Connect with us


Expect more COVID drugs next year. But we’ve wasted so much time getting here



It’s taken almost two years of the pandemic to get here.

However, as we argue in our paper, with more and larger collaborations, and focusing on repurposing the right drugs, we could have developed effective COVID drugs at scale, earlier.

Here’s what we can do better for the next pandemic.

Also Read: Covid vaccine: 129 crore doses provided to states, UTs, says Health Ministry

First, some good news

One recent study found a commonly prescribed drug for depression, fluvoxamine, given to people diagnosed with COVID-19 reduced their chance of symptoms deteriorating, needing to go to hospital, and dying.

There are four powerful features of this study. It was based on:

– An existing human drug: drugs designed for another purpose can have extra therapeutic benefits. We also didn’t have to design a drug from scratch and knew a lot about tolerated doses, side-effects and drug interactions, over many years of people taking it.

– Earlier observation and data: the drug was chosen based on prior data showing people taking the same or similar drugs for depression did better with COVID-19 infection.

– A large population: the study included enough people to give meaningful results.

– An international collaboration: it is unclear why were there not many, thorough, studies of this type implemented at the very start of the pandemic. Collaboration helps with quicker recruitment and broader input into trial design.

However, this example is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to finding COVID drugs. And during the pandemic, we’ve had several mis-steps.

We missed an early opportunity

We can treat COVID with one of two broad strategies. One is to target or immobilise the virus itself. The other is to “treat the host”.

This involves treating the body’s overwhelming response to the virus and the cause of most death and disease. Fluvoxamine mentioned above is an example of the latter.

However, we didn’t see any major strategy to “treat the host” in the early part of the pandemic, except with the decades-old corticosteroid drugs dexamethasone and budesonide.

Focusing more on “treating the host” would have bought us time to produce vaccines and antiviral drugs, which typically take longer to develop.

“Treating the host” is hardly radical. We’ve been doing this with existing medicines for infectious diseases for years.

In fact, we knew early on that we respond to COVID-19 in much the same way to being infected with other viral infections that can overwhelm the body, such as influenza and Ebola.

That’s not the only mis-step.

We backed a few wrong horses

It’s inevitable some existing drugs trialled initially for COVID-19 would fall by the wayside and never be used clinically. But we backed some of the wrong drugs, at the wrong doses.

According to basic research and clinical knowledge of how drugs work in the body, this should have been obvious from the start.

Over a century after doctors unsuccessfully tried to treat the Spanish flu with quinine and its derivatives, history was repeating itself. We were asking if the related drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to treat COVID-19.

Researchers around the world conducted multiple trials with hydroxychloroquine, even after some others reported a lack of efficacy.

In the first year of the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine was tested in about 250 studies involving nearly 89,000 people, despite evidence it does not help.

If we are to repurpose existing drugs, this needs to be based on our experience of that drug in humans with COVID-19, such as in the fluvoxamine example. Alternatively, the drug needs to fit with what we know about how the virus causes disease and how the infection develops in humans.

If we are to repurpose drugs identified solely on cell-based laboratory studies, this must also be based on what we know about how the human body handles the drug and how the drug works in the body. We also need the relevant quality mathematical models to get the dose right for the early phase human studies.

Using such basic approaches to drug development, which we’ve known about for years, we could have foreseen that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would prove to be ineffective – before larger scale human trials were ever allowed to be conducted.

We also backed too many small trials

During the pandemic, there have been an estimated 2,800 clinical trials for COVID drugs with fewer than 300 reported.

In one database of COVID-19 trials, 40% said researchers were enrolling fewer than 100 patients, a sample size generally too small to be useful.

Also Read: India’s COVID-19 vaccination coverage crosses 115 crore. Details here

For us to get a better idea if a COVID drug is safe and effective, we need larger, collaborative trials.

For example, the RECOVERY trial enrolled about 45,000 people at 180 sites to test a range of potential COVID therapies. It showed the repurposed drug dexamethasone reduced death rates, changing standard practice.

How could we do better next time?

We need to start thinking about ways of developing drugs for the early part of the next pandemic, considering what we’ve learned from this one.

This is essential if we are to have a range of safe, effective, cheap and available therapies for treating the host, to buy time to develop vaccines and antivirals.

We now know from global experiences the importance of rational choice of drugs for testing. We also know the importance of large clinical trials that come from major, international collaborations.

We also need to co-ordinate research efforts nationally, rather than compete for research dollars with other groups. Doing research in a pandemic is not like doing research in non-pandemic times.

So this means countries such as Australia need to have their own centre for pandemic preparedness or centre for disease control to co-ordinate research and funding priorities.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint.
our App Now!!


Possible Release Date of This Rumoured Zack Snyder Movie!



How much truth is there to the rumor that Ben Affleck has given up the cape and cowl as Batman? Let’s find out.

Ben Affleck has recently spoken about his time at DC and the reason for leaving. Here is a list of everything he discussed.


Dawn Of Justice

Since Affleck began working at DC, he has continuously collaborated with Snyder in the director’s chair for a movie. The first few minutes of Justice League were also a similar story. However, due to a personal issue in the director’s life, there were issues.

Affleck said that he had more fun making the earlier film.

In a recent interview, Ben Affleck spoke about the filming of Justice League.

The DC Extended Universe’s 2017 superhero film was Justice League. The characters in the film were Affleck as Batman, Cavill as Superman, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, Miller as the Flash, Momoa as Aquaman, and Fisher as Cyborg.

The goal of the film was to create a DC counterpart to the Avengers, but it spectacularly failed.

Mr. Allens believes the film to be haunted by a personal tragedy. This is a personal tragedy for Snyder, who lost his daughter as a result of the accident.

In Affleck’s view, the fact that it was directed by two directors who couldn’t collaborate was a major factor in the film’s failure to live up to expectations.

Why Does Ben Affleck Want To Leave DC?

In his debut film, Affleck enjoyed the superhero genre. While developing Justice League, he lost interest at some point.

that’s why he wants to move on. It’s been a long time since that moment, and Affleck doesn’t feel compelled to keep it going. Superhero films should be made by individuals who are truly enthusiastic about them.


First and foremost, let’s get the bad news out of the way. Justice League 2 is not being developed by Warner Bros. Yes, we realize that this entire post is about the sequel, but the studio has expressed no interest in continuing the plot. WarnerMedia CEO Ann Sarnoff told Variety in March 2021 that they’re delighted Snyder was able to finish his trilogy, but that’s where it ends.

“I’m glad they like Zack’s work, and we’re grateful for all of his contributions to DC.” We’re just overjoyed that he was able to bring his version of the “Justice League” to life, as that wasn’t originally planned.”

The Dark Knight is resurrected! The Batman release date has been set.

“With it comes the completion of his trilogy,” she added. We’re ecstatic to have completed this, but we’re even more ecstatic about the plans we have for all of the multi-dimensional DC characters now in development.”

Obviously, this does not mean that the story is over for all of the characters. The Flash will cast Ben Affleck’s Batman alongside Michael Keaton’s Batman, with Ezra Miller repeating his role as Barry Allen. Meanwhile, Patty Jenkins just stated that Wonder Woman 3 is in development, with Gal Gadot reprising her role as Diana Prince. Jason Momoa’s Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, directed by highly renowned director James Wan, is currently in production. As a result, the DC Extended Universe is still alive and well!

Is Still Happening?

According to the original script, a follow-up to Justice League was scheduled for release in June of last year. But we haven’t heard anything about the film since then.

There is no telling whether or not the film will be made now that there has been no new production announcement, and Affleck has moved out of DC.

We may only wait and anticipate. There is no end to human optimism! Isn’t it?


You probably already know the solution to this one. No, there isn’t a Justice League 2 trailer. However, there is an animated Justice League film called Justice League Dark: Apokolips War that plays with similar themes to what Zack Snyder had intended for the sequel.

Let’s watch the trailer of justice league!

Stay tuned for more updates with alphanewscall!

Continue Reading


New Covid-19 variant forces postponement of CWC League 2 matches, UAE and Oman return home



The UAE has announced the cancellation of all flights coming from South Africa.

Oman. (Photo Source: Twitter/T20 World Cup)

The Covid-19 pandemic has once again proven to be a roadblock in the cricketing world. The new strain of Coronavirus, called Omicron is spreading in South Africa, and as a result, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Oman sides will be returning back to their respective countries.

Also, various countries had imposed a travel ban on people from South Africa as well, and this has now resulted in the postponement of the Cricket World Cup (CWC) League 2 matches as well.

The UAE has announced the cancellation of all flights coming from South Africa and there are also several restrictions on the entry of passengers who have come through countries like Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Eswatini and Botswana as well.

Oman and UAE return home on the same chartered flights

The Oman and the UAE cricket teams returned home on the same chartered flights. The Netherlands team meanwhile is still in Pretoria waiting for their departure to their homeland.

Oman and Namibia had locked horns in 2 matches on 26th and 27th November 2021 respectively. While the Namibia side had won the first rubber, beating their opposition by 40 runs, Oman bounced back in the second ODI and beat the Namibia outfit by a slender margin of 9 runs.

These games are a part of the CWC League 2, which should finish before the 2023 World Cup qualifiers tournament. But then, due to the postponement of matches due to Covid-19, the league might not be completed before the scheduled time.

The emergence of the new Covid-19 variant had also forced the postponement of the ODI series between South Africa and The Netherlands as well. Only one out of the 3 scheduled matches between the two sides was completed.

Continue Reading


The Office: 9 Projects Fans Can See The Cast In 2022 – Screen Rant



The Office: 9 Projects Fans Can See The Cast In 2022  Screen Rant

Continue Reading