Astra Zeneca antibody treatment may significantly reduce chances of severe COVID
https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2021/azd7442-prophylaxis-trial-met-primary-endpoint.html
An article from the Hill on the Astra Zeneca antibody treatment.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/568818-astrazeneca-antibody-treatment-reduces-severe
snip
A subset of COVID-19 patients who received infusions of laboratory-made antibodies ran a lower risk of requiring hospital care for their illnesses, according to a Mayo Clinic study released Monday.
âŚ
While the treatment is promising, patients shouldnât view monoclonal antibodies as an alternative to vaccines, Razonable said.
âMonoclonal antibodies provide immediate but short-term immunity, while vaccination will provide longer-term immunity,â he said in a statement.
âŚ
Considering the results from the new study, plus earlier research, Razonable said in a statement: âOur conclusion overall at this point is that monoclonal antibodies are an important option in treatment to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in high-risk patients.â
High-risk patients eligible for the treatment are those age 65 and older, or younger people with one of several health conditions such as high body mass index, chronic kidney disease or diabetes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pill-intended-to-be-covid-19s-tamiflu-succeeds-in-key-study-11633082401
pill cuts risk of serious illness 50%
Merck & Co. [US:MRK] and its partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics LP said their experimental Covid-19 pill helped prevent high-risk people early in the course of the disease in a pivotal study from becoming seriously ill and dying, a big step toward providing the pandemicâs first easy-to-use, at-home treatment.
The pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death in study subjects with mild to moderate Covid-19 by about 50%, the companies said Friday.
The drug, called molnupiravir, was performing so well in its late-stage trial that Merck and Ridgeback said they stopped enrolling subjects after discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
50% doesnât sound all that âsuccessful.â But, IANADIRL.
I wonder what the price is going to be.
I was listening to people talking about this on NPR, and there are a couple of similar drugs in the pipeline, from other drug companies youâve heard of.
They probably will all have the same issue as tamiflu, that you need to take them pretty soon after you are infected for them to work.
Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine for Young Kids Satisfied FDA Criteria, Agency Says https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-review-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-for-kids-expected-11634900401
I guess the advisory panel will vote on Tuesday? And then ask the other groups need to get on board. But if the advisory panel votes âyesâ this is likely to happen.
My state DOH is proceeding as if 5-11 will be approved by Nov 2. Theyâre accepting orders for pediatric dosages and will begin shipping this week.
Which is to say, EUA by next Monday is a lead pipe cinch. The announcement will happen any day now.
Promising Covid-19 Pill Licensed to Nonprofit to Increase Global Supply
https://www.startribune.com/cheap-antidepressant-shows-promise-treating-early-covid-19/600110594/
snips from the article
A cheap antidepressant reduced the need for hospitalization among high-risk adults with COVID-19 in a study hunting for existing drugs that could be repurposed to treat coronavirus.
Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder because it was known to reduce inflammation and looked promising in smaller studies.
âŚ
Researchers tested the antidepressant in nearly 1,500 Brazilians recently infected with coronavirus who were at risk of severe illness because of other health problems, such as diabetes. About half took the antidepressant at home for 10 days, the rest got dummy pills. They were tracked for four weeks to see who landed in the hospital or spent extended time in an emergency room when hospitals were full.
In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills.
âŚ
The cheap generic and Merckâs COVID-19 pill work in different ways and âmay be complementary,â said Dr. Paul Sax of Brigham and Womenâs Hospital and Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the study.
1 Like
It also reduced the risk of death. And whole course of treatment with the drug cost $10 in the US.
3 Likes
Vaccination is more protective than natural infection
They compared people who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine to those who recovered from covid. They only looked at the window of time 3-6 months after recovery. This was not an antibody test, they looked at who was hospitalized.
1 Like
Iâm not surprised to see this latest CDC Pfizer marketing material posted here, although Iâm a little surprised to see an actuary repeat the CDCâs conclusion unironically, and very surprised that itâs you doing it, Miss Van Pelt.
Lucy specifically mentioned they only looked at hospitalized patients.
And there is an entire paragraph of limitations in the paper which is probably too long to fit in a twitter post. This is what scientists do. They list what they think they have learned, and the limitations.
Twitter posters looking for followers post partial information like your link. I wonder how many followers that guy got from his post? That is marketing as much as anything from pfizer.
2 Likes
Thinking Martin Kulldorff is fishing for followers on Twitter! 
You think academics donât care about fame? And that popular fame isnât a temptation to many of them?
I didnât bother to look up who that was, because itâs twitter. But he has even less of an excuse. He is a scientist and should know better.
1 Like
Should know better than what? Using Twitter?
Do you want to show us on the doll what the little blue bird did to you, Mr Gorilla?
Given Marcie also likes to point to Dr. Everyone-But-Me-Better-Stay-In-Your-Lane as one of her supposed reputable resources, she should be well-versed in Twitter attention-whoring.
2 Likes
For example: why did he post a message implying that the article didnât mention the very criticism he was making? And then talk about âcontacting the authorsâ again implying he is mentioning something not already in the article? It sure does make him seem like the hero, swooping in and rescuing a public from a bad paper. I guess I donât know the wider context.
I have no idea what you are alluding to in your second paragraph.