Originally Posted by DrkBlue
In a way, I guess Corona virus got them too.
They are doing cheek swab testing at my work. The conditions are so unsanitary it is unreal. I went and did a nasal swab test due to those nasty conditions, for a virus that I am not symptomatic of.
The Solidarity Trial’s data is available ahead of publication:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....15.20209817v1
Over 11,000 hospitalized patients from 400 hospitals in 30 countries. Patients were randomized to Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir (fixed-dose combination with Ritonavir), Interferon-β1a, and control. Nothing worked for the primary end-point of 28-day mortality or any secondary outcome.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
I glanced over briefly, thanks for posting. Initial thoughts:
- Controls were treated with a local care standards. 30 countries and 400 hospitals have to introduce a significant variability into the controls' outcomes.
- Remdesivir showed a statistically insignificant trend to benefit. HCQ and interferon showed a statistically insignificant trend to harm.
- I don't know right now what the current US mortality for hospitalized patients is, but 12% recorded in this study appears staggering to me. Maybe I am wrong.
- Seems like the data is consistent with other studies that remdesivir shortens the symptoms and other drugs don't work.
- Never seen a trial where "whatever drug was available locally" was a study drug, and several different drugs were the entrants. The feel for this study that I get is less of a well designed RCT and more of observational study "look what happened with what we did'.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
From what I read in the link, they used a 95% confidence interval. This means that the actual results were surrounded by a bell curve encompassing that 95% interval, and the extent of overlap of those curves is examined.
This also means that, for example, if a drug is only 80% likely to have a given result, it would still be found ineffective. A hospitalized patient with severe symptoms might find that 80% likelihood of success attractive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Not surprised in the slightest. We've been chasing a sepsis/ARDS magic bullet for 20-30 years with no dice, not sure why anyone thought that would change in 6 months. Sort of confused as to why they were looking at lopinavir and IFN but maybe those just didnt get as much attention in the US.
Thanks for the trial data.
We just put an 18 year old, healthy, not obese or chronic problems on ECMO because of this mess.
So question from the audience.
We are seeing quite a swell in positives in my town, mainly due to a couple weddings, neither of which I attended.
Probably 90% of the positives are also positive for strep. Yet we really aren't seeing a lot of standalone strep case.
Any guess as to why?
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
No explanation, but locally we're not seeing that. We've had a number of health care workers going for testing thinking they had a 'rona but it turned out to be strept.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Unrelated, but FWIW my program director is ID faculty here and says that our hospital network is gearing up for another surge - they are anticipating COVID patient volumes equivalent to our highest peak back in May ish.
I'm not much of a statistician, but it looks like they designed the trial with that problem in mind by comparing patients receiving experimental Tx vs. local controls who received local standard of care.
The four main sets of analyses involve the evenly randomized pairwise comparisons of each study drug vs its controls. The controls for those randomly allocated one particular drug were those patients who could by chance have been randomly allocated that drug (at that moment, in that hospital), but instead got allocated standard of care. If, for a particular study entrant, more than one study drug was available, allocation to standard of care would put that patient into the control group for each of them. Hence, there is partial overlap between the four control groups. Each comparison between a study drug and its controls, however, is evenly randomized (50/50) and unbiased, as both groups are affected equally by any differences between countries or hospitals and by any time trends in patient characteristics or standard of care.
Reply With Quote