Science
Related: About this forumClinical Improvement in Covid Remdesivir Double Blind Study Is Not Statistically Significant.
This morning I'm seeing noise that Remdesvir is working in treating Covid patients.
Yesterday, the results of the first randomized clinical trial were published.
The results study were published yesterday in Lancet: Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.
(The publication is open sourced; anyone can read it.)
Here is the summary of the findings, for convenience:
A small benefit was observed, however it cannot be ruled out that this benefit derived from chance.
I wouldn't call the results "clear evidence" that this drug is a worthy treatment, unless I'm missing something.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)NJCher
(35,421 posts)Fauci has been compromised because it was Fauci that gave this claim some credibility.
Wow, am I ever disappointed.
NNadir
(33,368 posts)...a clinical benefit. A small benefit was observed but what the authors said is that they could not rule out that the results were by chance. This is because the study size was too small.
Dr. Fauci may have other results beyond this study.
NJCher
(35,421 posts)Just curious as to why you would not point out "Dr. Fauci may have other results beyond this study" in your original post.
NNadir
(33,368 posts)...Lancet article I linked had the following headline: "COVID-19 Trial of Remdesivir Suggests It Is Not Associated With Significant Clinical Benefits, More Research Needed." It was a news item, albeit from a technical news feed.
In general, news reporting can mangle science badly, even technical news items; this is why I always refer to the original papers where possible in my writings here.
The original paper, from Lancet, did not say that the drug was proved worthless, but rather that the observed benefits might be due to chance.
I wrote my original post very quickly but I did include "unless I am missing something."
I don't think that anything implied that Dr. Fauci lacks integrity or that he's "in Gilead's pocket." If my post implied as much - I don't think it did - I have been misinterpreted, and to the extent that is my fault, I apologize.
This said, over many years of discussing science on this blog - and I'm very careful to access wherever possible original research - I have seen spectacular misinterpretations of what that research seems to imply to me.
The news item did say "More research needed."
Dr. Fauci certainly has larger access to what's going on than I do. It may be that a larger clinical trial does show significant clinical benefit. However that benefit is not the same as a cure. It may, for example, pull some people who otherwise would have died without it, back from over the edge.
If I get Covid - and I could - if offered the chance to be a subject in a double blinded clinical trial of this drug, I would take it.
Drugs are not approved solely on being a cure, but are approved as being an improvement on the "standard of care."
My career has been (gasp!) in support of the pharmaceutical industry. I've seen it all, but since I have been involved in the development of drugs that saved lives - particularly in HIV but in other areas as well - I sometimes forget that pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical scientists are generally held in wide contempt by the general public, and that people automatically assume the worst.
Having worked in the industry for decades, I am quite sure that not every Gilead employee agrees with Donald Rumsfeld or Kushner or any other of our many political demons. Some of them, believe it or not, are very proud of saving peoples lives I'm sure.
The development of effective medications is a very, very, very challenging field, with many ethical and financial quandaries inherent it. During the AIDS crisis, there were many people who were claiming that we were being too cautious and wanted answers and treatments NOW! NOW! NOW!
On the other hand, all medications have risks, and we need to measure them to be sure we're not killing patients with the treatments.
I hope this clarifies my position if I have been misleading.
NNadir
(33,368 posts)Antivirals of this type have successfully done what was essentially impossible before the 1990's: Treat active viral diseases.
Gilead - irrespective of who owns them - successfully developed a drug (which they did not discover, although the discoverers became rich) that cures previously untreatable Hepatitis. Whether or not Donald Rumsfeld profited as a result does not mean that the drug didn't save lives.
unblock
(51,973 posts)That sounds like a small improvement that would take a large sample size to make statistically significant.
gibraltar72
(7,486 posts)Igel
(35,191 posts)It gives people hope. If it's hyped and hopes are dashed because they're overinflated, that's bad. But hope is often what gives a lot of people the motivation to go on--not just the will to power and control. Or the toxic-masculinity "gotta win at all costs" crap.
It's still the best way to bet for a way of reducing the death toll and severity, even after a vaccine comes out. No vaccine is 100% effective, vaccines do not reach everywhere. חי.
If this drug doesn't work, it means that we really don't understand this virus and have no idea what might work. May as well run clinic trials on the efficacy of a mega-bacon diet or sage burning or rubbing the forehead with olive oil. While being number-fenced and data-bound, I still want the trial to work.
Botany
(70,281 posts)Results from the preliminary trial show remdesivir improved recovery time for coronavirus patients from 15 to 11 days. That's similar to the effect that the influenza drug Tamiflu has on flu. Tamiflu also doesn't cure patients quickly, but can reduce how long they are sick.
"Although a 31% improvement doesn't seem like a knockout 100%, it is very important proof of concept," Fauci said of remdesivir.
"What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus."
Remdesivir also may reduce the likelihood that patients will die.
"Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group," the NIAID said.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/health/gilead-sciences-remdesivir-covid-19-treatment/index.html
NNadir
(33,368 posts)...what it said is that the observed clinical effect is not statistically significant.
hlthe2b
(101,698 posts)It surely is sufficiently clinically significant to continue the studies.
NRaleighLiberal
(59,940 posts)this AM and was reminded why they hire statisticians. Numbers can be massaged for all sorts of desired outcomes.
NNadir
(33,368 posts)Many drugs are approved on split recommendations. Ultimately however, there are many unknowns and many tradeoffs.
I participated in the development of a drug in the 1990's that treated recalcitrant high blood pressure that was highly observed in people of African American descent. (Omapatrilat) It was expected to be a blockbuster and went all the way through phase III clinical trials. It was abandoned because of a subset of subjects developed angioedema that risked closing their airways.
I always wondered if more people died from strokes from not having blood pressure control than would have died from angioedema. (There were no deaths, but there were statistically significant close calls if I recall correctly.)
The drug might be approvable today if a biomarker for the angioedema side effect could have been identified, i.e. in a "personalized medicine" setting.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,773 posts)drray23
(7,587 posts)I am surprised at how upbeat Fauci was about it. He did say that there was not enough statistics and it would need further analysis. I think he was encouraged not by the sheer percentage of reduction in death or shortening of the outcome but rather by the fact thus may have identified a mechanism that can be exploited to make further progress.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)...pretty weak evidence for a minimal effect.
NNadir
(33,368 posts)...should be expected to have adverse events associated with it.
In any medication, the true measure is whether the benefit outweighs the risk.