New, large study finds no mortality advantage for remdesivir against COVID-19: Medrxiv.

A study posted on MedRxiv on October 15 showed no benefit for remdesivir on mortality for hospitalized patients with COVID-19:

 Death rate ratios (with 95% CIs and numbers dead/randomized, each drug vs its control) were: Remdesivir RR=0.95 (0.81-1.11, p=0.50; 301/2743 active vs 303/2708 control), Hydroxychloroquine RR=1.19 (0.89-1.59, p=0.23; 104/947 vs 84/906), Lopinavir RR=1.00 (0.79-1.25, p=0.97; 148/1399 vs 146/1372) and Interferon RR=1.16 (0.96-1.39, p=0.11; 243/2050 vs 216/2050). No study drug definitely reduced mortality (in unventilated patients or any other subgroup of entry characteristics), initiation of ventilation or hospitalisation duration. CONCLUSIONS These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay. The mortality findings contain most of the randomized evidence on Remdesivir and Interferon, and are consistent with meta-analyses of mortality in all major trials.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817v1

This large study, called SOLIDARITY, looked at four drugs approved or proposed for use against SARS-COV-2. It included 2743 patients and 2708 controls with remdesivir, and thousands more with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), lopinavir, and interferon.

None of these four drugs showed a significant benefit on mortality rates, prevention of ventilator use, or length of hospitalization. Remdesivir showed an insignificant improvement over placebo. HCQ and interferon actually showed worse results than placebo, although the differences were not significant.

This study is very disappointing for adherents of remdesivir and contradicts previous studies that showed benefits in smaller groups of patients. Unless close examination of the study finds flaws (which is possible given that it was not yet peer-reviewed) another, larger study will be needed to further evaluate remdesivir versus placebo.

It should be noted that Gilead, the maker of remdesivir, disputed the results of this study. This is noted in the New York Times story about this report.

A possible flaw in the study might be the fact that drugs were given depending on “whichever study drugs were locally available” and the dates of the patients may have differed. It is possible that use of dexamethasone or other drugs may have differed between study drug and placebo. This factor did cause bias in a study of the use of HCQ that was debunked earlier. Review of these issues will require close examination of the raw data.

At the very least, studies with monoclonal antibodies will be needed to evaluate their benefits against those of remdesivir. New monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming available, and these show dramatic promise for early treatment and prevention of disease in those exposed to the virus. Monoclonal antibodies are slow and expensive to produce, but they may prove to be the most effective against the novel coronavirus.