Maybe some good news! Treatment trials showing signs of hope!

[Farro]

I didn't want this lost in another thread as maybe this can lift some spirits today. I know mine sure need it! (added a couple more articles as day went on!)
Feel free to read and take from it what you will.



https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/health/gilead-sciences-remdesivir-covid-19-treatment/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/dr-...navirus-drug-trial-shows-quite-good-news.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/gil...ata-on-remdesivir-coronavirus-drug-trial.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ir-fda-dr-fauci-ebola-antiviral-a9491166.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52478783
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-even...esivir-accelerates-recovery-advanced-covid-19

Also a previous study that wasn't successful:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-04-29-20-intl/index.html

 

[jlwhitney]

I have also heard they have already ramped up production in hopes it would work. Enough for 140,000 patients around september and closer to 1 mil by end of year and so on.

 

[TLSnell1981]

It's always good to hear positive updates.

 

[godisney14]

Looking forward to see the details of the NIAID study. Only thing we know so far from it is “it met its end goal” and patients responded positively.

 

[KayMichigan]

Yay! Thanks for the news! I know there are LOTS of trials going on right now, it's basically a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach. An effective treatment is much more likely than a vaccine in the short run.

 

[fla4fun]

I have read other reports that this treatment shows promise. Considering that even IF they can come up with an effective vaccine, it is likely to be months, if not years away, a treatment that actually works is necessary to get us back to some semblance of “normal”. I would not hesitate to resume regular activities if I knew there was a treatment available if needed.

As someone who cannot get the flu shot due to allergies, I rely on the availability of treatment in the event I get sick (it’s only happened once). So I would feel comfortable living with the risk of Corona under the same circumstances.

 

[mousefan73]

This is also where testing plays a role. The sooner you are positive, the sooner you can get treatment right? I wonder if our near future is everybody running to the Dr. when they get a cough, fever etc. to get tested. I know a fever for me would be a major red flag.. Cannot remember the last time I even had a real fever.

 

[godisney14]

Here is why when it comes to drugs and vaccines, a randomized, double-blinded study using controls is necessary to have a holistic understanding of the effects.

While the entire news cycle and market is busy falling for today’s news of limited findings, a more comprehensive study that was published today with slightly different outcomes is being ignored.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext

Here’s the authors’ summary:

Our trial found that intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of virus in patients with serious COVID-19 compared with placebo. Compared with a previous study of compassionate use of remdesivir, our study population was less ill and was treated somewhat earlier in their disease course (median 10 days vs 12 days). Such differences might be expected to favour remdesivir, providing greater effects in our study population, but our results did not meet this expectation.

 

[sam_gordon]

Here is why when it comes to drugs and vaccines, a randomized, double-blinded study using controls is necessary to have a holistic understanding of the effects.

While the entire news cycle and market is busy falling for today’s news of limited findings, a more comprehensive study that was published today with slightly different outcomes is being ignored.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext

Here’s the authors’ summary:

Our trial found that intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of virus in patients with serious COVID-19 compared with placebo. Compared with a previous study of compassionate use of remdesivir, our study population was less ill and was treated somewhat earlier in their disease course (median 10 days vs 12 days). Such differences might be expected to favour remdesivir, providing greater effects in our study population, but our results did not meet this expectation.

So in English, the drug doesn't do what the link in the OP claims it does?

 

[Farro]

So in English, the drug doesn't do what the link in the OP claims it does?

Until proven otherwise, it's nice to have some hope, even if others seem to not enjoy that concept.

Also Dr. Fauci said “Remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” Dr. Fauci said about the drug. “It is a very important proof of concept because what it is proving is that a drug can block this virus.”

 

[Farro]

Here is why when it comes to drugs and vaccines, a randomized, double-blinded study using controls is necessary to have a holistic understanding of the effects.

While the entire news cycle and market is busy falling for today’s news of limited findings, a more comprehensive study that was published today with slightly different outcomes is being ignored.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext

Here’s the authors’ summary:

Our trial found that intravenous remdesivir did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement, mortality, or time to clearance of virus in patients with serious COVID-19 compared with placebo. Compared with a previous study of compassionate use of remdesivir, our study population was less ill and was treated somewhat earlier in their disease course (median 10 days vs 12 days). Such differences might be expected to favour remdesivir, providing greater effects in our study population, but our results did not meet this expectation.

Are you talking about this?

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-04-29-20-intl/index.html
One of the first carefully done studies of the antiviral drug remdesivir shows it did not help people recover faster from coronavirus infections. But the study, conducted in China, may have been too small to show clearly whether the drug helps.

The findings of the Chinese study conflict with other hints of the drug’s efficacy coming from other trials – two of them also on Wednesday. One study was from the company that makes the drug and a third study from the National Institutes of Health is expected later on Wednesday.

Experts say it’s going to take a lot more testing and a little longer before it’s clear whether remdesivir can help patients recover from Covid-19 infections.

The study conducted in China was stopped early because there weren’t enough patients, but it indicated that the drug did not work as hoped, the team reported in the Lancet medical journal on Wednesday. Some details of this study were posted last week on the World Health Organization’s website, then removed.

You can dismiss what I posted, I don't really care.

 

[godisney14]

So in English, the drug doesn't do what the link in the OP claims it does?

As always, news outlets aren’t using people with scientific or medical backgrounds. And this can lead to some misleading information, especially the headlines since they’re just trying to invite people to click.

The headline is referring to a non-randomized, uncontrolled study regarding the testing of whether a 5-day or 10-day course makes a difference. Somehow the headline of the article translated that to say the 5-day treatment was more effective. More effective than what? There was no control group to compare with.
Gilead’s one and only conclusion was that there was no significant difference between administering Remdesivir for 5 days or 10 days.

 

[Farro]

As always, news outlets aren’t using people with scientific or medical backgrounds. And this can lead to some misleading information, especially the headlines since they’re just trying to invite people to click.

The headline is referring to a non-randomized, uncontrolled study regarding the testing of whether a 5-day or 10-day course makes a difference. Somehow the headline of the article translated that to say the 5-day treatment was more effective. More effective than what? There was no control group to compare with.
Gilead makes own conclusion was that there was no significant difference between administering Remdesivir for 5 days or 10 days.

Oh I read the article. And I also read this one:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/dr-...navirus-drug-trial-shows-quite-good-news.html
White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday that data from a coronavirus drug trial testing Gilead Sciences’ antiviral drug remdesivir showed “quite good news” and sets a new standard of care for Covid-19 patients.

Speaking to reporters from the White House, Fauci said he was told data from the trial showed a “clear-cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover.”

Fauci said the median time of recovery for patients taking the drug was 11 days, compared with 15 days in the placebo group. He said the mortality benefit of remdesivir “has not yet reached statistical significance.”

The results suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group, according to a statement from the National Institutes of Health released later Wednesday.

“This will be the standard of care,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, added. “When you know a drug works, you have to let people in the placebo group know so they can take it.”

“What it has proven is a drug can block this virus,” he said.


A miracle? No, but hopeful!

 

[Farro]

added all articles to first post.

 

[godisney14]

Are you talking about this?

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-04-29-20-intl/index.html
One of the first carefully done studies of the antiviral drug remdesivir shows it did not help people recover faster from coronavirus infections. But the study, conducted in China, may have been too small to show clearly whether the drug helps.

The findings of the Chinese study conflict with other hints of the drug’s efficacy coming from other trials – two of them also on Wednesday. One study was from the company that makes the drug and a third study from the National Institutes of Health is expected later on Wednesday.

Experts say it’s going to take a lot more testing and a little longer before it’s clear whether remdesivir can help patients recover from Covid-19 infections.

The study conducted in China was stopped early because there weren’t enough patients, but it indicated that the drug did not work as hoped, the team reported in the Lancet medical journal on Wednesday. Some details of this study were posted last week on the World Health Organization’s website, then removed.

You can dismiss what I posted, I don't really care.

You can keep reading the news outlet summaries, and I’ll keep reading the actual study text.
✌

 

[Farro]

You can keep reading the news outlet summaries, and I’ll keep reading the actual study text.
✌

I read that too.

You aren't the only one with a science background on these here boards...

Maybe it will turn out to be nothing. Maybe it will turn out to be everything.
Let's hope for the best!

 

[Farro]

Discusses (seemingly) successful trial and non-successful trial (study text of this trial linked in first post):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/coronavirus-usa-cases-deaths.html#link-2d010b61

 

[luvsJack]

Discusses (seemingly) successful trial and non-successful trial (study text of this trial linked in first post):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/coronavirus-usa-cases-deaths.html#link-2d010b61

So am I understanding this correctly? There have been two (at least) studies in this drug. The one in China did not show it to be effective. But the one here, that Dr Fauci is talking about said it showed promise.

And the pp is trying to say that the one in China is the only study we should believe?

 

[Farro]

So am I understanding this correctly? There have been two (at least) studies in this drug. The one in China did not show it to be effective. But the one here, that Dr Fauci is talking about said it showed promise.

And the pp is trying to say that the one in China is the only study we should believe?

Clinical trials, science, medicine is ever-evolving. What didn't work one day may lead to something working another day. What works today may not work in the future.

But this is most promising we've heard thus far.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I was just on MGH website and they still have a bunch of trials on drugs that have been declared (in the digital news world ) not to work and to be too dangerous. If this is true why would the trials still be going on? Makes no sense. If its a toss between MGH and similar ranked US hospitals and pretty much anywhere else I'm going with MGH & similarly ranked US. right now, the rest of the world says smoking is protective and that this wasn't respiratory - I think the rest of the world is bananas.

PS- it's very important to read carefully what is being said. There are lots of angles for treatments. Antivirals stop replication so like Tamiflu it stops the germ itself. Other drugs, are not targeted at the virus at all, they are trying to reduce the Cytokine storm that kills with an autoimmune attack, I think all the RA drugs are in the same sort of category. Zpack was doing neither and instead working on the blood infection that often accompanies a Cytokine storm. So if you say an anti inflammatory failed at stopping the virus, well it's not exactly an untrue statement, but it was never supposed to stop the virus anyway because its not an antiviral.

*used the wrong name so I removed the name, the point stands though