Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
It was just 2 weeks ago that the ACTIV 2 lead person said she was 'very eagerly awaiting' the Synairgen HT results. Now she has them showing that there were no hospitalisations and that the best use for the treatment is for breathless hospitalised patients. So we can expect an RNS next week advising ACTIV 2 progression to ACTIV 3. Just like BRii196/198.
Now we know the target market is breathless hospitalised patients. And that these patients will not die if they get this
treatment. The £2000 price tag is now assured. RM today spoke about engaging with regulatory authorities. This additional HT data proves that the July 2020 announcement wasn't a fluke. Not long to wait now for an EUA announcement. As for India - sadly they can't afford this treatment.
I think there may be a paywall. One of you will be able to overcome it and post so all can read it
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/ef2d4fb5-a6c2-477c-832b-474331fc8f89
Thomas Cueni’s account of what happened in regard to HIV/Aids medication and intellectual property rights 20 years ago misses out some crucial facts (“Waiving IP rules will not deliver more Covid vaccines”, Opinion, April 26).
In the late 1990s, innovative antiviral treatment was basically unaffordable in developing countries because pharmaceutical companies insisted on their patent-induced monopolies.
In that setting, governments in some emerging-market countries allowed generic production in spite of World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property rights. This led to lower treatment prices, improving the healthcare outcomes in places like Brazil and Thailand, for example.
Civil society activists took note and supported these and other governments’ efforts for change.
Then in 2001, the WTO summit in Doha modified the global IP regime substantially.
Facing a public health crisis, every country has since been entitled to grant compulsory licences to companies to produce generics of patent-protected pharmaceuticals.
WTO rules even allow them to grant such licences to companies in foreign countries and import those drugs.
After Doha, affordable treatment fast became available in southern Africa and other world regions severely affected by HIV/Aids. The main reason was that patent holders accepted much lower prices. On the one hand, their bargaining position had worsened; on the other, they wanted to prevent an onslaught of generic production permits around the world.
The full truth is therefore that even though the WTO’s flexibility rules have hardly been used, their introduction 20 years ago had a vitally important impact. The insistence on the right to produce generics was most effective.
Of course, a top-level pharma lobbyist may not want the public to remember that. He may much rather have everyone believe that effective healthcare always depends on patents being sacrosanct.
In my view, Cueni’s International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations does not prioritise the public good, but focuses on protecting special interests.
In regard to Covid-19 vaccines, that stance is particularly absurd.
These vaccines would not even exist had governments not sponsored research with massive injections of taxpayers’ money.
Hans Dembowski
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Is there a link you can upload for us all to wallow in.
My understanding is that there are two companies in ACTIV 2 trialling Mabs. One is AZD7442 which is already on ACTIV3. The other is BRII196 & 198 which has been closed down on ACTIV3
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30566-X/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email
More validation of interferon as a treatment. In this case by a single injection
This study reported in The Lancet delivered 3000mg to the patients over 5 days. The Active 2 study delivers 5600mg over 7 days. So that may mean increased efficacy is identified in ACTIV 2, and/or a greater risk of more adverse effects on the patient. Is this another competitor treatment falling away?
https://www.share-talk.com/weekend-edition-bulletin-board-heroes-sunday-18th-april-2021/#gs.yko862
I think it is certain that Synairgen has shared data with the US. It is therefore quite likely that news of progress derived from a US decision will be the first news reported in an RNS. The yanks don't mess about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXv8nBUdUSg
Given what was said in this video at 40:56mins released last week by UCSF, I do not believe we will have to wait until after day 90 of the UK home trial before we see results. '''Much interest in inhaled interferon data....we are really eagerly awaiting the outpatient studies both here in the US and in the UK.'
There seems to be a designation called RIPH1, which means 'fast track priority research'. It is not clear to me how to determine whether this fast track RIPH1 status has been designated to the SPRINTER. Can anyone else figure this out?
This article states at the end 'In conclusion, endogenous IFNß production in the nasal mucosa predicts clinical outcome'
What does this statement mean and what does it imply in terms of efficacy of SNG001 as a therapeutic?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00169-7/fulltext
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRfVROgYPlg&t=8s
Inhaled interferon mentioned at 25 mins