A bottle containing the drug Remdesivir Photo: Zsolt Czegledi/MTI via AP, File

Health experts clash over use of certain drugs for COVID-19


Health officials around the world are clashing over the use of certain drugs for COVID-19, leading to different treatment options for patients depending on where they live.

On Friday, a World Health Organization guidelines panel advised against using the antiviral remdesivir for hospitalized patients, saying there’s no evidence it improves survival or avoids the need for breathing machines.

But in the U.S. and many other countries, the drug has been the standard of care since a major, government-led study found other benefits — it shortened recovery time for hospitalized patients by five days on average, from 15 days to 10.

Within the U.S., a federal guidelines panel and some leading medical groups have not endorsed two other therapies the Food and Drug Administration authorized for emergency use -- Eli Lilly’s experimental antibody drug and convalescent plasma, the blood of COVID-19 survivors. The groups say there isn't enough evidence to recommend for or against them.

Doctors also remain uncertain about when and when not to use the only drugs known to improve survival for the sickest COVID-19 patients: dexamethasone or similar steroids.

And things got murkier with Thursday’s news that the anti-inflammatory drug tocilizumab may help. Like the key WHO study on remdesivir, the preliminary results on tocilizumab have not yet been published or fully reviewed by independent scientists, leaving doctors unclear about what to do.

“It’s a genuine quandary,” said the University of Pittsburgh’s Dr. Derek Angus, who is involved in a study testing many of these treatments. “We need to see the details.”

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, infectious disease chief at Massachusetts General Hospital, agreed.

“It’s really hard to practice medicine by press release,” she said on a podcast Thursday with a medical journal editor. Until the National Institutes of Health’s guidelines endorse a treatment, “I’m really reluctant ... to call that standard of care.”

Angus said there are legitimate questions about all of the drug studies.

“It’s not unusual for professional guidelines to disagree with each other, it’s just that it’s all under the microscope with COVID-19,” he said.

The rift over remdesivir, sold as Veklury, by Gilead Sciences Inc., is the most serious. The WHO guidelines stress that the drug does not save lives, based heavily on a WHO-sponsored study that was larger but much less rigorous than the U.S.-led one that found it had other benefits.

The drug is given through an IV for around five days, and its high cost and lack of “meaningful effect” on mortality make it a poor choice, the WHO panel concluded.

Gilead charges $3,120 for a typical treatment course for patients with private insurance and $2,340 for people covered by government health programs in the U.S. and other developed countries. In poor or middle-income countries, much cheaper versions are sold by generic makers.

This week, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit group that analyzes drug prices, said remdesivir should be priced around $2,470 for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe disease because of the cost savings from fewer days of care. However, it’s worth only $70 for patients hospitalized with milder disease, the group concluded.

Price also may be driving lower demand. In October, U.S. health officials said that hospitals had bought only about one-third of the doses of remdesivir that they were offered over the previous few months, when the drug was in short supply. Between July and September, 500,000 treatment courses were made available to state and local health departments but only about 161,000 were bought.

In a separate development, the FDA on Thursday gave emergency authorization to use of another anti-inflammatory drug, baricitinib, to be used with remdesivir. Adding baricitinib shaved an additional day off the average time to recovery for severely ill hospitalized patients in one study.

Lilly sells baricitinib now as Olumiant to treat rheumatoid arthritis, the less common form of arthritis that occurs when a mistaken or overreacting immune system attacks joints, causing inflammation. An overactive immune system also can lead to serious problems in coronavirus patients.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

The W.H.O. has different considerations than each country does, hence the different recommendations.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Hmmm, no mention of hydroxychloroquine, a relatively effective and very safe medicine.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Hmmm, no mention of hydroxychloroquine, a relatively effective and very safe medicine.

Because there is no clash at all about it, it has already been demonstrated as useless by studies, so no expert is still trying to claim efficacy, only laymen that don't understand the difference between studies of high and low quality and that think that not giving it is unethical, whatever it takes to defend their obviously false imaginary conspiracies.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

No mention of lasting side effects of Remdevisir which affects kidneys for life...that is the issue.

It is only saving money in fact.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

so no expert is still trying to claim efficacy

Not surprised that many think that, considering that posts mentioning the opinions of highly respected experts of infectious diseases get deleted!!!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Many experts from all over the world have expressed themselves (in blogs, interview, and specially in scientific studies) with their full name and credentials to be checked and examined, and they have made clear that the illusion of action from HCQ depended completely on biased selection of the patients. Dexametasone is exactly the opposite, even being a dirt cheap drug there is discussion about its efficacy, because not only low quality studies indicate its efficacy, also the best quality studies that can be done do the same, and its effect are much stronger than even the worst evidence indicated for HCQ.

Then again, if someone can think that only the studies that proved HCQ as useless dividend the patients in groups with and without it, then there will be much more basic things this kind of person needs to learn before trying to understand the concept of differences of quality in a study.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There are many highly respected experts that recommend HCQ. Perhaps I'll bring more of them up another day, today is not a got day, it seems...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There are many highly respected experts that recommend HCQ. Perhaps I'll bring more of them up another day, today is not a got day, it seems

If you think is easy to find recognized experts to support something but you end up having difficulties to do it, it may be time to reconsider what you believe. The data is clear, HCQ only seemed to work because of studies systematically selecting patients at higher risk towards the no-treatment, once that bias was corrected there was no longer any advantage.

In this article the drugs do not depend on that obvious flaw to show any effect, they have at least that huge advantage over HCQ, but still some people are not convinced about their efficacy, specially when considering their cost. For other drugs like dexametasone the case is the opposite, it is cheap and it is effective as a treatment without any kind of doubt.

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