[HN Gopher] Gilead should ditch remdesivir and focus on its simp...
___________________________________________________________________
Gilead should ditch remdesivir and focus on its simpler and safer
ancestor
Author : phonon
Score : 72 points
Date : 2020-05-15 20:50 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.statnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.statnews.com)
| goatinaboat wrote:
| If they do, they should allow its use for sick cats
| https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/remdesiv...
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| Does it work in the feline at all? FIP is a deadly disease, if
| the compound was any good word of mouth would spread amongst
| veterinarians. Unfortunately, the outcomes are not encouraging.
| this_user wrote:
| The article only mentions tests of GS-441524 on animals, but not
| humans, whereas remdesivir empirically seems to be reasonably
| safe in humans. Switching from the one thing that actually
| possesses efficacy in humans to something that has mainly been
| tested on cats seems like an unnecessary gamble at this point.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Ideally we could work on both. Remdisivir is apparently
| nightmareish to produce - it's unlikely that that Gilead can
| fully capture all the value on the market with it alone,
| especially if another another therapeutic becomes available.
|
| That said, it makes plenty of sense why you would begin with
| your drug that has already passed clinical trials. I'm a bit
| disappointed that the article didn't emphasis this point. I'm
| certain the authors know about it, and even if they aren't out
| writing a hachet job, it can make this piece seem like one.
| fspeech wrote:
| True but both are prodrugs and GS-441524 is downstream on the
| metabolic chain from Remdesivir.
| [deleted]
| conistonwater wrote:
| Cynical summary, basically: "The first patent on GS-441524 was
| issued in 2009, while the first patent for remdesivir was issued
| in 2017."
| credit_guy wrote:
| Why so cynic?
|
| "On 12 May 2020, Gilead announced that it had granted non-
| exclusive voluntary licenses to five generic drug companies to
| manufacture remdesivir for distribution to 127 countries. The
| agreements were structured so that the licensees can set their
| own prices and will not have to pay royalties to Gilead until
| the WHO declares an end to the COVID-19 emergency or another
| medicine or vaccine is approved for COVID-19, whichever comes
| first"
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir#Access
| neltnerb wrote:
| Doesn't matter if it's so hard to manufacture that the
| generics miss the train. If they did the same for the other
| drug then I'd trust their motives more. If you were a
| generics manufacturer would you invest in a complex process
| that will definitely turn into a wasted investment within
| just a few years when Gilead starts demanding royalties?
| pkaye wrote:
| So its all about money for the generics manufacturers too?
| neltnerb wrote:
| Not all of them, but who would set up a production line
| for something that will have unknown royalties required
| to keep it running within the next year or two? It'll
| take them that long just to get it up and running
| smoothly.
|
| Even if they made zero profit it's a questionable move.
|
| "until the WHO declares an end to the COVID-19 emergency
| or another medicine or vaccine is approved for COVID-19,
| whichever comes first" could easily be very soon, after
| which who knows what they'll demand.
|
| If they put their patent on GS-441524 in the public
| domain, on the other hand, it'd be quite clear that
| they're not creating a situation where the second the WHO
| changes the status they won't suddenly demand price
| increases to whatever level they want or punishing
| royalties to keep producing the drug that the generics
| company already constructed a manufacturing line for.
|
| Maybe an analogy is suitable here -- I see this as like
| Apple telling everyone that they won't demand royalties
| on rounded corners for six months. Would you tool up a
| manufacturing line to make rounded corners if given that
| proposition? Because setting up a chemical manufacturing
| line takes even longer than reconfiguring a machining
| operation.
| sp332 wrote:
| Also "Gilead is providing the entirety of this existing
| supply at no cost, to treat patients with the most severe
| symptoms of COVID-19. The 1.5 million individual doses are
| available for compassionate use, expanded access and clinical
| trials and will be donated for broader distribution following
| any potential future regulatory authorizations."
|
| https://www.gilead.com/stories/articles/an-update-on-
| covid-1...
| conistonwater wrote:
| I just kind of assumed it was about patent royalties, I
| didn't really check.
| jacob019 wrote:
| So greed and our patent system are getting in the way of saving
| lives.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Why do you think back catalogs of nucleoside analogues exist?
|
| Also, sure it was patented earlier than remdesivir, but
| patent term is 20 years - GS-441524 has 9 more years on
| patent. Plenty of exclusive value that Gilead can extract.
| scythe wrote:
| This seems like the sort of argument that should be distributed
| in the peer-reviewed literature to scientists, not on a news
| website.
|
| I am far from average in my consumption of medical literature--I
| read several papers every week and have some (limited) background
| in biophysics. Nonetheless, this debate is miles over my head.
| One would need to know a great deal about pharmacology to
| evaluate this article. There are lots of reasons to use one
| prodrug over another; likewise, there are a great deal of
| differences between animal models and humans.
|
| See also this reddit comment:
|
| http://reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/fv8p4k/comment/fmhydy...
| exabrial wrote:
| Both would be my preference
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-05-15 23:00 UTC)