吉利德的瑞德西韋的隨機雙盲試驗表明對新冠病有效

來源: TBz 2020-04-29 08:37:07 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (16937 bytes)
本文內容已被 [ TBz ] 在 2020-04-29 08:38:52 編輯過。如有問題,請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.

 

vial in bag

 

ULRICH PERREY/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

 

Agovernment-run study of Gilead’s remdesivir, perhaps the most closely watched experimental drug to treat the novel coronavirus, showed that the medicine is effective against Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

Gilead made the announcement in a statement Wednesday, stating: “We understand that the trial has met its primary endpoint.” The company said that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is conducting the study, will provide data at an upcoming briefing.

The finding — although difficult to fully characterize without any data for the study — would represent the first treatment shown to improve outcomes in patients infected with the virus that put the global economy in a standstill and killed at least 218,000 people worldwide. 

But the NIAID study, which was not expected to be released so soon, was by far the most important and rigorously designed test of remdesivir in Covid-19. The study compared remdesivir to placebo in 800 patients, with neither patients nor physicians knowing who got the drug instead of a placebo, meaning that unconscious biases will not affect the conclusions.

The main goal of the study is the time until patients improve, with different measures of improvement depending on how sick they were to begin with. While the result means that the drug helps patients improve faster, it is not possible to say how dramatic those improvements are.

“Remdesivir isn’t a home run but looks active and can be part of a toolbox of drugs and diagnostics that substantially lower our risk heading into the fall,” he said.

The FDA previously issued an emergency authorization for the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19, even though at least some studies suggesting the medicine was not effective. “If hydroxychloroquine met [the emergency] standard, then remdesivir would have seemed to cross that line a while ago, especially in the setting of treating critically ill patients,” Gottlieb said.

Remdesivir, which must be given intravenously, is likely to remain a treatment for patients who are hospitalized. But it is also likely that it will be most effective in patients who have been infected more recently, said Nahid Bhadelia, medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston Medical Center.

“We know that with most antiviral medications the earlier you give it the better it is.” said Bhadelia, who had experience giving remdesivir as an experimental treatment for Ebola in Africa, where results are less encouraging. That means that better diagnostic testing will be essential to identifying patients who could benefit. “What will be important is that we find people on the outpatient side,” Bhadelia said. “Again, testing becomes important, we want to have them come to the hospital as soon as possible. “

Gilead also released results Wednesday from its own study of remdesivir in patients with severe Covid-19. This study showed similar rates of clinical improvement in patients treated with a five-day and 10-day course of remdesivir, the company said.

“Unlike traditional drug development, we are attempting to evaluate an investigational agent alongside an evolving global pandemic. Multiple concurrent studies are helping inform whether remdesivir is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 and how to best utilize the drug,” said Merdad Parsey, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, Gilead Sciences, in a prepared statement.

Gilead said that its own study in severe patients showed that it may be possible to treat patients with a five-day treatment of remdesivir, not the 10-day course that was used in the NIAID trial.

The company’s study is enrolling approximately 6,000 participants from 152 different clinical trial sites all over the world. The data disclosed Thursday are from 397 patients, with a statistical comparison of patient improvement between the two remdesivir treatment arms — the five-day and 10-day treatment course. Improvement was measured using a seven-point numerical scale that encompasses death (at worst) and discharge from hospital (best outcome), with various degrees of supplemental oxygen and intubation in between.

The study design means that by itself it doesn’t reveal much about how well remdesivir is working, because there is no group of patients who were not treated with the drug. The conclusion is that the two durations of treatment are basically the same.

Peter Bach, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Medical Center, said he is eager to see the data from the NIAID study but renewed his criticism of Gilead’s severe study for lacking a control group of untreated patients. That would have allowed researchers to make important conclusions about how the drug works that are just not possible now, he said.

“They’ve squandered an unbelievable opportunity,” Bach said. “It’s not going to tell us what to do with 80-year-olds with multiple comorbidities compared to 30-year-olds who are otherwise healthy. We’re still going to be foundering around in the dark, or at least in a dim room, when we could have learned more.”

In the study, the median time to clinical improvement was 10 days in the five-day treatment group and 11 days in the 10-day treatment group. More than half of the patients in both groups were discharged from the hospital by day 14. At day 14, 64.5% of the patients in the five-day group and 53.8% of the patients in the 10-day group achieved clinical recovery.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/29/gilead-says-critical-study-of-covid-19-drug-shows-patients-are-responding-to-treatment/

 

 

所有跟帖: 

後麵那個Peter Bach批評說沒有對比組。隨機雙盲怎麽會沒有對比組? -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 08:53:31

兩組試驗,一個是隨機雙盲,另一個不是。 -TBz- 給 TBz 發送悄悄話 TBz 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 09:02:17

那他批的是open-label的那個。其實多個試驗一起做,互相補充,挺好。並沒有浪費什麽機會。 -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 09:11:22

這個病最重要是讓人不要變成重症甚至死亡,輕症後病人可以自愈。 -fourwaves- 給 fourwaves 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 09:29:22

看上去還沒有正式發表 Data。單看五天和十天用藥結果有一點差別,五天用藥出院率更高些,比十天用藥高出10%,也許不具統計學意義 -餓狼陀- 給 餓狼陀 發送悄悄話 餓狼陀 的博客首頁 (322 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:03:27

覺得就是變相的炒作,這藥沒啥大用。有用的話,中國早就開始用了,也不會像現在的樣子 -pssci- 給 pssci 發送悄悄話 pssci 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:09:30

NIAID官方兩小時前發表的Preliminary臨床試驗結果。 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (252 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:28:54

謝謝! 等著看正式發表的Data。還要看更多的臨床試驗能不能證實這個發現。 -餓狼陀- 給 餓狼陀 發送悄悄話 餓狼陀 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:35:52

是,還要等這個和其他三期臨床試驗的詳細結果。 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 13:40:29

好奇,若真有效,為啥不趕緊用,昨天美國死亡又接近最高點了。 -pickshell- 給 pickshell 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:30:49

NIAID的preliminary報告說:縮短recovery time和提高生存率(但p=0.059)。 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:38:26

看來是有效,隻是不足夠有效。這樣的抗病毒藥物,氯喹也算在內,早用才能顯現其效力。 -吃與活- 給 吃與活 發送悄悄話 吃與活 的博客首頁 (128 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:48:45

瑞德西韋的臨床數據比羥氯喹分量重不少,希望快點給大家用 -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:51:42

這樣一個體外體內實驗都確鑿無疑的藥物尚且難以得到臨床試驗的數據的肯定,可以想象那些作用似有似無的中藥方子是不可能在有限數目的中國 -吃與活- 給 吃與活 發送悄悄話 吃與活 的博客首頁 (281 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 13:01:39

西藥臨床,無論效果如何,都能很快出數據。但中藥無論效果好壞,拿不出過硬數據,出不了國際上認可的論文。這是個大問題。 -欲千北- 給 欲千北 發送悄悄話 欲千北 的博客首頁 (146 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 13:19:40

西藥的問題是有數據,而且都很好,但就是治不了病。 -醫者意也- 給 醫者意也 發送悄悄話 醫者意也 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 14:15:32

亂講。靶向抗癌藥物,抗生素,抗瘧疾藥物,... 。 -欲千北- 給 欲千北 發送悄悄話 欲千北 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 15:08:22

那就拭目以待看看人民希望最終的治愈率唄 -醫者意也- 給 醫者意也 發送悄悄話 醫者意也 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 16:12:35

看看實戰行不行 -醫者意也- 給 醫者意也 發送悄悄話 醫者意也 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/30/2020 postreply 09:43:00

老兄與世隔絕了 -npoaks03橡樹- 給 npoaks03橡樹 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 15:36:39

幫你說了,西醫西藥都不行,中醫是唯一的人類救星。當然還有:美國不行,中國偉大。 -原上草2017- 給 原上草2017 發送悄悄話 原上草2017 的博客首頁 (152 bytes) () 04/30/2020 postreply 09:27:52

從另一個角度說,通不過臨床試驗,並不一定是藥沒用。可能是對一部分人有用,平均以後失去統計意義 -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 16:00:14

+, 例子很多。 -欲千北- 給 欲千北 發送悄悄話 欲千北 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 16:35:29

是的。改變一下試驗設計,就可能看出效果。 -吃與活- 給 吃與活 發送悄悄話 吃與活 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 16:48:43

重症病人都寄希望於Remdesivir或Actemra,但現在看前者效果不明顯,紐約的死亡率已經間接提示了這個結果。 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 13:20:56

Remdesivir阻斷病毒複製,對輕中症有用,可一旦病情轉重引起細胞因子風暴,就不管用了。 -TBz- 給 TBz 發送悄悄話 TBz 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 14:07:54

是這樣。但前一段的炒作把它吹成神藥了,而且臨床上也沒有別的希望和選擇。Actemra是IL-6 inhibitor,是針對因子風 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 14:16:41

Actemra是IL-6 inhibitor,是針對因子風暴的。也在做三期臨床,算是另一個希望吧。 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 14:18:06

是好希望。 -TBz- 給 TBz 發送悄悄話 TBz 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 14:33:29

同意。等等看FDA怎麽批吧,可能和給Hydroxychloroquine 的一樣,批準緊急使用。 -老道- 給 老道 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 12:53:50

參與雙盲實驗患者選擇很關鍵,抗病毒藥應早期用,難道這點那些主持實驗的專家們都不知道嗎? -pickshell- 給 pickshell 發送悄悄話 (327 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 14:34:27

因為不吃藥也可能自愈?讓大多數人自己扛 -tax2- 給 tax2 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 19:43:46

猜,這藥禁忌和副作用都很大,對於輕證,弊大利小? -pickshell- 給 pickshell 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 05/01/2020 postreply 06:21:53

某些人就是希望有人病死?故意不早收治任其發展成重症? -Ucan111- 給 Ucan111 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/29/2020 postreply 20:21:40

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”