This is scary. But... I need more clarification. I KNOW Remdesivir is a killer. But I need specifics before I start making claims to family and friends based on this article.
It states that Remdesivir killed 53% of the Remdesivir Treatment Group. What does "Treatment Group" mean? Were these people already sick with something, and going to die which is why R was administered? Or, is this a control group and R was given to them causing 53% to die from R, itself? THAT is what I'm hoping (sadly) is the case. But it doesn't state that.
And, it killed 86% off those it was given to who began the trial with Ebola already in their blood. Well, were these people going to die, anyway? Again, same questions... what role, exactly, did R play in their death. Simple correlation is one thing, but to be able to state that it caused the death is more profound.
Thanks... From the article: "From November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, a total of 681 patients were enrolled and underwent randomization at Ebola treatment centers in Beni (335 patients), Butembo (243 patients), Katwa (46 patients), and Mangina (57 patients)."
That suggests that these were ebola-positive patients already at ebola treatment centers.
Remdesivir failed miserably. BUT, it is not stating that the Remdesivir killed them. I don't doubt that it expedited the death and increased the death rate, but it's not as explicitly stated as I would like to see, or how it's summarized in that Twitter clip.
I just don't want to be accused by someone smarter than me about this stuff that I fell for a talking point that was a misleading summary.
Even then i wouldnt say it failed miserably. It performed similarly across the board to zmapp, within 3%.
The study wasnt apples to apples either. The REGN group was 12% smaller, so the group sizes werent even the same, and 10% of the other groups were later found out to have malaria.
This is scary. But... I need more clarification. I KNOW Remdesivir is a killer. But I need specifics before I start making claims to family and friends based on this article.
It states that Remdesivir killed 53% of the Remdesivir Treatment Group. What does "Treatment Group" mean? Were these people already sick with something, and going to die which is why R was administered? Or, is this a control group and R was given to them causing 53% to die from R, itself? THAT is what I'm hoping (sadly) is the case. But it doesn't state that.
And, it killed 86% off those it was given to who began the trial with Ebola already in their blood. Well, were these people going to die, anyway? Again, same questions... what role, exactly, did R play in their death. Simple correlation is one thing, but to be able to state that it caused the death is more profound.
Just being an Anon. Thanks for posting.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993 Links to Protocol and Appendix within artlcle.
Thanks... From the article: "From November 20, 2018, to August 9, 2019, a total of 681 patients were enrolled and underwent randomization at Ebola treatment centers in Beni (335 patients), Butembo (243 patients), Katwa (46 patients), and Mangina (57 patients)."
That suggests that these were ebola-positive patients already at ebola treatment centers.
Remdesivir failed miserably. BUT, it is not stating that the Remdesivir killed them. I don't doubt that it expedited the death and increased the death rate, but it's not as explicitly stated as I would like to see, or how it's summarized in that Twitter clip.
I just don't want to be accused by someone smarter than me about this stuff that I fell for a talking point that was a misleading summary.
Even then i wouldnt say it failed miserably. It performed similarly across the board to zmapp, within 3%.
The study wasnt apples to apples either. The REGN group was 12% smaller, so the group sizes werent even the same, and 10% of the other groups were later found out to have malaria.