Health news site STAT also reported on the document, noting that the data from the study are likely imperfect. The trial, it reported, was ended prematurely, which could have affected the results.
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Experimental coronavirus treatment remdesivir flops in China trial: reports |
| 2020-04-23 |
| [FoxNews] Citing draft documents published accidentally by the World Health Organization, the Financial Times reports that the study was the first randomized clinical trial of the antiviral to treat coronavirus. The Chinese trial did not improve patients’ condition or remove the pathogen’s presence in their bloodstream, according to the FT. The trial compiled data from 237 patients, it said, 158 of whom received the drug. Their progress was compared to the remaining 79 patients in the study. Significant side effects were also reportedly seen in some patients, which meant that 18 were taken off the drug. "Nope, doesn't work. Now this generic we've patented with the same formulation. THAT works" Health news site STAT also reported on the document, noting that the data from the study are likely imperfect. The trial, it reported, was ended prematurely, which could have affected the results. In a statement obtained by Fox News, a Gilead Sciences spokesperson said the WHO documents "included inappropriate characterizations" of the study: We regret that the WHO prematurely posted information regarding the study, which has since been removed. The investigators in this study did not provide permission for publication of results. Furthermore, we believe the post included inappropriate characterizations of the study. Importantly, because this study was terminated early due to low enrollment, it was underpowered to enable statistically meaningful conclusions. As such, the study results are inconclusive, though trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early in disease. We understand the available data have been submitted for peer-reviewed publication, which will provide more detailed information from this study in the near future.There are multiple ongoing Phase 3 studies that are designed to provide the additional data needed to determine the potential for remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19. These studies will help inform whom to treat, when to treat and how long to treat with remdesivir. Related: Remdesivir: 2020-04-18 New Drug Combating Wuhan Coronavirus Yield Excellent Results...And the Dow Surged Because of It Remdesivir: 2020-04-17 Severely Ill Patients At Chicago Hospital Showed Rapid Recovery After Receiving Gilead's Experimental Antiviral Drug Remdesivir: 2020-04-14 Coronavirus Roundup: CDC Director Says US Coronavirus Cases Stabilizing, Could Peak This Week |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #8 So if China or WHO (but I repeat myself) says it doesn't work, that must mean it does... |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2020-04-23 17:29 |
| #7 I thought China was completely free of COVID-19 cases. Where are they finding the new patients? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2020-04-23 16:50 |
| #6 SS, WHO edition |
| Posted by: Lex 2020-04-23 15:35 |
| #5 Almost seems like a hit piece by FT. Who uses the word "flops" when a drug fails in the clinical phase process? (I later read that this release was a mistake. Sure, but look at the SPY or QQQ and look at how it tanked a few hours ago. Suspect.) |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-04-23 15:34 |
| #4 BLUF: WHO overexcited about a partially completed small-scale preliminary study that may or may not provide meaningful results, unlike the much better studies that are to come. Scientists, in one metaphor, are ants, each bringing her crumb to the ant hill. Eventually there are enough crumbs to make a feast. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2020-04-23 15:30 |
| #3 This is sorta important: Health news site STAT also reported on the document, noting that the data from the study are likely imperfect. The trial, it reported, was ended prematurely, which could have affected the results. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2020-04-23 15:29 |
| #2 Yes. Like polls, it's all about who is asking, what is being asked and how it is being asked. Oh, and then the results have to be normalized. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-04-23 15:15 |
| #1 For all the braying about the need for studies as the only source of actual evidence, people forget just how ambiguous studies can be. As a particularly egregious example, just consider nutritional studies. Are eggs good for you? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2020-04-23 15:04 |