My understanding of today’s PR comparing Brilacidin(
lab results to Remdesivir (R) is that B is 80% more effective in viral load reduction vs R in a somewhat apples to apples comparison. This basically states at a very low dosage, Brilacidin is nearly twice as effective as Remdesivir. This is only an antiviral reduction comparison and does not include the advantages B has with immuno/anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties. The important issue that is not in today’s PR is the safety profile advantage that Brilacidin has over Remdesivir. I would agree with Pete that the Selectivity Index will be much higher for Brilacidin over Remdesivir. This is key as Brilacidin will be able to kill 90% of the virus at very low dosages and can get closer to 100% effectiveness with either/both an increase in dosage or with an increase in frequency of dosing. People smarter than any of us at the RBL will figure out what the optimal dosage and frequency are that will be used in upcoming human trials.
IMO we will see even greater results in human trials as I believe efficacy will be greater than a linear improvement. What I mean by this is that an example that Remdesivir reduced hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. If you used a simple linear comparative improvement of R lab testing of 50% reduction in viral load equating to a 4 day improvement in overall hospital stay. Then a B 80% improvement over R would equate to an additional 3.2 fewer day hospital stay reduction or 7.8 total hospital days with B vs 11 days with R vs 15 day with placebo. My take is that the earlier CV19 patients are treated with Brilacidin that the above example will become a moot point as the hospital stay example will have an exponential curve vs a linear curve. This hospital stay example could easily end up being a 2 day hospital stay or less with Brilacidin if the patient is treated early which would blow the doors off of a Remdesivir comparison.
Remdesivir has some safety issues that may limit the increase dosage for safety reasons.
Details of the B to R comparison are as follows:
Similar testing but a big exception is and that R used Vero cells (monkey lineage) and B used human cells. 90% reduction using B in viral load vs 50% using R = an 80% improvement of B over R. (note that some posters on the other board are incorrectly stating that B is only 40% more effective than R).
Brilacidin had a very strong safety profile in ABSSSI testing vs the following Remdesivir potential side effects include:
“ The EUA requires that fact sheets about using Remdesivir in treating COVID-19 be made available to health care providers and to patients and caregivers. These fact sheets include information on possible side effects such as: increased levels of liver enzymes, which may be a sign of inflammation or damage to cells in the liver; and allergic reactions, which may include low blood pressure, high heart rate, low heart rate, shortness of breath, wheezing, angioedema (for example, lip or tongue swelling), difficulty swallowing, rash, nausea, vomiting, sweating, shivering and respiratory distress.”
lab results to Remdesivir (R) is that B is 80% more effective in viral load reduction vs R in a somewhat apples to apples comparison. This basically states at a very low dosage, Brilacidin is nearly twice as effective as Remdesivir. This is only an antiviral reduction comparison and does not include the advantages B has with immuno/anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties. The important issue that is not in today’s PR is the safety profile advantage that Brilacidin has over Remdesivir. I would agree with Pete that the Selectivity Index will be much higher for Brilacidin over Remdesivir. This is key as Brilacidin will be able to kill 90% of the virus at very low dosages and can get closer to 100% effectiveness with either/both an increase in dosage or with an increase in frequency of dosing. People smarter than any of us at the RBL will figure out what the optimal dosage and frequency are that will be used in upcoming human trials. IMO we will see even greater results in human trials as I believe efficacy will be greater than a linear improvement. What I mean by this is that an example that Remdesivir reduced hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. If you used a simple linear comparative improvement of R lab testing of 50% reduction in viral load equating to a 4 day improvement in overall hospital stay. Then a B 80% improvement over R would equate to an additional 3.2 fewer day hospital stay reduction or 7.8 total hospital days with B vs 11 days with R vs 15 day with placebo. My take is that the earlier CV19 patients are treated with Brilacidin that the above example will become a moot point as the hospital stay example will have an exponential curve vs a linear curve. This hospital stay example could easily end up being a 2 day hospital stay or less with Brilacidin if the patient is treated early which would blow the doors off of a Remdesivir comparison.
Remdesivir has some safety issues that may limit the increase dosage for safety reasons.
Details of the B to R comparison are as follows:
Similar testing but a big exception is and that R used Vero cells (monkey lineage) and B used human cells. 90% reduction using B in viral load vs 50% using R = an 80% improvement of B over R. (note that some posters on the other board are incorrectly stating that B is only 40% more effective than R).
Brilacidin had a very strong safety profile in ABSSSI testing vs the following Remdesivir potential side effects include:
“ The EUA requires that fact sheets about using Remdesivir in treating COVID-19 be made available to health care providers and to patients and caregivers. These fact sheets include information on possible side effects such as: increased levels of liver enzymes, which may be a sign of inflammation or damage to cells in the liver; and allergic reactions, which may include low blood pressure, high heart rate, low heart rate, shortness of breath, wheezing, angioedema (for example, lip or tongue swelling), difficulty swallowing, rash, nausea, vomiting, sweating, shivering and respiratory distress.”
23
