Some background: Remdesivir works by interfering with the cellular machinery that allows viruses to replicate inside a human host. It is a pro-drug, meaning it must be metabolized and undergo a sequence of five bioactivation steps before it becomes GS-441524 triphosphate, the active compound that impedes viral replication.
Remdesivir isn’t Gilead’s only antiviral nucleoside analogue. The company has also developed GS-441524, another pro-drug that, as its name suggests, the body also converts into GS-441524 triphosphate, but in just in three steps. GS-441524 is easier to synthesize than remdesivir, requiring three steps instead of the seven needed for remdesivir.
“Am I stupid, or is this contradictory information?
Some background: Remdesivir works by interfering with the cellular machinery that allows viruses to replicate inside a human host. It is a pro-drug, meaning it must be metabolized and undergo a sequence of five bioactivation steps before it becomes GS-441524 triphosphate, the active compound that impedes viral replication.
Remdesivir isn’t Gilead’s only antiviral nucleoside analogue. The company has also developed GS-441524, another pro-drug that, as its name suggests, the body also converts into GS-441524 triphosphate, but in just in three steps. GS-441524 is easier to synthesize than remdesivir, requiring three steps instead of the seven needed for remdesivir.”
******************************************************
No, you’re not stupid and the article does not contain contradictory information.
The following is extracted from the linked article:
“...The attractive profile of GS-441524 from both manufacturing and clinical perspectives raises this question: Why hasn’t Gilead opted to advance this compound to the clinic? We would be remiss for not mentioning patents, and thus profits. The first patent on GS-441524 was issued in 2009, while the first patent for remdesivir was issued in 2017....”
The author is asking the important question of why Gilead isn’t making the effort to market the more effective, safer, and easier to manufacture drug that was patented in 2009 instead of the newer one patented in 2017. The answer is almost certainly more profit for a longer period due to earlier patent expiration of the 2009 patented product.
And I know that it is hard to follow, but both drugs deliver the identical therapeutic molecules at the cellular level. I highly suggest all FReepers read closely the linked article.