Quote:
Originally Posted by pmax
Death is no longer a "primary outcome" in the Remdesivir trial.
Apparently, a heated discussion right now within the "scientfic community"...
 |
The endpoint was changed during the trial, when the data was still blinded to both the NIAID and the DSMB.
I think a lot of the criticism of the trial is founded on the view that this isn’t a highly effective drug - which is true, no question, it is only moderately effective - but that’s still a good first step. In a year, it will be disappointing if remedsivir remains the standard of care.
Other criticism reflects the intricacies of drug development being suddenly of great interest to a larger audience and popular media who lack much knowledge. One of my friends, a medical researcher, was scathing about the topline data being released before the full dataset was available and about the lack of “peer review”. He didn’t realize that both are routine practices in drug clinical development.
Finally, I see all sorts of outrage about how GILD has a monopoly on this drug and will make billions on what should be free for all, usually followed by a screed about greedy US pharma companies. I disagree - private companies won’t risk billions in new drug development if they can’t make multiple billions on the less than 1% of candidates that are actually successful, GILD probably won’t make much money on remedsivir (because ask the drug used in 2020 is being donated, they won’t have much more than 2-3MM courses available in all of 2021, and the drug will probably be obsolete by 2022. Of course I do have some personal bias - hard to invest in biopharma if there’s no profits.