Studies in reducing COVID-19 mortality suggest that Remedisavir is ineffective

A new study conducted on Thursday shows that the novel Wuhan is the only antiviral therapeutic approved for the treatment of coronavirus, which does not prevent deaths in COVID-19 infected patients.

The study by the World Health Organization (WHO) tracked more than 11,300 adults in 30 different countries to examine the mortality benefits of the Gilead-produced drug. President Donald Trump was given the drug after symptoms related to his infection with the virus.

Remedisvir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir and interferon drugs, when administered either separately or in a combination, according to researchers in a paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed, “hospitalized COVID-19 There was little or no effect, as indicated. ” From overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and length of hospital stay. ”

Remadecivir was granted emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in May, after a study by the National Institutes of Health revealed modest benefits of the drug in patients suffering from coronovirus. The National Institutes of Health also includes seven doctors paid on the coronovirus panel by the drug’s manufacturer. The estimated cost of Remedisvir is approximately $ 3,100 per patient.

Some medical experts, including Gilead, have cast doubt on WHO’s findings. Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. at the University of California, San Francisco. Peter Chin-Hong told the New York Times that the reality of conducting cross-national studies on dozens of health care systems and inconsistent protocols makes data difficult to decisive.

Dr. at the University of Nebraska. Andre Kalil told the Times that the lack of a placebo group was a major flaw in the WHO study. Kalil criticized researchers for allowing health care providers and patients to know what medicines were given to them.

“Missing data,” Kalil told the paper, “cannot be decided by a large sample size, no matter how large.”

Gilead also released a statement on the release of the study, with a drawing conclusion based on the initial review, without an academic investigation borne by peer review.

“We are concerned that the data in this open-label global trial have not led to a rigorous review of what is required for constructive scientific discussion, especially given the limitations of trial design.” “Trial design prioritized broad access, resulting in significant diversity in trial adoption, implementation, control, and patient populations and, as a result, it is unclear whether any conclusions can be drawn from the study results.”