The WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of the severity of the disease, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients. patients.
This recommendation, released on November 20, is part of a clinical care guideline for COVID-19. It was developed by an international guideline development group, which includes 28 clinical care experts, 4 patient partners and an ethicist.
In a review of several trials, the World Health Organization found that Gilead’s drug did not improve patients’ survival rates or help them recover.
A group of experts “concluded that remdesivir had no significant effect on mortality or on other important patient outcomes, such as the need for mechanical ventilation or the time required for clinical improvement” , announced the WHO. The committee published its reviewed in The BMJ magazine . The report does not totally rule out the drug’s use as a Covid treatment, but said there was a lack of evidence to recommend its use
Work on this began on October 15, when the WHO Solidarity Trial released its interim results. The data reviewed by the panel included the results of this trial, as well as 3 other randomized controlled trials. In total, data from more than 7,000 patients in the 4 trials were taken into account.
Evidence suggests no significant effect on mortality, the need for mechanical ventilation, time to clinical improvement, and other important patient outcomes.
Gilead Sciences, maker of remdesivir, whose trade name is Veklury, said in a statement that its drug “is recognized as a standard of care for the treatment of hospital patients with Covid-19 in the guidelines of many credible national organizations,” including the US National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases Society of America, Japan, UK and Germany. He added that there are “several randomized, controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate the clinical benefits of Veklury.” Remdesivir has been cleared for emergency use since the spring in the United States, and in October Gilead reported that it had generated $ 873 million in revenue so far this year. The drug’s widely adopted use for Covid symptoms had baffled some experts long before FDA approval.
In Europe, Professor Yazdanpanah said in September before the publication of the study results that remdesivir would surely prove its ineffectiveness against covid-19. Despite this, the researchers continue to include patients in the “just in case” trials as these same researchers rushed to stop the Hycovid trials or the inclusion of hydroxychloroquine without applying the same principles.
Ms. Marie-Paule Kieny from Inserm answering questions from ScienceMag says:
it is a “huge” waste for EU countries to invest in remdesivir on the premise that it could help a small subset of patients. “You can always say: OK, now if I separate the population and if I only take those who have a blue eye and a wooden leg, maybe it is very effective”.
When we ask her why they continue to include remdesivir when the WHO says it is ineffective and hydroxychloroquine has not received the same treatment, she replies:
all the results obtained with HCQ show that this molecule has no utility, and it is the Recovery test which demonstrates this best. It is therefore unnecessary to continue. ” Mass has been said “. For remdesivir, Solidarity is the largest ongoing trial, and the WHO therefore has a particular responsibility to continue inclusions until all uncertainties are resolved.
Mass would therefore be said for HCQ because Recovery says it, but when the WHO says that mass is said for Remdesivir then we continue! Two weights, two measures
The Recovery study is still cited without having done an independent French audit or questioning the dosage. At the US Senate Committee of Inquiry Dr McCullogh and Professor Harvey Risch testify under oath that there are studies that demonstrate effectiveness. Does Inserm only look at part of the information?
Let us recall that the European Union signed a contract worth several hundred million euros for the purchase of a drug which today is declared by the WHO as not working. MEP Michèle Rivasil even demanded the nullity of this contract because the EU would not have been aware of the information on the ineffectiveness of remdesivir at the time of signing when the Gilead company had certain information.
A setback for Gilead and this drug whose toxicity we had long questioned and controversial testing techniques.