ReviewPharmacotherapy2025
Developing New Drugs for the COVID-19 Emergency: Anatomy of the U.S. Response.
Review in Pharmacotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextTo meet the need for effective treatments during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, the U.S. government sought to accelerate the discovery and development of new antiviral treatments-a process that normally took 4-12 years. The government changed many features of the established system, selecting the investigational drugs, sponsoring or conducting the clinical testing, and purchasing and managing the distribution of the successful products.
methodsWe focused on novel therapeutic agents for COVID-19 that were funded, clinically tested, and/or received Emergency Use Authorization during the Public Health Emergency from January 2020 to May 2023. The primary sources were the public records of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Excluded were vaccines, devices, diagnostic tests, and new indications for approved drugs.
resultsIn less than 24 months, the emergency program developed, tested, approved, and distributed eight new therapeutic products, including six monoclonal antibodies and two new oral antivirals. In addition, 11 other investigational agents were funded or tested under the emergency program but did not receive Emergency Use Authorization. More than 30 million courses of treatment were distributed at a cost of $29 billion or $881 per patient. By the end of the emergency, viral mutations and rapidly growing population immunity rendered the new products ineffective in almost all patients.
conclusionsThe emergency program was dramatically effective in finding and testing new drug treatments using a variety of clinically relevant endpoints and serving varied patient populations. Planning for future pandemics should include a global network of clinical testing centers that were key to a rapid response. Research is needed to discover more durable antiviral treatments, especially in settings where mutation and population immunity are subject to rapid change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.