Skip to main content

Glenmark Lies About Favipiravir

I received from a friend a PDF which happened to be Glenmark's press release about Favipiravir. The release is full of claims that make it sound like Favipiravir is a wonder drug that is going to solve COVID problems. It becomes my responsibility to refute some of these claims, considering how majority media outlets are doing what they're best at - exaggerating an already exaggerated PR claim.

Firstly, we have to verify the claim whether India's drug controller did approve the drug. The way to do that is visit CDSCO's website and navigate to approvals -> new drugs. And as per that, "Favipiravir bulk and Favipiravir film coated tablet 200mg" did in fact receive approval on 19th of June for "the treatment of patients with mild to moderate Covid-19 disease" as the 18th entry.

I do not think CDSCO publishes details of the approval process, about what evidence they considered for approval, etc. Making these processes transparent would be useful for avoiding putting people in great danger.

The deceptions start from the title itself. "Glenmark becomes the first pharmaceutical company in India [..] blah blah blah [..] COVID" - what does it mean to say "first pharmaceutical company in India in this context? They just want it to sound like this is the first drug for COVID.

They then start with a bullet point about accelerated approval process which makes it sound like it was CDSCO who wanted the approval to be accelerated so that the "benefit" of Favipiravir can reach everyone. I doubt that's what really happened.

They then talk about "responsible medication use" and informed consent. The reality is that this informed consent is necessary because there is no way to know if Favipiravir is really useful in COVID. According to the Telegraph article, the approval was based on a trial on 150 patients. (The CDSCO website does list approval for a Favipiravir trial in May, although this was given to Cipla. Interestingly, the CDSCO website seems to be missing details of any approvals given in April (and Glenmark received approval in late April, as per them))

In that last pdf they do share the details of the clinical trial. They say they would enroll exactly 150 patients and give Favipiravir to half of them. 75 people!

Now, next in their bullet point they come up with the ridiculous and unsupported claim that Favipiravir shows clinical improvements of 88% and rapid reduction in viral load. In the text, they do add a citation which points to this PDF report of an observational study done in Japan. This was an observational study with no control arm or anything to compare with. The report itself states this:

  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  this  study    only    captures    patients    who    received    favipiravir,  which  precludes  direct  comparison  of  the  clinical  course  with  those  who  did  not  receive  the   agent.   Given   that   over   80%   of   COVID-19 patients have mild disease which often improves by supportive   therapy6),   caution   is   required   in   interpreting  efficacy  of  favipiravir  based  on  the  data presented here
And this is what is cited to support the ridiculous claim in the PR.

I'm not going to go ahead and waste my time talking about each point made in the PDF.

But the fact is that saying Favipiravir is useful for treating COVID is as correct as this claim by Patanjali:



--

Conflict of interest disclosure: I have 2 shares in Natco pharma worth about 1000 rupees the last time I checked.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What to Make of Itolizumab?

It is the worst of times. Science is suffering an identity crisis. The world is in dire need of science. Science isn't used to being rushed. "It is a giant and slow churn", said a friend once, "and spews a breakthrough once in a while". Is it possible to make the process faster? That's what everyone is wondering. And praying. And waiting, eagerly. Science isn't used to getting this attention.
"Coronil is 100% effective", said Patanjali folks. "Favipiravir is 88% effective", said Glenmark folks. How to know the truth? Seeking truth has never been easy. Never has it been easy for journalists, scientists, or the common person. In some sciences there are multiple truths. Is medicine one of those sciences? Can there be a single truth in medicine?
I won't use words like epistemology and ontology in this post. (Because I still can't remember which is which). But the question is essentially two:
1. Is there a single truth? 2. Is there a…

Public Health Was Always Broken, You Are Just Noticing It Now

There is this nytimes article about how one pregnant lady who was also breathless couldn't find appropriate care despite going to multiple hospitals. I find it nothing surprising. Our country's public health system has never been able to provide appropriate care to people with medical emergencies (or for that matter, any health issue). Maybe now people are noticing because it comes on news.
There is a limit to how many emergencies can be handled at a time by a small medical team. Even in tertiary care government hospitals, this "team" is a very small one. It usually includes a couple of young doctors - either doing their internship or their residency. And a couple of nurses. And a couple of janitors. It is the same whether you are talking about the ICU or the emergency room of any department. There are no mechanisms for requesting extra hands when there is a spike in cases at any moment. Crises are handled by expediting care (many a times at the expense of quality and…

Understanding Adrenaline Dosage

Have you ever administered adrenaline for anaphylactic shock? I've never had the unfortunate need to. I'm sure anyone who ever does will forever remember the correct dosage. But for me, it is always a confusion. Every time I vaccinate someone at my clinic, I look up the dose of adrenaline just to be sure.

The first problem is the dilutions. Dosages of adrenaline are (or were) mentioned in dilution. 1:1000 & 1:10000. There begins the confusion.

Firstly, let us understand where the 1000 comes from in 1:1000. Have you seen a small vial of adrenaline? That is 1mL. It has effectively 1mg of epinephrine/adrenaline. But why is it called 1:1000? Because 1mL of water = 1g of water = 1000mg. So, the 1:1000 actually refers to 1mg of adrenaline : 1000 mg of water. Unnecessarily complex!

All you had to say was 1mg in 1mL. And that is why this labeling is now being followed in some countries.

So, there you have a small vial - a 1mL vial - with 1mg of adrenaline in it.

Now, let us look a…