ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2020
Remdesivir for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): More promising but still unproven.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From December 2019 to May 22, 2020 the emerging and ever-increasing pandemic of coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) had no effective and safe treatment. Not surprisingly, remdesivir attracted worldwide attention. In a trial published online ahead of print, of 1063 patients, 541 were assigned at random to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. The primary prespecified endpoint was mean recovery time and patients assigned to remdesivir had a mean recovery time of 11 days versus 15 days for those assigned a random to placebo. (p < 0.001). With respect to mortality, the prespecfied secondary endpoint, 34/538 patients in remdesivir and 54/521 in placebo died after 28 days, yielding a possible 31% reduction that approached but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.059). The only other published trial of remdesivir randomized 237 patients in China. In that trial, 178 patients were assigned at random to remdesivir compared to 79 assigned to placebo. Those assigned at random to remdesivir experienced a possible but nonsignificant 23% faster time to clinical improvement of 21 days compared with 23 for those assigned to placebo [hazard ratio 1.23 [95% CI, 0·87-1.75)]. With respect to mortality there was no suggestion of any benefit. In fact, the mortality rate in those receiving remdesivir was 15% (22/150) compared with 13% (10/77) for those assigned to placebo. Ongoing randomized trials should be designed, conducted and analyzed to provide the necessary reliable data on mortality to resolve the remaining clinical uncertainties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.