Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(2): e27704, 2022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690536

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased online purchases and heightened interest in existing treatments. Dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir-ritonavir have been touted as potential COVID-19 treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the availability of 3 potential COVID-19 treatments online and evaluated the safety and marketing characteristics of websites selling these products during the pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the months of June 2020 to August 2020, by searching the first 100 results on Google, Bing, and Yahoo! mimicking a US consumer. Unique websites were included if they sold targeted medicines, were in English, offered US shipping, and were free to access. Identified online pharmacies were categorized as rogue, unclassified, or legitimate based on LegitScript classifications. Patient safety characteristics, marketing techniques, price, legitimacy, IP addresses, and COVID-19 mentions were recorded. RESULTS: We found 117 websites: 30 selling dexamethasone (19/30, 63% rogue), 39 selling hydroxychloroquine (22/39, 56% rogue), and 48 selling lopinavir-ritonavir (33/48, 69% rogue). This included 89 unique online pharmacies: 70% were rogue (n=62), 22% were unapproved (n=20), and 8% were considered legitimate (n=7). Prescriptions were not required among 100% (19/19), 61% (20/33), and 50% (11/22) of rogue websites selling dexamethasone, lopinavir-ritonavir, and hydroxychloroquine, respectively. Overall, only 32% (24/74) of rogue websites required prescriptions to buy these medications compared with 94% (31/33) of unapproved and 100% (10/10) of legitimate websites (P<.001). Rogue sites rarely offered pharmacist counseling (1/33, 3% for lopinavir-ritonavir to 2/22, 9% for hydroxychloroquine). Drug warnings were unavailable in 86% (6/7) of unapproved dexamethasone sites. It was difficult to distinguish between rogue, unapproved, and legitimate online pharmacies solely based on website marketing characteristics. Illegitimate pharmacies were more likely to offer bulk discounts and claim price discounts, yet dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine were more expensive online. An inexpensive generic version of lopinavir-ritonavir that is not authorized for use in the United States was available online offering US shipping. Some websites claimed hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir were effective COVID-19 treatments despite lack of scientific evidence. In comparing IP addresses to locations claimed on the websites, only 8.5% (7/82) matched their claimed locations. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of safety measures by illegitimate online pharmacies endanger patients, facilitating access to medications without appropriate oversight by health care providers to monitor clinical response, drug interactions, and adverse effects. We demonstrated how easy it is to go online to buy medications that are touted to treat COVID-19 even when current clinical evidence does not support their use for self-treatment. We documented that illegitimate online pharmacies sidestep prescription requirements, skirt pharmacist counseling, and make false claims regarding efficacy for COVID-19 treatment. Health care professionals must urgently educate the public of the dangers of purchasing drugs from illegitimate websites and highlight the importance of seeking treatment through authentic avenues of care.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Commerce , Drug and Narcotic Control , Internet , Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/standards , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Marketing , Pandemics , Prescriptions , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
3.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262462, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1630364

ABSTRACT

Remdesivir and dexamethasone are the only drugs providing reductions in the lengths of hospital stays for COVID-19 patients. We assessed the impacts of remdesivir on hospital-bed resources and budgets affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. A stochastic agent-based model was combined with epidemiological data available on the COVID-19 outbreak in France and data from two randomized control trials. Strategies involving treating with remdesivir only patients with low-flow oxygen and patients with low-flow and high-flow oxygen were examined. Treating all eligible low-flow oxygen patients during the entirety of the second wave would have decreased hospital-bed occupancy in conventional wards by 4% [2%; 7%] and intensive care unit (ICU)-bed occupancy by 9% [6%; 13%]. Extending remdesivir use to high-flow-oxygen patients would have amplified reductions in ICU-bed occupancy by up to 14% [18%; 11%]. A minimum remdesivir uptake of 20% was required to observe decreases in bed occupancy. Dexamethasone had effects of similar amplitude. Depending on the treatment strategy, using remdesivir would, in most cases, generate savings (up to 722€) or at least be cost neutral (an extra cost of 34€). Treating eligible patients could significantly limit the saturation of hospital capacities, particularly in ICUs. The generated savings would exceed the costs of medications.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/economics , Bed Occupancy/economics , Dexamethasone/economics , Adenosine Monophosphate/economics , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/economics , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bed Occupancy/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/virology , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , France , Hospitalization/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Models, Statistical , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
4.
Salud Colect ; 16: e2897, 2020 10 17.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608979

ABSTRACT

Taking into account the latent threat of future pandemics, the objective of this study is to analyze - particularly with respect to medications - the sustainability of the health system, healthcare coverage, budgetary efficiency, and connections with the pharmaceutical patent system. In this context, the pharmaceutical patent system acts as a determining factor, given that promoting its existence stimulates the production of research, but in turn its existence stands in the way of rapid advancements, primarily due to the development of protective legislation concerning patents, which has largely accommodated the industry. Given that the pharmaceutical industry has managed to extend the duration of patents and avoid the incorporation of generics, our analysis focuses on the influence of pharmaceutical patents; this influence has led to reflection on the possibility of combining efforts by forging alliances between numerous companies and the public sector in order to face the challenges posed by new diseases caused by viruses that give rise to epidemics and pandemics.


Ante la amenaza latente de futuras pandemias, este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar ­desde el eje de los medicamentos­ la sostenibilidad del sistema sanitario, la cobertura, la eficiencia del gasto y su vinculación al sistema de patentes farmacéuticas. En este marco, el sistema de patentes farmacéuticas adquiere un papel determinante, dado que fomentar su existencia estimula la producción de investigación pero, a su vez, su existencia no suscita un rápido avance, debido al desarrollo legislativo protector que han tenido las patentes y que ha dado lugar a un acomodamiento de la industria. Como la industria farmacéutica ha conseguido extender la duración de patentes y evitar la incorporación de genéricos, se analiza la influencia de las patentes farmacéuticas que ha dado lugar a reflexionar acerca de la posibilidad de consorciar esfuerzos realizando alianzas entre varias empresas y el sector público para afrontar los retos que plantean nuevas enfermedades producidas por virus que dan lugar a epidemias y pandemias.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , Drug Costs , Drug Industry/organization & administration , Health Policy , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Patents as Topic , Virus Diseases/drug therapy , Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Drugs, Generic , Global Health , Humans , Pandemics , Program Evaluation , Virus Diseases/economics , Virus Diseases/epidemiology , Virus Diseases/prevention & control
5.
Drug Discov Today ; 27(3): 697-704, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568633

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade, Pfizer has focused efforts to improve its research and development (R&D) productivity. By the end of 2020, Pfizer had achieved an industry-leading clinical success rate of 21%, a tenfold increase from 2% in 2010 and well above the industry benchmark of ∼11%. The company had also maintained the quality of innovation, because 75% of its approvals between 2016 and 2020 had at least one expedited regulatory designation (e.g., Breakthrough Therapy). Pfizer's Signs of Clinical Activity (SOCA) paradigm enabled better decision-making and, along with other drivers (biology and modality), contributed to this productivity improvement. These laid a strong foundation for the rapid and effective development of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine with BioNTech, as well as the antiviral candidate Paxlovid™, under the company's 'lightspeed' paradigm.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry/economics , Research/economics , Antiviral Agents/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Humans
6.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(2): e27704, 2022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480493

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased online purchases and heightened interest in existing treatments. Dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir-ritonavir have been touted as potential COVID-19 treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the availability of 3 potential COVID-19 treatments online and evaluated the safety and marketing characteristics of websites selling these products during the pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the months of June 2020 to August 2020, by searching the first 100 results on Google, Bing, and Yahoo! mimicking a US consumer. Unique websites were included if they sold targeted medicines, were in English, offered US shipping, and were free to access. Identified online pharmacies were categorized as rogue, unclassified, or legitimate based on LegitScript classifications. Patient safety characteristics, marketing techniques, price, legitimacy, IP addresses, and COVID-19 mentions were recorded. RESULTS: We found 117 websites: 30 selling dexamethasone (19/30, 63% rogue), 39 selling hydroxychloroquine (22/39, 56% rogue), and 48 selling lopinavir-ritonavir (33/48, 69% rogue). This included 89 unique online pharmacies: 70% were rogue (n=62), 22% were unapproved (n=20), and 8% were considered legitimate (n=7). Prescriptions were not required among 100% (19/19), 61% (20/33), and 50% (11/22) of rogue websites selling dexamethasone, lopinavir-ritonavir, and hydroxychloroquine, respectively. Overall, only 32% (24/74) of rogue websites required prescriptions to buy these medications compared with 94% (31/33) of unapproved and 100% (10/10) of legitimate websites (P<.001). Rogue sites rarely offered pharmacist counseling (1/33, 3% for lopinavir-ritonavir to 2/22, 9% for hydroxychloroquine). Drug warnings were unavailable in 86% (6/7) of unapproved dexamethasone sites. It was difficult to distinguish between rogue, unapproved, and legitimate online pharmacies solely based on website marketing characteristics. Illegitimate pharmacies were more likely to offer bulk discounts and claim price discounts, yet dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine were more expensive online. An inexpensive generic version of lopinavir-ritonavir that is not authorized for use in the United States was available online offering US shipping. Some websites claimed hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir were effective COVID-19 treatments despite lack of scientific evidence. In comparing IP addresses to locations claimed on the websites, only 8.5% (7/82) matched their claimed locations. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of safety measures by illegitimate online pharmacies endanger patients, facilitating access to medications without appropriate oversight by health care providers to monitor clinical response, drug interactions, and adverse effects. We demonstrated how easy it is to go online to buy medications that are touted to treat COVID-19 even when current clinical evidence does not support their use for self-treatment. We documented that illegitimate online pharmacies sidestep prescription requirements, skirt pharmacist counseling, and make false claims regarding efficacy for COVID-19 treatment. Health care professionals must urgently educate the public of the dangers of purchasing drugs from illegitimate websites and highlight the importance of seeking treatment through authentic avenues of care.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Commerce , Drug and Narcotic Control , Internet , Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/standards , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Marketing , Pandemics , Prescriptions , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
7.
Trop Med Int Health ; 26(5): 518-529, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226698

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: As economic globalisation develops in-depth, infectious diseases that occur in a country or region no longer remains a regional issue. Antibiotics and antiviral medicines are essential medicines for the therapy of infectious diseases. This study aims to evaluate their availability, cost and affordability of AaAMs against infectious diseases in 41 public hospitals from 2013 to 2019 in Nanjing, China. METHODS: Data on the availability and price of 17 antibiotics and 6 antiviral medicines in 41 public hospitals were obtained from the Jiangsu Institute of Medicine Information. We adopted the WHO/Health Action International method to measure the availability, cost and affordability of these medicines. RESULTS: The availability of selected medicines against infectious diseases was relatively low; the median availability of originator brands was near-zero and that of lowest-priced generics during the survey period less than 50%. The total availability of medicines was poor in primary hospitals as compared to secondary and tertiary hospitals. The median daily-defined dose cost of originator brands was expensive (range from 66.11 RMB to 107.83 RMB), whereas that of lowest price generics was fairly acceptable at < 8 RMB. The affordability of most surveyed medicines was reasonable, which showed significant improvement over time, but the daily cost of a few medicines for originator brands exceeded the average daily wage. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the affordability of medicines surveyed was acceptable, while the availability was too low. There should be a great concern for improving the reserve system of anti-infective medicines in healthcare institutions. Policy should focus on improving the availability of generic drugs in hospitals and encouraging preferentially prescribed.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/economics , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Communicable Diseases/drug therapy , Costs and Cost Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , China , Costs and Cost Analysis/economics , Humans
10.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 87(11): 4386-4396, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186137

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 5-day remdesivir regimen compared with standard of care among severe COVID-19 patients in China, the evidence on which is essential to inform the necessity of securing access to remdesivir. METHODS: A dynamic transmission model that extended the susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered framework by incorporating asymptomatic, presymptomatic and waiting-to-be-diagnosed patients was constructed to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective. To estimate epidemic parameters, the model was first calibrated to the observed epidemic curve in Wuhan from 23 January to 19 March 2020. Following the calibration, the infected compartment was replaced by 3 severity-defined health states to reflect differential costs and quality of life associated with disease gravity. Costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) outcomes of 9 million simulated people were accrued across time to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of remdesivir. As robustness checks, an alternative modelling technique using decision tree, additional epidemic scenarios representing different epidemic intensities, and 1-way parameter variations were also analysed. RESULTS: Remdesivir treatment cost CN¥97.93 million more than standard of care. Also, the net QALY gain from 5-day remdesivir treatment was 6947 QALYs. As such, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥14 098/QALY, substantially lower than the gross domestic product per capita threshold. The peak daily number of severe cases was 19% lower in the remdesivir treatment strategy. Overall, results were robust in alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Given the cost-effectiveness profile, access to remdesivir for severe COVID-19 patients in China should be considered.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate , Alanine , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/economics , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/economics , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/economics , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/economics , China , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Quality of Life
11.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(3): 173-181, 2021 03.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1123706

ABSTRACT

When a pandemic occurs, scientific research moves fast in order to achieve readily results, such as effective therapies to fight the SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. But this high-speed science, engaged by the emergency and characterized by the explosion of online publications in preprint form not subject to scrutiny by peer reviewers, carries some risks. And it represents a challenge to maintain research integrity and to comply with those globally recognized standard principles of fairness. Competition and the pressure to publish immediately - a way of encouraging rapid data sharing - can favor the dissemination of incomplete if not erroneous results obtained from partial studies, which feed false news, such as the benefits of a drug, and illusory hopes. It is commonly through press releases that "speed science" disseminates information to an audience that wants to be informed and reassured. Financial and political interests often mix with the urgency to find solutions. Covid-19 has highlighted in particular the risk of a politicization of science at the expense of transparency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Publishing/standards , Research/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/economics , Adenosine Monophosphate/supply & distribution , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/economics , Alanine/supply & distribution , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/supply & distribution , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Disease Outbreaks , Drug Approval , European Union , Humans , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/economics , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Information Dissemination , Informed Consent , Oseltamivir/economics , Oseltamivir/supply & distribution , Oseltamivir/therapeutic use , Peer Review, Research , Periodicals as Topic , Politics , Risk , Time Factors , United States
12.
Liver Int ; 41(5): 934-948, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059537

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We assessed the clinical and economic impact of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in England, Italy, Romania and Spain. METHODS: An HCV progression Markov model was developed considering DAA eligibility and population data during the years 2015-2019. The period of time to recover the investment in DAAs was calculated as the cost saved by avoiding estimated clinical events for 1000 standardized treated patients. A delayed treatment scenario because of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was also developed. RESULTS: The estimated number of avoided hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis and liver transplantations over a 20-year time horizon was: 1,057 in England; 1,221 in Italy; 1,211 in Romania; and 1,103 in Spain for patients treated during 2015-2016 and 640 in England; 626 in Italy; 739 in Romania; and 643 in Spain for patients treated during 2017-2019. The cost-savings ranged from € 45 to € 275 million. The investment needed to expand access to DAAs in 2015-2019 is estimated to be recovered in 6.5 years in England; 5.4 years in Italy; 6.7 years in Romania; and 4.5 years in Spain. A delay in treatment because of COVID-19 will increase liver mortality in all countries. CONCLUSION: Direct-acting antivirals have significant clinical benefits and can bring substantial cost-savings over the next 20 years, reaching a Break-even point in a short period of time. When pursuing an exit strategy from strict lockdown measures for COVID-19, providing DAAs should remain high on the list of priorities in order to maintain HCV elimination efforts.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Cost of Illness , Hepatitis C, Chronic , Liver Neoplasms , Antiviral Agents/economics , COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , England/epidemiology , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C, Chronic/drug therapy , Hepatitis C, Chronic/epidemiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Liver Neoplasms/drug therapy , Liver Neoplasms/epidemiology , Romania/epidemiology , Spain/epidemiology , Time-to-Treatment
13.
Int J Antimicrob Agents ; 57(2): 106249, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-996948

ABSTRACT

Few large series describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and costs of COVID-19 in Western countries. This cohort reports the first 1255 adult cases receiving anti-COVID-19 treatment at a Spanish hospital (1-24 March 2020). Treatment costs were calculated. A logistic regression model was used to explore risk factors on admission associated with ARDS. A bivariate Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model was employed to determine the HR between individual factors and death. We included 1255 patients (median age 65 years; 57.8% male), of which 92.3% required hospitalisation. The prevalence of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (DM) was 45.1%, 31.4% and 19.9%, respectively. Lymphocytopenia (54.8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase (33.0%) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (58.5%) were frequent. Overall, 36.7% of patients developed ARDS, 10.0% were admitted to an ICU and 21.3% died. The most frequent antiviral combinations were lopinavir/ritonavir plus hydroxychloroquine (44.2%), followed by triple therapy with interferon beta-1b (32.7%). Corticosteroids and tocilizumab were used in 25.3% and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Total cost of anti-COVID-19 agents was €511 825 (€408/patient). By multivariate analysis, risk factors associated with ARDS included older age, obesity, DM, severe hypoxaemia, lymphocytopenia, increased creatine kinase and increased C-reactive protein. In multivariate Cox model, older age (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.09), cardiovascular disease (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.79), DM (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.09-1.92), severe hypoxaemia (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.49-2.72), lymphocytopenia (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20-2.20) and increased C-reactive protein (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06) were risk factors for mortality.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Comorbidity , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunosuppressive Agents/economics , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Spain/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
16.
Value Health ; 23(11): 1409-1422, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-745982

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review published economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched Medline (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), EconLit (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (Ovid), and Health Technology Assessment (Ovid). The search was last rerun on July 5, 2020. Citation tracking and reference checking were used. Only full economic evaluations published as peer-reviewed articles in the last 10 years were included. Studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence economic evaluation checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 782 records were identified, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries. All were model-based. Seven (50%) were cost-utility analyses, 4 (28.6%) were cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 (14.3%) were cost-consequences analyses, and 1 (7.1%) was a cost-benefit analysis. Strategies including antiviral treatment were found to be either cost-saving or cost-effective, at the study-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Empirical treatment was more cost-effective than test-guided treatment for young adults but less so for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral treatment for managing pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses that have very high case fatality rate, similar to COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be cost-effective either as a standalone intervention or part of a multifaceted strategy. Investing in the development of such curative treatments and promptly evaluating their cost-effectiveness, relative to other strategies in use at the time of their introduction should be the focus going forward to inform resource allocation decisions particularly in low- and middle-income countries.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/economics , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Disease Outbreaks , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Technology Assessment, Biomedical
17.
Pharmazie ; 75(8): 407-410, 2020 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696997

ABSTRACT

New drugs against the in COVID-19 pandemic are urgently needed. Gilead Science's remdesivir has been introduced to China through special approval procedures, and was directly conducting the Phase III clinical trial. As expected, the marketing authorization process was completed soon. The drug brought hope to patients as well as business opportunities to companies. However, we must pay attention to the patent competition, generic drug competition and other unfair competition that remdesivir may face in China. China also needs to strengthen the innovation ability and international cooperation ability of local pharmaceutical companies by taking advantages of the opportunity to introduce remdesivir.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/economics , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/economics , Antiviral Agents/economics , COVID-19 , China , Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Drug Approval , Drug Industry/economics , Drugs, Generic/administration & dosage , Drugs, Generic/economics , Economic Competition , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology
19.
Drug Res (Stuttg) ; 70(8): 337-340, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-607965

ABSTRACT

The world is faced with the dire challenge of finding an effective treatment against the rampaging COVID 19 pandemic. Amidst the crisis, reports of in vitro inhibitory activity of ivermectin, an approved anthelmintic, against the causative SARSCoV2 virus, have generated lot of optimism. In this article, we have fished and compiled the needed information on the drug, that will help readers and prospective investigators in having a quick overview. Though the primordial biological action of the drug is allosteric modulation of helminthic ion channel receptor, its in vitro activity against both RNA and DNA viruses is known for almost a decade. In the past two years, efficacy study in animal models of pseudorabies and zika virus was found to be favourable and unfavourable respectively. Only one clinical study evaluated the drug in dengue virus infection without any clinical efficacy. However, the proposed mechanism of drug action, by inhibiting the importin family of nucleus-cytoplasmic transporters along with favourable pharmacokinetics, warrants exploration of its role in COVID 19 through safely conducted clinical trials. Being an available and affordable drug, enlisted in WHO List of Essential Medicine, and a long track record of clinical safety, the drug is already in clinical trials the world over. As the pandemic continues to ravage human civilisation with unabated intensity, the world eagerly waits for a ray of hope emanating from the outcome of the ongoing trials with ivermectin as well as other drugs.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Ivermectin/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Animals , Antiviral Agents/chemistry , Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , Disease Models, Animal , Humans , Ivermectin/chemistry , Ivermectin/economics , Ivermectin/pharmacology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
20.
AAPS PharmSciTech ; 21(5): 153, 2020 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-343702

ABSTRACT

The supply of affordable, high-quality pharmaceuticals to US patients has been on a critical path for decades. In and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, this critical path has become tortuous. To regain reliability, reshoring of the pharmaceutical supply chain to the USA is now a vital national security need. Reshoring the pharmaceutical supply with old know-how and outdated technologies that cause inherent unpredictability and adverse environmental impact will neither provide the security we seek nor will it be competitive and affordable. The challenge at hand is complex akin to redesigning systems, including corporate and public research and development, manufacturing, regulatory, and education ones. The US academic community must be engaged in progressing solutions needed to counter emergencies in the COVID-19 pandemic and in building new methods to reshore the pharmaceutical supply chain beyond the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/supply & distribution , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Civil Defense/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Health Services Needs and Demand/organization & administration , Needs Assessment/organization & administration , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Viral Vaccines/supply & distribution , Antiviral Agents/economics , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Civil Defense/economics , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/economics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Drug Costs , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Humans , Needs Assessment/economics , Pandemics/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Viral Vaccines/economics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL