When we discovered boceprevir has activity against SARSCoV2, we contacted Merck and let them know, because it was their drug and we figured they could modify the compound for even better activity.
Well Merck didn't pursue a boceprevir derivative for COVID19, and chose instead to bet on a new drug that creates mutations in the virus as its only mechanism of action. This had never been tried before (there's a belief ribavirin does, but it has other inhibitory effects).
Instead Pfizer took the boceprevir ball and ran with it. Though they won't say so, that's where PF-07321332 (Paxlovid) came from. Just look at the structures.
(Paxlovid is often misreported as coming from Pfizer's SARS1 inhibitor libraries, confusing PF-07321332 for PF-0083521)
So Pfizer did what Merck should have done: modify boceprevir for SARSCoV2. (We're doing the same but as we don't have the $billions of Pfizer, our drugs may be a bit slower to come out.)
Meanwhile Merck is doing what nobody should be doing: playing with mutagens.
And Pfizer of course made the correct choice for the patients too: 89% efficacy in preventing hospitalization vs 30%, with no risk of mutating your DNA or creating deadlier or more contagious viral variants.
So for those thinking I'm unfair to Merck: We told Merck, and they confirmed they knew, of boceprevir's promise in early 2020. They had as much ability as Pfizer to make Paxlovid or something like it, and they chose not to.
For technical details, you can read my earlier thread on sublethal viral mutagenesis. Only a matter of time before someone taking molnupiravir coughs on someone before finishing the 40-pill course (or after stopping treatment early upon "feeling better")
Study design is excellent. Relevant vaccine statuses were tested in parallel: {Moderna, Pfizer, J&J} x {distant vax, recent vax, infection+vax, boosted vax}. Assay was pseudovirus neutralization. Color-coded images explain everything.
Also there's a very informative diagram of what was actually done. A picture not just says 1000 words, but is so much easier to understand and prevents confusion about what reagents and procedures were used, so hoping this becomes more common in papers.
"BNT162b2+infection" are people infected in 1st wave, then Pfizer-vaxxed (2 shots). They have better neutralization of omicron than only Pfizer-vaxxed .
A RNA boost 6mo after your last shot bumps Ab levels by 10x. You may need it.
Some details: The 100x higher antibody levels of the infected+Pfizer vs Pfizer here is somewhat artifactual. The vax-only are ony 12 days post-vax. That's well before peak antibody response at 3-8 wks post-vax. OTOH the infection+vax are 27 days post-vax, so near peak protection.
Previous studies saw only a 2–10x difference in Ab levels between infection+vax and vax. So the 100x difference here is likely from the vax-only being sampled before their response is mature. thelancet.com/journals/lanmi…
First results of mAb testing on omicron: looks good for sotrovimab. GSK and Vir say no loss of activity v compared to previous strains reuters.com/business/healt…
Sotrovimab reduces deaths and hospitalizations by 79%. It requires just one 30min IV infusion. It's a very good drug. It's been approved in the US since May. The craziest thing in this crazy epidemic? UK's MHRA only approved it 4 days ago. bmj.com/content/375/bm…
That's AFTER it approved molnupiravir, which is only 30% effective (and there's some skepticism about that), needs to be taken over 5 days, and creates mutated virus, and whose interim trial results were only reported in October, final results in late November.
I've been getting 2 questions a lot: 1. If I'm J&J and I boost with Moderna/Pfizer, do I need a 2nd dose of Moderna/Pfizer? 2. If I'm J&J and I boosted with Moderna/Pfizer once, when should I boost again?
Answers: 1. Congrats, you've chosen wisely to boost your J&J with Moderna or Pfizer. After 1 shot of either, you'll have more antibodies than people after 2x Moderna or 2x Pfizer 2. After you've boosted your J&J with Moderna or Pfizer, you're good for at least 6 months (vs Delta)
Now the evidence. We all remember the NIH-sponsored heterologous boost study that measured antibody levels in people who got each of the 3 vaccines in the US, boosted by a single dose of any of the 3 vaccine types (9 combinations).
Merck claims there isn't a higher rate of viral mutations in molnupiravir clinical trial participants. But (1) this logically contradicts its stated mechanism of action and (2) we need to see the data to know the confidence level of this statement edition.cnn.com/2021/11/23/hea…
Specifically, how could molnupiravir (Lagevrio) work by causing mutations in SARSCoV2, but when Merck sequences virus from patients taking molnupiravir they see no higher rate of mutations. Is the drug working or not? sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
I'd like to wrap up tweeting about vaccine boosters, because I prefer to provide scientific analysis in on controversial or misunderstood issues, not to repeat what's already known.
And now it's clear that boosters were/are needed and were/are useful.
A mini-thread
There were disparate reasons for anti-booster arguments, making for an odd hodgepodge of forces denying booster efficacy or need across the political spectrum. These included:
1. Denial of booster need/efficacy in the US to signal dediction to health outside the US (sadly...
...in the way it was communicated, some similarities to the playing it down by the former guy)
2. Reluctance by certain political or media favorites (not using the E word here) to be the bearer of inconvenient news, or to change a position formulated before Delta