Covering Remdesivir – Contact an expert from Cedarville first

May 4, 2020

2 min

Zach Jenkins


There has been a lot of talk about treatment, vaccinations and drugs that are being used during the CVOID-19 pandemic.


The latest is Remdesivir – and it is getting a lot of attention.


The US's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorised emergency use of the Ebola drug remdesivir for treating the coronavirus.


The authorisation means the anti-viral drug can now be used on people who are hospitalised with severe Covid-19.


A recent clinical trial showed the drug helped shorten the recovery time for people who were seriously ill.


However, it did not significantly improve survival rates.


Experts have warned the drug - which was originally developed to treat Ebola, and is produced by Gilead pharmaceutical company in California - should not be seen as a "magic bullet" for coronavirus.




What do we know about remdesivir?


The drug did not cure Ebola, and Gilead says on its website: "Remdesivir is an experimental medicine that does not have established safety or efficacy for the treatment of any condition." Gilead also warns of possible serious side-effects.

However, President Trump has been a vocal supporter of remdesivir as a potential treatment for the coronavirus.


In its clinical trial, whose full results are yet to be released, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) found that remdesivir cut the duration of symptoms from 15 days down to 11.


The trials involved 1,063 people at hospitals around the world - including the US, France, Italy, the UK, China and South Korea. Some patients were given the drug and others were given a placebo (dummy) treatment.


Dr Anthony Fauci who runs NIAID, said that remdesivir had "a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery".


However, although remdesivir may aid recovery - and possibly stop people having to be treated in intensive care - the trials did not give any clear indication whether it can prevent deaths from coronavirus.  May 02 - BBC



There are still a lot of questions to be asked:


  • When could it be ready for mass distribution?
  • How is it administered?
  • Who can get it?
  • And how much will it cost?


If you are a journalist covering this emerging issue – then let our experts help.


Dr. Zach Jenkins is an infectious disease expert at Cedarville University. He is available to speak with media about this topic – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.



Connect with:
Zach Jenkins

Zach Jenkins

Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice & Clinical Specialist, Infectious Diseases

Dr. Zach Jenkins is an infectious disease expert who loves educating others about superbugs, antibiotic therapy, and emergency preparedness.

VaccinesSuperbugsVirusesInfectious DiseasesCOVID-19
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Cedarville University

Supreme Court’s New Term Puts Government Power and Constitutional Rights in Focus featured image

2 min

Supreme Court’s New Term Puts Government Power and Constitutional Rights in Focus

The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term October 5 with major cases involving climate change, gun rights, immigration and religious freedom. Although the disputes address different issues, they share an underlying question: What limits govern the exercise of government power? The answers could affect how communities seek compensation, how states regulate firearms and how religious institutions participate in publicly funded programs. The climate change case centers on Boulder, Colorado’s efforts to hold Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil accountable for alleged local damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The companies argue that federal law prevents those claims from proceeding. Beyond the financial stakes, the dispute raises questions about whether state courts can provide remedies for local harm linked to a global problem. The outcome could influence the path available to other communities pursuing similar claims. Gun rights cases will examine restrictions on semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s. States defend the bans as public safety measures, while challengers argue that they prohibit commonly owned firearms protected by the Second Amendment. The cases could clarify how far states may go in regulating these weapons. Immigration disputes concern detention without bond hearings and deportations to countries where migrants have no ties. These cases place the administration’s enforcement authority alongside questions about migrants’ opportunities to challenge government actions. Their practical consequences could reach people facing prolonged detention or removal to unfamiliar countries. Religious freedom will receive particular attention in a case involving Catholic preschools seeking access to Colorado’s universal preschool funding. The schools argue that their exclusion amounts to religious discrimination, while Colorado maintains that participating schools must meet nondiscrimination requirements. The dispute asks how protections for religious exercise apply when faith-based institutions seek public benefits while retaining policies grounded in their beliefs. For communities, policymakers and religious organizations, the significance of this term extends beyond individual victories or losses. These decisions could establish boundaries that guide future laws and government actions, shaping how Americans exercise their rights and seek accountability through the courts. 

Indiana’s Player-Prop Decision Raises Stakes for College Athletics featured image

2 min

Indiana’s Player-Prop Decision Raises Stakes for College Athletics

The rapid expansion of legal sports betting has created a particularly complicated issue for college athletics: wagers based on the performance of individual student-athletes. Indiana became the latest state to confront that issue Thursday when regulators rejected an NCAA request to ban pregame college-player proposition bets. These wagers allow bettors to predict individual outcomes—such as how many points a basketball player will score or how many passing yards a quarterback will record. The NCAA has increasingly targeted these bets, citing concerns about athlete harassment, access to inside information and the potential manipulation of individual performances. Indiana regulators ultimately chose to preserve the state’s current rules, which permit certain pregame college-player props while prohibiting them once a game is underway. Sports-betting operators maintain that legal sportsbooks can monitor unusual betting patterns and alert regulators to suspicious activity, an oversight mechanism that does not exist in illegal or offshore markets. The NCAA takes a different view, arguing that attaching money directly to an individual college athlete’s statistics creates risks that are difficult to eliminate through monitoring alone. Several states have already restricted or prohibited these wagers, leaving the country with an increasingly uneven regulatory landscape. Indiana’s decision puts a larger question about the future of legalized sports betting into focus. College athletes now compete in an environment where thousands of people may have money riding on their individual performance, even when the athletes themselves receive none of the wager. Are existing safeguards enough to protect athletes and the integrity of competition? Should college sports be treated differently from professional leagues when regulators decide what people can bet on? And if states adopt different answers, how effective can any single state’s restrictions ultimately be? 

Congress Buys Time: Shutdown Fight Pushed to December featured image

1 min

Congress Buys Time: Shutdown Fight Pushed to December

When will Congress stop kicking the budget proverbial can down the road with a continuing resolution and begin addressing the issue of leading with a balanced budget? Having a balanced budget, and spending within our means should be expected of our legislators--but for decades, this has not been the case. Lawmakers from both political parties are guitly of not addressing the issue that has created several 11th-hour deals regarding the budget. While this strategy helps keep some legislators in power, it's providing no benefit to the American people. Congress has now opted to not work on this issue until December--if it even does it then. However, the deadline buys our political leaders time to get past the midterm elections, campaign for each other, and hope the American public doesn't notice. And, in doing so, we'll experience another government shutdown in December.

View all posts