Gloomy COVID drug data shows why big, randomised trials matter

Kate Kelland By

LONDON ( Reuters)-The World Health Organisation (WHO) has issued its somber judgment on COVID–19 therapy for Gilead Sciences to redirect the company's most promising data, according to leading scientists, when it comes to trials on any medication of any scale.

According to the findings of the biggest randomized clinical review in the world of potential COVID-19 medicines run by the WHO, gilead' s medicines - an antiviral initially designed for curing Ebola - did not benefit from survival rates.

The obvious disparity in the research reported entirely last week, indicating a decrease in the period of healing by 5 days compared with patients who took placebo, was a striking variables in the findings.

[nL4N2H640Q] [nL1N2GZ235] [nL4N2H640Q] [nL1N2GZ235]

The US drugmaker asked about the consistency of the WHO report in its answer to the results and spurred a discussion about what can make a research more reliable.

[nL8N2H72NI] [nL8N2H72NI]

Peter Galle, Professor at Mainz University teaches hospital in Germany, "This gives more proof that remdesivir is not panacea."

While the results were found to vary in face value from the conclusions of a report in Gilead reported last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, experts said the results were not contradictory.

However, they claimed the WHO's multi-country Solidarity trial was greater and stronger and thus more worthy of producing credible outcomes.

About 11,000 patients in 405 hospitals in 30 countries were evaluated in the Solidarity study with four separate COVID-19 alternative therapies.

Gilead said that the drug has been reduced by COVID-19 for healing period in other remdesivir tests, including last week's one with 1 062 patients relative to placebo.

However, experts said it was necessary to add to the Solidarity data if and under what conditions recurrence could benefit COVID-19 patients, including longer-term follow-up and weight of proof.

"It's an amazing study-it 's big, randomized, and focuses on the outcomes-mortality," said Martin Landray, professor of medicine & epidemiology at the UK University of Oxford.

"There's little influence of remodeling on longevity in general," he says. "So the findings are very straightforward.

"Seeing how many lives I would be willing to save if I managed recovery to 100 individuals is not the solution to many."

Andrew Hill, a pharmacology specialist at Liverpool University in the UK, found out that only short-term results from the Gilead trial were initially published.

He continued: "But the mortality rates have begun to increase for remdesivir if the findings of long-term followup were continued.

Solidarity evidence also indicates that there was also little to no gain from the study of three more treatments in COVID-19 patients-malaria vaccine hydroxychloroquine, HIV-drug mixture lopinavir / ritonavir and interferon.

Richard Peto, an independent WHO statistician, said that the scale and architecture of the trial were quite rigorous.

"It's outstanding consistency in terms of accurate randomization and accurate tracking," he said.

"This is confirmation of the modern universe."

(Francesco Guarascio in Brussels, Stephania Nebehay in Geneva, Carmel Crimmins and Mark Potter, supplementary study by Ludwig Burger in Frankfurt).