Member Info for Scinv_temp

The important part is for the company to do the experiments to show what they need to show IF they are in fact going for icu. You can find whatever you want in the literature and there is no point going in there unless the company actually says they are in fact going ahead with a trial in ICU patients.

"Bolstering", "maybe" and such are not science and not the basis to do a clinical trial. At the end of the day it seems they were thinking about it seriously in February but nothing happened and the phase 3 is in hospitalised patients on oxygen.

We know already there is not much replication going on at the stage of ventilator/icu in THIS case. If there is still replication then it would make sense. Also, apart from the fact that 4 and without control says next to nothing, do we know *why* those patients were in ICU. For the vast majority in covid patients this goes hand in hand with ventilators, do we know that in Aureliens case were in fact on ventilators and not on ICU because they had covid on top of other serious issues?

Sure :) In my view unless they can show that it has dampening effect on the inflammation/overactive immune response, then it doesn't make sense because the virus is no longer replicating in the lung at that stage.

"Analyses using Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models revealed that concomitant exposure to GC and early IFN therapy led to early hospital discharge, symptom relief and viral clearance than GC alone, while early IFN therapy without GC use was not associated with early COVID-19 recovery than standard care."

So in the paper you posted ifn started *before* icu.

It isn't so much about icu patients. They did not study those. But they did look at progression to icu/worsening of disease.

"Because GC were given to all intensive care patients suffering respiratory distress, it was not feasible to assess the IFN-GC synergy regarding COVID-19 mortality based on this cohort."

So then question is, is that particular cohort enriched enough to show a strong benefit?

But there is still virus replication going on

What likely happens is that the group of patients that end up needing oxygen or more severe than that, they also more likely to have ifn deficiencies as shown before and therefore this particular group is enriched with patients that are more likely to respond. The data points to not much, if at all, virus replication in the lung in icu patients which defies the purpose of giving then, if the mechanism at that stage is anti-viral and not something else. That is perhaps why they want to focus on patients on oxygen, because they are more enriched for patients with ifn deficiencies.

This study is not on icu patients

Doc RM talked about patients on oxygen specifically not ICU.

Still up to patients on oxygen though. So more severe within that group hospitalised receiving ir not receiveng oxygen.

In that case maybe they will talk about this trial in the home trial rns, if they are still planning on doing it.

The thing is there is not much virus replication at that stage and if they are going after inflammation then they should have some data on their specific drug on that, not just hints from the literature.

Not sure what to make of this.

I wouldn't be surprised, unlike the prophylactic part in the home setting which is at the moment a "discussion", for ITU he said there is progress and that he thinks that within the next few months they will be launching a trial within the ITU settings. This seems like an actual plan.

Let's see if RM leaks something in his "circles", propagated in form of anonymous email by a "guild" member :)

He also said they are planning for another trial in patients in ITU, so even later. This is new information

ITU trial?

Also big LOL to the comment that many people here did not think the copd was going well. We've discussed these results before and you and others insisted that all was good (what we knew at the time was that it was paused).