Photo: AP file
business

Fujifilm completes delayed Avigan clinical tests

20 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

Hope it’s better than the Oxford/USA one that has serious side effects. The one they are pushing with recommendations that it be compulsory.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

@The one they are pushing with recommendations that it be compulsory.

where did you read that pls, link..

7 ( +8 / -1 )

At this point not much is expected from the drug anymore. One thing that happens when something has high efficacy is that even small number of patients give positive results, in the best cases the effect is so important that the study has to be stopped because of ethical reasons (so patients in the placebo group can also be treated).

For Avigan this is not the case, preliminary results did not give any strong differences, and it has struggle to demonstrate it is effective even collecting more and more patient data. It may be just bad luck (by being tried in a population that for whatever reason is protected from heavy complications) but it is more likely that it has only minor effects, if any, to treat the infection.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

And that is why they mention dexamethasone that is dirt cheap?

Drugs like that simply prevent your immune system from overreacting, so I guess it is mainly used for critical cases. While Avigan specifically addresses the infection by inhibiting viral RNA polymerases. The other drug, the one that cannot be mentioned despite it being shown to be safe and effective, also addresses the infection process...

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I definitely do NOT trust any drugs developed here.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

But it was delayed as a downtrend in the number of new infection cases in the country made it difficult to gather enough patient data, targeted at 96.

Prevention delayed the testing of the cure.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oxford/ USA are developing a vaccine, Avigan is a simple anti-viral drug - totally different.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Drugs like that simply prevent your immune system from overreacting, so I guess it is mainly used for critical cases. While Avigan specifically addresses the infection by inhibiting viral RNA polymerases. The other drug, the one that cannot be mentioned despite it being shown to be safe and effective, also addresses the infection process...

That is still nonsense, the failed argument is that expensive drugs are the only ones being promoted while perfectly effective ones silenced, it has absolutely no importance the mechanisms of action if the reason is supposed economic profit. The real reason is lack of efficacy and increase of side effects of a drug make it simple better not to be used. Specially if the only studies that show any effect depend on the patients more likely to die to be included in the other group, something terribly transparent to see for anybody that actually read the reports, since the author explicitly mention it.

Avigan at least make their side effects much more open, but with the same defficient efficacy.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I definitely do NOT trust any drugs developed here.

Come on, everyone loves a good suppository. Or taking it in the form of 18 very small pills in a row.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Joe Blow :)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Avigan is an oral intake drug, it's effective for mild to moderate symptoms, which is great because majority of patients exhibit mild or no symptoms at all.

For severe condition I put hope on the plasma therapy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ goodlucktoyou

“The one they are pushing with recommendations that it be compulsory.”

where did you get this information or is it just your guess about what may happen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fujifilm Toyama began clinical tests in March to see if Avigan was effective in treating patients with the respiratory disease caused by the virus and they were initially expected to end by June. But it was delayed as a downtrend in the number of new infection cases in the country made it difficult to gather enough patient data, targeted at 96.

Are they trying to tell us that May and June there were not up to 96 people who were positive with the virus. Let us not forget fujifilm got 138M dollars from the government when Abe was touting the drug without any evidence of it being effective just false proclamations from the untrusted chinese.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Many countries are trialing Avigan in advanced phases, India and Russia are already selling it on counters. Yeah, "untrusted Chinese"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Many countries are trialing Avigan in advanced phases, India and Russia are already selling it on counters. Yeah, "untrusted Chinese"

A country that approves a vaccine without phase 3 trial is not trustworthy, not to me,

Well the indian government is like a drowning man they will cling even onto a snake.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Are they trying to tell us that May and June there were not up to 96 people who were positive with the virus.

Not only positive with the virus but also developing symptoms, and obviously only between the people included in the study. It would give no information if 500 people got the virus and nobody (not even people in the control group) developed symptoms. It is not possible then to evaluate if the vaccine actually protect people.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That is still nonsense, the failed argument is that expensive drugs are the only ones being promoted while perfectly effective ones silenced, it has absolutely no importance the mechanisms of action if the reason is supposed economic profit.

You seem to be the only one making that argument.

The drug's mechanism of action or target is very important. Drugs like Avigan or hydroxychloroquine target the actual infection process. HCQ is cheap, safe, and effective at low doses and can be taken as soon as infection is confirmed. While the corticosteroids try to block the cytokine storms, rather than the infection; it's not something you administer when one has mild or no symptoms.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The drug's mechanism of action or target is very important. Drugs like Avigan or hydroxychloroquine target the actual infection process. HCQ is cheap, safe, and effective at low doses and can be taken as soon as infection is confirmed.

No it is not, the supposed conspiracy is about cheap drugs being hidden, no matter what they do. The mechanisms of action have zero impact on them "taking money" out of the pocket of pharma. There are many other drugs that could do what dexamethasone do for cheap except costing 100 times more, but still you can see without problems dexamethasone being promoted as efficient and safe, because it has been proved to do so.

HCQ has been proved as useless for the disease, completely. Only people that do not understand scientific reports keep thinking it may be useful when a trial where people more at risk of death are systematically directed to the non-treated group, so finding out the people on the treated group die and complicate less is too obviously an effect of this selection. The authors of the reports actually clearly say so on the reports. That is the reason why is not recommended anymore, the mechanism of action is irrelevant. First it needed to show it works (failed at this point) later it would be necessary to see how it worked (it did not).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No it is not, the supposed conspiracy is about cheap drugs being hidden, no matter what they do.

Yeah, you misrepresent what the others are saying, to make it easier for you to shoot down their ideas, instead of just defending yours. You do that a lot (plus name calling) with those who do not agree with you.

HCQ has been proved as useless for the disease, completely.

No, several studies have shown it to be at least as good as anything else out there. I already gave you 3 links, and there are others.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yeah, you misrepresent what the others are saying, to make it easier for you to shoot down their ideas, instead of just defending yours. You do that a lot (plus name calling) with those who do not agree with you.

What could be then a reasonable cause for only some cheap drugs to be hidden but other being promoted as very effective? there is none. Avigan is just another example of a drug that even if expensive it has shown no effect, the only real reason is scientific results.

No, several studies have shown it to be at least as good as anything else out there. I already gave you 3 links, and there are others.

That is false, you provided 2 links to studies that were supposed to be investigated for malpractice because they gave massive doses of the drug so patients would be intoxicated instead of getting a benefit. None of the studies have been under investigation and are still a very good reference why HCQ has not benefit. The other 3 studies explicitly and clearly point out that patients that are more likely to complicate and die (with cardiac preexisting conditions) were being systematically included in the group not treated with HCQ, which obviously made the treated patients statistically more likely to survive even without treatment, just because they were not cardiac patients.

That is the reason why those studies are much less important than the ones that show lack of effect on groups much more balanced. The supposed effect disappears once you don't have the selection bias. Professional scientists (including the authors of the reports) do understand this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites