point is that by delaying catching covid, you are not merely delaying deaths that would otherwise inevitably happen when the person gets covid, say 6 months later.

If the treatments improve in the interim, people will be saved who would otherwise have died.

how long would you want to wait? as medicines/treatment like this one will continue appearing.

Someone I follow on Twitter (qualified scientist) said that this new drug works by accelerating the mutation rate... so could that lead to faster genetic drift and dodgy variant.

I wasn't convinced new drug is good news, after that.

You're right OP.

There's also the monoclunal antibodies (that they're already using other countries including Australia and America).

We've bought some too now and hopefully they will have an affect on our still very high numbers of deaths.

@lljkk Can you post a link?

Although if that's right, then I expected the UK to lead the way with using this drug. Seeing as we seem to want to encourage mutations. I mean, the English approach is about not having simple and easy mitigations (like the mask mandate that so many other countries have in place). Therefore maintaining a very high number of infections - one of the highest in the world.

I think I also read it was an expensive treatment (thousands) so not sure many will get to benefit from it

hmm, I can't agree that is UK govt policy to encourage variants. I hope UK govt policy is to steer a course to stable & manageable endemicity.

Prof Francois Balloux

Thanks for the link. He sounds positive about it.

Very preliminary data suggests that molnupiravir may be the first effective antiviral compound against SARSCoV2 (and other coronaviruses). This would represent a major breakthrough, and a big step back to normal life.
1/

As such, molnupiravir might not be absolutely ideal as a long-term standalone Covid19 antiviral drug. Though, as part of a drug cocktail (similarly to how we treat HIV/AIDS), it may really shine.
5/

@EasterIssland

I think I also read it was an expensive treatment (thousands) so not sure many will get to benefit from it

Cheaper than weeks in ICU.

Also cheaper than long term treatment of some of the Long Covid issues - organ damage, diabetes, etc.

I bet MPs will have access to it (and monoclunal antibodies) if they need it.

@Tealightsandd

Thanks for the link. He sounds positive about it.

Very preliminary data suggests that molnupiravir may be the first effective antiviral compound against SARSCoV2 (and other coronaviruses). This would represent a major breakthrough, and a big step back to normal life.
1/

As such, molnupiravir might not be absolutely ideal as a long-term standalone Covid19 antiviral drug. Though, as part of a drug cocktail (similarly to how we treat HIV/AIDS), it may really shine.
5/

Yup.

We don't avoid using antibiotics to save lives because they risk resistance, we just (now anyway) try and regulate their use to minimise/slow this process happening.

It's the same situation - they need to be used in a regulated fashion, possibly combined with other treatments, prioritised for specific cases, and patients made aware of how important it is to finish the course.

Well, given that as a country, we can’t source enough PPE when it’s most needed and can’t deliver enough petrol or milk to stop some places running out completely for days on end, good treatments for covid are no argument for not keeping a lid on the spread of covid. Dying of covid is bad enough, but dying of it when there was a perfectly good treatment unavailable to you because too many other people had covid at the same time for our inferior infrastructure to cope would be even worse.

I think I read that it's mist effective if it's given early.

So, if approved, my guess in who will get it will be the people who are likely to die if they become seriously ill - the obvious group is those living with blood cancer, who are the group most over-represented in ICU admissions, and who have the worst prognosis (about half of those who require hospitalisation in that group die) Also the others in the group of 500,000 (the ones getting the third primary dose, as well as a booster) most severely immune suppressed (other cancernsm transplant recipients, those on high-dose immune suppressive treatments for other conditions)

Because if you need to use before you see who are going to be the unlucky ones who get it badly, it makes sense to deploy it to those who are most likely to be in that group

If it must be rationed, it would need to include those with diabetes - definitely at least those over 40. Was it one or two thirds of the Covid deaths (globally), being people with diabetes? A significant proportion of the deaths. Heart and kidney conditions and people with Downs Syndrome too. And of course, the elderly.

(Ideally it would be available to all over 40s and those with underlying conditions.)

Longer term, hopefully there will be access to drug treatments for all.

The risk of Long Covid, including potential organ damage and triggering diabetes, means everyone is potentially vulnerable.

@nether

I think I read that it's mist effective if it's given early.

So, if approved, my guess in who will get it will be the people who are likely to die if they become seriously ill - the obvious group is those living with blood cancer, who are the group most over-represented in ICU admissions, and who have the worst prognosis (about half of those who require hospitalisation in that group die) Also the others in the group of 500,000 (the ones getting the third primary dose, as well as a booster) most severely immune suppressed (other cancernsm transplant recipients, those on high-dose immune suppressive treatments for other conditions)

Because if you need to use before you see who are going to be the unlucky ones who get it badly, it makes sense to deploy it to those who are most likely to be in that group

Exactly that was my point of being expensive. If we have x amount of this amount we need to make sure it goes to those that will be most likely to survive if given and not given to anyone and it needs to be given ASAP . There will be some process for choosing based on existing illnesses and those that are more likely to have a successful treatment will benefit from it. These are already people in the 1-9 groups who were first vaccinated and will get the booster soon

That’s why to me delaying contagies doesn’t make much sense as those at risk already will be provided vaccines etc sooner and/or if not this treatment there are similar ones to be provided

@Tealightsandd

If it must be rationed, it would need to include those with diabetes - definitely at least those over 40. Was it one or two thirds of the Covid deaths (globally), being people with diabetes? A significant proportion of the deaths. Heart and kidney conditions and people with Downs Syndrome too. And of course, the elderly.

(Ideally it would be available to all over 40s and those with underlying conditions.)

If this medicine is good for those with diabetes then of course it’ll be. But it might not be the best for them so then another medicine will be provided. It’s not the only one available , a similar one was in the news few weeks ago.

The experts have been working on this for months , choosing which health problems would benefit from this.

In the past week, there was a message to previously shielding people from Said Javid, that shielding had now ended. Part of the rationale for this was that "other treatments" and pathways were now available.

I wondered then what was becoming available.

Fingers crossed that previously shielding people will be eligible for some of this.

This was another one
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58602999

EasterIssland

Obviously yes. Likewise the same applies for any underlying condition.

Although as I said, hopefully in time there will be no need for rationing - with treatments available to all who might need them. Long Covid means everyone is potentially clinically vulnerable.

I was doing some bedtime reading. Some good news. It's not so expensive afterall. A course will cost about £500. Way cheaper than hospitalisation, even without the need for icu.

Also,

Data from Merck’s trial is specific to 775 adults with mild to moderate Covid who were deemed at higher risk from serious disease due to health problems such as obesity, diabetes or heart disease.

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/covid-pill-molnupiravir-antiviral-drug-b1931102.html