Read through highlights of the Remdesivir published results and it sets a very low bar for the next treatments. Some takeaways from the summary data:
Brilacidin. 1) the total data was a little more robust and conclusive than I had thought a few weeks back. Looks like good data. 2) Remdesivir is clearly better than nothing and certainly better than hydroxychloroquine (which doesn’t do a dam thing against Covid-19 except the possibility of making things worse). 3) Remdesivir’s numbers show a reduction in severe illness time of 3-4 days (15 day average to 11 days). 4) those patients diagnosed early in the infection cycle almost none developed into severe cases. (the numbers here appear to be massaged and manipulated for best outcome based on subgroups. TIAB’s main complaint about B-OM data). 4) Remdesivir as a treatment does not destroy the virus, it merely blocks it from entering cells to replicate. Whence, the reduction in viral load is a product of reduced replicated particles over time rather than reduced particle load from direct destruction. 5) although Gilead originally characterized the response as “robust” even with scant preliminary data, the published data shows very marginal results. Still, touting by the current administration and Gilead has reduced urgency for a treatment. This obviously slows the development of new therapies as agencies will now feel free to take more time for analysis of new candidates. Gilead will benefit greatly from this slowing. 6) nonetheless, B as an antiviral has a very low bar to clear. It now only has to show efficacy better than 3 to 4 days reduced infection time and reduction in symptom severity within 24 hours. Remdesivir fails to do the latter.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
