Are Politics & Power Behind the Rise of Remdesivir?

Nov 8, 2020 | News, Politics, Popular Posts, Remdesivir

Are Politics & Power Behind the Rise of Remdesivir

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, those involved in monitoring new drugs that may help inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus held out much hope for remdesivir, the antiviral drug developed by Gilead. But since the first studies, the results have been mixed, and the most recent World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial produced yet another highly-significant piece of evidence concerning this controversial drug: In the largest trial involving remdesivir and COVID-19 to date, the drug doesn’t appear to help the sickest COVID-19 patients. Yet all along the way, U.S. federal agencies have been there, just at the right time, with a helping hand. Whether it was the unusual last-minute changes to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)  sponsored ACTT endpoints, or the strong negative evidence generated from the Solidary trial, or for that matter, the mixed results that were already apparent from other studies in China, many in the scientific community grew increasingly leery of purportedly objective publicly-funded agencies such as the NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),  and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Gilead Kept Quiet Until Deal Done  

Although FDA, the gold-standard regulatory body, has flexed its regulatory muscles when it comes to the COVID-19 investigational vaccine candidates, such as not bothering to use its Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee (AMDAC) for an objective review before deciding to approve remdesivir (now called Veklury®). Meanwhile, although Gilead was aware that the Solidarity results were not looking good, its kept quiet until its nearly $1 billion deal was done with European Union deal makers. Some may consider this perfectly appropriate sharp dealing, while others may not be so generous, especially given the pandemic and its toll. Gilead critiqued the WHO’s trial design, in an attempt to pit the NIH/NIAID vs. the WHO, which is a mistake. By all appearances, Solidarity has an acceptable design, especially when considering its context: it was accomplished during the worst pandemic in a century. In the earlier days of the pandemic, TrialSite gave the benefit of the doubt to the company and federal players (regulators and research), but with the latest data points now available, the reality now unfortunately suggests that the approval was driven as much by economic and political considerations as by science and research.

Changing Endpoint, “Adaptive Study”

Most recently, Jon Cohen and Kai Kupferschmidt produced a piece for Science that offers a summary of the remdesivir story from the start of the pandemic to the present. The article raises uncomfortable and unfortunate issues, given the state of affairs with the COVID-19 pandemic. With over [10 million COVID-19 cases] and over [140,000 deaths], the US continues to represent the epicenter of the pandemic. Although India has four times the population of the US, nearly twice as many people have died in America due to COVID-19. The situation is horrific and not an appropriate time to support sharp dealing and profiteering. In TrialSite’s July 31 piece “Not a ‘Knockout Drug’ But Knocking it out of the Ballpark: Gilead Windfall as COVID-19 Sales to Hit $1 to 3 Billion in 2020,” we began expressing concerns about the relationship between federal agencies and Gilead. During the NIAID sponsored ACTT trial (NCT04280705), the sponsor (NIAID) changed the primary outcome measure (endpoint) at the conclusion of the trial  from how many people the drug kept alive on ventilators to how long it took patients to recover. Many suspect that NIAID did this to ensure the study would be successful. NIAID claimed that it simply followed the protocol—it’s an adaptive study, and in an unfolding pandemic, with so many unknowns that changes are normal. The study was blinded so those conducting the it would not have access to the data. Overall, the study found that introduction of the drug triggered a 31% reduction in duration of illness. 

The New Standard of Care?

The San Jose Mercury News gave a helpful overview of some key points in an October 23 article, “Remdesivir, which will be marketed as Veklury, quickened recovery for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.” Gilead’s product was the first approved for serious cases, according to an announcement by FDA and Gilead on October 22. The announcement followed three Phase 3 trials which showed a reduction in recovery time. Critics have focused on the preceding news noted above from WHO: “Just days before the FDA authorization, the World Health Organization declared that the drug ‘has little to no effect’ on patients hospitalized with COVID-19, though its findings were not peer reviewed.” Gilead’s shares popped 4.5% following their own announcement. All of this some months after, in April, Dr. Fauci called remdesivir, “the new standard of care.” And CNBC chimed in on October 22 regarding the remdesivir announcement. They note that the drug obtained an EUA in May, allowing use for COVID-19 without formula approval. The article notes that earlier than month the “little of no effect” finding came in from WHO. Remdesivir costs $3,120 per five-day course for folks with private insurance. Gilead’s network for manufacturing remdesivir now includes over 40 companies across North America, Europe, and Asia.

 White House Announcement

The remdesivir announcement covered and broadcast for all, was delivered by Dr. Anthony Fauci in the Oval Office of the White House with POTUS. Fauci declared, “The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.” The NIAID director went on to declare, as noted above, that remdesivir was the, “new standard of care” but also emphasized that it was “no knockout drug.” Gilead becomes the first company to deliver a blockbuster drug in such as fast period of time—in just four months the EUA was approved by FDA, opening the door to deal making. And of course, the rest is history as the drug was approved by the FDA on Oct 22 despite the fact that the overwhelmingly negative evidence produced in Solidarity was announced by WHO on October 15. Wouldn’t the FDA want to take the time to understand the Solidarity findings before pulling the trigger on permanent approval?

Regardless, by late spring and into the summer the controversy with Hydroxychloroquine unfolded, and ultimately the FDA revoked its EUA for that relatively cheap and available drug. Yet many physician-researchers still believe, if administered the correct way (e.g. early on), it can have some impact on slowing the progression of COVID-19. And let’s not forget the Ivermectin story; with the Monash lab findings, a wave of case series and observational studies through the summer produced significant data such that, if nothing else, the NIH should immediately start looking into this generic, already-approved anti-parasite drug. But to date there appears to be no interest. Why wouldn’t the NIH at least sponsor a study comparing Ivermectin to remdesivir?

Call to Action: Read Jon Cohen and Kai Kupferschmidt’s article titled “‘A very, very bad look’ for remdesivir.”


  1. jim goodyear

    It is completely terrible to think that a cheap and effective drug such as Ivermectin is ignored because there is no money in it regardless of the good it has been doing worldwide. Thank God for doctors that recognize the usefullness of this drug and prescribe it because it is the right thing to do. It is possible this pandemic could be under control and life would return to normal if Ivermetin, Doxycycline, Zinc, vitamins D3 and B were issued to be taken weekly.

  2. Hein De Waele

    The ACCT-1 is the randomized double blinded placebo trial that Gilead and the FDA based themselves to allow Remdesivir and made it standard of care in the US. Yet this study reveals the following

    The study had not as endpoint:
    – reduce mortality for all patients. No statistic significance!
    – showing evidence on reducing viral load

    The study remained unclear:
    – it did not separate the subgroups of high flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation
    – it did not show clear info, on time to treatment from symptom onset.
    – side affects: The placebo group showed more adverse effects than the control group. A RCT is supposed to show adverse effects caused by the tested drug: remdesivir. How can a placebo group do this, given the fact no remdesivir was given? Frontline workers have been reporting considerable side effect concerning kidney function.

    The study fails to reduce the time in hospital for for those patients who are:
    – not on oxygen.
    That makes it of little use as antiviral for outpatients. Antivirals work best when administered early after symptoms. Outpatients are usually not on oxygen yet. So, remdesivir fails at that.
    – on high flow oxygen or not invasive ventilation Remdesivir does nothing for the preferred oxygen therapy.
    patients on ventilation. Remdesivir got emergency use authorisation from FDA. Gilead claimed it was helpful for severe to critical stage of the illness. Turns out it does not do this.

    In the overall Kaplan-Meier graph there is a concern that the placebo and control group lines are merging together again after day 26. This suggests that after a month the advantage (speed of improvement of the patient) would loose it statistical significance.

    Remdesivir works for:
    – patients on oxygen in reducing the hospital stay from 10 to 15 days.
    Yet. the kaplan-Meier graphic on the oxygen subgroup, shows only a slight statistical significance between day 4 and day 20. Before and after, there is no statistical significant difference. In all the other subgroups there is generally no statistical significance.

  3. Carol Crevier

    Agreed. It is a completely terrible thing that ivermectin and other cheap and ubiquitous drugs have not been given as early outpatient standard of care. The FDA has inserted itself between patients and physicians. It would be great if TSN would do a piece on the history of the FDA, its role in the approval of medicine and where its authority stops. We still have a country with many independent physicians, if we look across the big puddle, its not difficult to see what things look like without this dynamic.

  4. Ronald M. Chavin

    Here are some interesting studies involving Avigan (favipiravir). Most of them are clinical trials for treating COVID-19:

    Meanwhile, here are clinical trials in which remdesivir failed to shorten hospital stays or reduce deaths:

    Remdesivir is totally useless against all viral diseases, including the flu, common cold, and Ebola:

    Remdesivir is fraudulently indicated for end-stage COVID-19 when in truth, it has absolutely no benefit in reducing the cytokine storm, in fact, might make it slightly worse:

    Here are some interesting infographics:[email protected]/Tertiary-structures-of-influenza-virus-proteins-matrix-2-neuraminidase-and-RNA.png

  5. David Jans

    For some reason I thought favipiravir was not great even for influenza, because it did not partition to the lungs ? Have I got this wrong ?


Pin It on Pinterest