Why does the United States think Redsey is effective? Clinical trials suddenly drop standards

COVID-19 New Coronavirus Pneumonia is not currently a special drug, the United States Gilead research and development of Redsie we previously recommended by the WHO, soon seen as the hope of the people, many people think this may be the only special effects drug. Recently, both China and the United States have published clinical trials, but the results are almost the opposite, the United States considers effective, China does not think it is.

In the results of the trials released in the United States, Redciewe was helpful in treating patients, reducing recovery times, and 61 percent of Italian patients were discharged from the hospital.

Fawcett, director of the National Instituteof Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, also gave Redsewe a platform, noting that Redsiewe had a clear, significant, positive role in shortening the recovery time of new crown patients – 15 days in the placebo group and 11 days in the Redsyway group.

Why does the United States think Redsey is effective? Clinical trials suddenly drop standards

But the Chinese team’s clinical results were not promising, with a paper published in the Lancet saying redsiewe had no significant effect on patients with severe illness.

The opposite results of the sino-American experiment, which also attracted the attention of netizens, so why such a result? Former Chinese paper author Professor Cao Bin, vice president of China-Japan Friendship Hospital, has pointed out that, unlike the United States to do a single study, compared clinical recovery time trials, China’s clinical trials are much more rigorous and rigorous, this is the world’s first randomized double-blind control, multi-center clinical trial for Redcywe, designed a six-component table of clinical improvement time.

What about the results of the American experiment? Wang Liming, a professor at Zhejiang University, published an article today, “From Redsiewe, to understand the logic of the “god medicine”, which revealed the “secret” of the U.S. test of Redsey.

Professor Wang points out that the indicator used in the U.S. study is “time to recovery”, which sounds more stringent, but is actually very loose, for example, a patient needs oxygen absorption when he is hospitalized, and even if he is still in hospital at the end of the trial, he is still in hospital, but as long as he no longer needs oxygen, or he still needs to absorb oxygen but can be discharged from the hospital at home to absorb oxygen, can be considered “recovery.”

In the Chinese study, by contrast, the patient had to wait until he was discharged from the hospital with rehabilitation criteria before being identified as clinically improving.

In addition, U.S. researchers suddenly changed their criteria during the experiment, initially using strict criteria similar to those in China, but in mid-April, U.S. researchers quietly revised the criteria for judgment to a relatively loose standard of “recovery time.”

Professor Wang points out that Researchers in the U.S. don’t have particular confidence in Redcie’s efficacy, and at least they’ll have a judgment when the trial isn’t done — a high probability of the drug being ineffective if the drug is based on stricter standards.