Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#241

Post by CydeWeys »

sudosysgen wrote: post #181
tmoravec wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon my naive question, but aren't there more objectives for the clinical trial? Particularly testing for negative side effects? How are those judged if the trial is discontinued?

You don't need people to actually have covid to find side effects. So you don't need sick people in your control arm.

To be cleared though, both arms or the trial are people who have COVID. The control arm is not getting the drug. If there are side effects that occur in some combination with having COVID, they will find those.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#242

Post by jungturk »

Steltek wrote: post #209
jartelt wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see things starting to really ease up once all children have had a chance to be vaccinated and everyone else has had a chance to get their 6 month booster shot.

Not everyone is eligible for a booster shot.

This is true, but moot in my area.

The local pharmacies that administer the vaccines are not validating your eligibility. Those I know who are interested in the 3rd round, and beyond 6 months from their 2nd, have received it.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#243

Post by ceejayoz »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #219

The title is all marketing. What’s the control? > The rates of hospitalization or death in the Paxlovid and control arms were 1% and 6.7%, respectively, resulting in a risk reduction of 85%. Most people that get COVID don’t go to the hospital nor do they die. How much is from a null hypothesis; people who wouldn’t have complications anyway? It’s barely significant if you use 5% as the minimum, and it can still be noi…

If you read past said title, the article literally includes details on the control group.

> The rates of hospitalization or death in the Paxlovid and control arms were 1% and 6.7%, respectively, resulting in a risk reduction of 85%.

> Pfizer used data on patients who were treated within three days of symptom onset as the headline finding in its press release. In that subpopulation, the rates of hospitalization or death in the Paxlovid and control groups were 0.8% and 7%, respectively, resulting in a risk reduction of 89%. Merck’s 50% reduction was seen in patients who were randomized within five days of symptom onset.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#245

Post by b0tzzzzzzman »

jjuel wrote: post #186
roenxi wrote: post #86

> This is a completely novel molecule... Then do we understand the risk profile of this thing? That sounds like the sort of innovation that people would want to be at the back of the queue for. Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

Pretty sure we don't understand the long term risk of getting COVID either right? I mean it has not even been around for 2 years. Plus we do know it is possible only 1 infection would kill you.

Or injection, bias is an odd thing.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#246

Post by dbsmith83 »

peakaboo wrote: post #183
roenxi wrote: post #86

> This is a completely novel molecule... Then do we understand the risk profile of this thing? That sounds like the sort of innovation that people would want to be at the back of the queue for. Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

I'm not touching any Pfizer drugs with a 10 foot pole. I guess I'm one of the few actually wise humans left.

Honestly, if you don't want to take any Pfizer drugs, nobody cares. More for the rest of us

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#247

Post by darthvoldemort »

yosito wrote: post #207
roenxi wrote: post #86

> This is a completely novel molecule... Then do we understand the risk profile of this thing? That sounds like the sort of innovation that people would want to be at the back of the queue for. Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

> Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months. If this is a molecule with a short half-life that is broken down and expelled by the body, it isn't going to have random side effects that show up months in the future.

Prions are "just" proteins that should get broken down by the body. But they don't, and they cause ‎Creutzfeldt-Jakob in over 10 years after ingesting.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#248

Post by datameta »

sudosysgen wrote: post #173
School-Cotton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the probability of late-appearing side effects higher for this than for the vaccine?

Because of its mechanism of action, which is to induce massive and deadly mutation and reproductive issues on the virus. Normally this should not have an effect on our bodies, but it's not impossible that it does lead to higher cancer rates.

> but it's not impossible that it does lead to higher cancer rates.

That is almost a non-statement that could be seemingly applied to anything with some pharmacological effect. I think you and I and every other layman are talking out of their ass when we make some kind of determination as to any side effects Paxlovid might have.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#249

Post by ceejayoz »

jolts wrote: post #216

Lets ignore the fact that its basically ivermectin with more side effects. Except ivermectin is 30 cent per dose and not under patent..

That's a big nope.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-067310377629

> Ivermectin binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels and is used to treat parasite infections, said Joseph Glajch, a consultant in pharmaceutical and analytical chemistry.

> “These two are so far apart,” he said. “If you look at how they interact with the body..., they don’t even go to the same pathways or receptors.”

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#250

Post by woodruffw »

adolph wrote: post #84
woodruffw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real science does have a price. I'm not following. Are you under the impression that the COVID-19 vaccine trials weren't similarly double blinded?

Seems like some of the emergency nature of C19 development is altering previous ethical guidelines. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01299-5

This is a correspondence piece, offering the opinion of a WHO working group. The opinion is also not the one you might assume: it proposes unblinding some subjects, not researchers, based on COVID-19 morbidity risk.

From a cursory search of NEJM and PubMed, I can't find evidence that any US-approved vaccines were allowed to run unblinded trials. But I could be wrong.

Post reply on HN