My quick comments on the #Favipiravir study results released by #GLENMARK in a press release.
Did Favipiravir succeed in achieving faster viral clearance? No. The difference between the two arms of the study lacks statistical significance. The 95% CIs cross 1. N/1
Did Favipiravir succeed in achieving faster viral clearance? No. The difference between the two arms of the study lacks statistical significance. The 95% CIs cross 1. N/1
What about secondary endpoints? Would you pay Rs 12500 for a drug that promises to make you fever-free a day earlier?
Look at the 95% CIs again- they barely float above 1! Not impressive! And were these patients hypoxic? The data does not tell us. 2/2
Look at the 95% CIs again- they barely float above 1! Not impressive! And were these patients hypoxic? The data does not tell us. 2/2
#Favipiravir group tended to require oxygen late compared to the usual care group.
OK. The trouble is, we do not know, eventually how many required oxygen in each group. 95% Cis touch 1- meaning no difference between the two groups. 3/4
OK. The trouble is, we do not know, eventually how many required oxygen in each group. 95% Cis touch 1- meaning no difference between the two groups. 3/4
12 patients in #Favipiravir arm had raised uric acid levels- 1 of 6 chance that the drug would make uric acid levels go up. Should this rise be swept under the carpet? No mention of liver function test abnormality. 4/4
Should a negative RTPCR test suggest success ? No, says @WHO. How should we treat the study results? Cautious optimism? Guarded reservation? Studied skepticism? Would physicians carefully weigh the cost-benefit ratio before asking patients to pay Rs 12500 for the therapy? 5/5
