Read on Twitter
So, contrary to things I'm seeing on Twitter, $GILD has NOT shown a mortality benefit for remdesivir this morning. It's suggested one, and that's very different.
PR: https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/7/gilead-presents-additional-data-on-investigational-antiviral-remdesivir-for-the-treatment-of-covid-19
Thread/1
PR: https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/7/gilead-presents-additional-data-on-investigational-antiviral-remdesivir-for-the-treatment-of-covid-19
Thread/1
In this press release, $GILD says comparison of its study that lacked a control group and a "real-world retrospective cohort" showed a speeding of clinical improvement and a 62% reduction in risk of mortality.
/2
/2
But, as Gilead notes, this "requires confirmation in prospective clinical trials." Less politely, this kind of analysis doesn't tell us anything we can trust.
What's more, the 62% figure is so high it makes me doubt the analysis.
/3
What's more, the 62% figure is so high it makes me doubt the analysis.
/3
Why? We have data on remdesivir mortality from a well-designed, randomized clinical trial.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764
It shows a 30% reduction in the risk of death that barely missed significance. Why would this new analysis show double that?
/4
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764
It shows a 30% reduction in the risk of death that barely missed significance. Why would this new analysis show double that?
/4
The most likely explanation, to me, is that the retrospective real-world evidence doesn't match the population in the trial in some way we can't measure.
/5 & end.
/5 & end.
