Read on Twitter
Thread on #Favipiravir and the data on which approvals are being granted to it across the world. First used in Japan, then China, and in other countries: all on “compassionate grounds”. But does it really work? Read this paper. http://www.kansensho.or.jp/uploads/files/topics/2019ncov/covid19_casereport_en_200529.pdf details follow. 1/n https://twitter.com/cspramesh/status/1274595052535218176
Favipiravir study in China: “primary endpoint of better clinical improvement at 7 days was not met” but still goes on to claim that fever and cough were reduced. So why that doesn’t count as clinical improvement?? Or was it just subjective opinion unsupported by data?
These are the details of improved, unchanged or worsened cases from the study, which suffers from extremely serious flaws. No control and test group for comparison, no comparison with known rates at which improvement or deterioration occurs without medicines.
Here are some shockers on the safety front: a staggering 24.65% incidence of adverse effects, including liver damage, skin rashes and elevated uric acid levels. But there’s worse to come. It’s a teratogen: a drug known to cause serious birth abnormalities if given in pregnancy.
The research paper itself carries the disclaimer: “given that over 80% or patients have mild disease which often improves by supportive therapy, caution is required in interpreting efficacy of favipiravir based on the data presented here”. Would you still use it knowing all this?
Now let’s see the Indian study being done by Glenmark. 150 patients enrolled in this phase 3 clinical trial of which only 75 are receiving favipiravir. Here’s the kicker: the study only started last month and it’s results won’t be known till August. https://theprint.in/health/glenmark-enrols-150-patients-to-test-favipiravir-the-most-sought-after-drug-for-covid/420019/
