I misspoke when I described the adverse effects as "side effects," but the difference between the two groups (21.1% versus 27%) does not seem "significantly fewer" to me; it seems attributable to chance or - at best - some slight benefit that might also be obtained from many other treatment options.
The other puzzling thing is that a placebo is supposed to be basically an inert factor, yet they attribute two cases of "side effects" to the placebo.
If I go to a doctor and he says, "This treatment option gives you a 5.9% better chance of survival than no treatment at all, or than some other treatment, I'm not going to jump up and down with joy. Just the other day I heard a doctor who specializes in these things say that he was unimpressed by early testing of remdesivir, a drug that has been in the works for years but has never been approved for anything.
I misspoke when I described the adverse effects as "side effects," but the difference between the two groups (21.1% versus 27%) does not seem "significantly fewer" to me; it seems attributable to chance or - at best - some slight benefit that might also be obtained from many other treatment options.OK, but again, it isn't "effects", it's "events".
Hospitalized Covid-19 patients have lots of adverse events whether they're taking Remdesivir, the placebo or neither.
No matter, the recommendation to unblind the study wasn't based on the adverse event data but on a 4 day faster recovery.
If my doctor offered me that I wouldn't hesitate.
The other puzzling thing is that a placebo is supposed to be basically an inert factor, yet they attribute two cases of "side effects" to the placebo.
Yeah, I wonder if it was a complication from the IV. Some people have bad reactions to injections, period.