Author Topic: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?  (Read 2006 times)

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« on: July 26, 2020, 11:17:28 PM »
I'm not an epidemiologist, nor do I have any medical training whatsoever. So I'm stumbling around in the dark, almost entirely at the mercy of medical reporting when it comes to understanding this pandemic.

Earlier this year I was perplexed by the debate around, and politicization of, HCQ. Trump's bizarre promotion of it as a treatment seemed entirely inappropriate and alarming. And subsequent studies all seemed to indicate that HCQ was a dead end. I was happy to leave it at that.

But then I came across this today: https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535 This is from Harvey A. Risch, a respected epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. I did some searching around on-line and he appears to be the real deal, not a quack, and not a hack.

I read his full paper and found it compelling, but of course I'm out of my depth. His premise seems to be that COVID-19 is really two diseases: early infection (when anti-virals are effective) vs. later stages (e.g. hospitalization) due to immune-system overreaction. As such, studies to evaluate HCQ+AZ (azithromycin) in critically ill patients (such as in compassionate use cases) are likely irrelevant. Instead, HCQ+AZ should be evaluated in the early stages of infection as an outpatient treatment for high-risk individuals, and there appears to be quite a bit of evidence (albeit imperfect) to support this.

Thoughts from anyone that knows more about this stuff? If he's made a fatal error in his analysis I'm willing to accept that. But part of me worries that perhaps, just maybe, we've collectively written off HCQ too early because of Trump's off-putting hype.

EvenSteven

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Location: St. Louis

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2020, 08:19:46 AM »
Thanks, that's helpful. As the author notes, it's a head scratcher when a respected epidemiologist stakes his reputation on something like this. Which is why I took note of it. If he was known for being on the fringe or otherwise had a known agenda I would simply ignore it.

Double-blind studies are the gold standard, and agree those don't look good for any of the HCQ cocktails. But the level of vitriol and politicizing in this commentary detracts from his argument, actually makes it less convincing. I do not care if an organization is right-wing or left-wing or whatever, as long as the science is sound. E.g. would prefer to see more about confounding factors that may explain the correlation. Nor do I think it responsible to dismiss objections that HCQ was administered too late or with the wrong cocktail of drugs...  many drugs are only effective within very narrow parameters.

I'm not convinced of the efficacy of HCQ cocktails. I just wonder about Risch sticking his neck out like this. Smart people usually don't take such risks without good reason. Though perhaps in the weeks ahead it will emerge that he's a shill for some fringe group or something. I just find it very odd.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2020, 09:34:25 AM »
I do not care if an organization is right-wing or left-wing or whatever, as long as the science is sound.

That's fair.

Which evidence specifically does Risch bring forth that you find particularly compelling?  After reading both articles (and googling to find the Risch article that newsweek doesn't provide a link to) . . . the argument for hydroxychloroquine doesn't seem all that strong.

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2020, 10:05:45 AM »
At this point, HCQ appears to be a Zombie Covid treatment PURELY because of politics.

It appears to me that these bullshit Op-Ed's and low powered studies keep on coming up because there is a market for them in the right wing universe as opposed to because they are accurate. Some idiot somewhere will get a bunch of clicks/attention/publicity/eventually money for repeating this garbage.

Basically, this is a blatant misuse of science that ultimately, will poison the entire respectability of the scientific method.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2020, 10:23:06 AM »
There was a poster on this website, representing himself as a physician who treated some COVID-19 patients, who used this treatment.

Of course we don’t really know if he was a physician, but the post sounded sincere to me, Maybe it was his modesty.

I’m sure people here will come correct me if my memory is wrong!

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2020, 12:34:02 PM »
I do not care if an organization is right-wing or left-wing or whatever, as long as the science is sound.

That's fair.

Which evidence specifically does Risch bring forth that you find particularly compelling?  After reading both articles (and googling to find the Risch article that newsweek doesn't provide a link to) . . . the argument for hydroxychloroquine doesn't seem all that strong.

For example, Dr. Zelenko's data. I understand that it's a Google Doc and not peer reviewed. Maybe Dr. Zelenko's data is complete garbage, but what if it isn't? The fact that it's in a Google Doc doesn't bother me, seems consistent with an overwhelmed frontline physician rolling with the situation. And it's no worse than the myriad of other documents rushed to publication without peer review. Actually, I'm rather appalled at the entire medical community's breakdown of the scientific process, and I think it's a fair criticism to point out that Dr. Risch is adding to this by making a broad recommendation based on unverified data.

But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context. One of the upsides perhaps (if you can call it that) of the politicalization of HCQ is that there should be a willing population of COVID-19 participants in places like Texas and Arizona.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2020, 01:08:16 PM »
Maybe scientists shouldn't be allowed to publish in any journal in which they sit on a board? Raoult, the Frenchman who kicked off this thing, had the same problem as Risch.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2020, 02:25:42 PM »
I do not care if an organization is right-wing or left-wing or whatever, as long as the science is sound.

That's fair.

Which evidence specifically does Risch bring forth that you find particularly compelling?  After reading both articles (and googling to find the Risch article that newsweek doesn't provide a link to) . . . the argument for hydroxychloroquine doesn't seem all that strong.

For example, Dr. Zelenko's data. I understand that it's a Google Doc and not peer reviewed. Maybe Dr. Zelenko's data is complete garbage, but what if it isn't? The fact that it's in a Google Doc doesn't bother me, seems consistent with an overwhelmed frontline physician rolling with the situation. And it's no worse than the myriad of other documents rushed to publication without peer review. Actually, I'm rather appalled at the entire medical community's breakdown of the scientific process, and I think it's a fair criticism to point out that Dr. Risch is adding to this by making a broad recommendation based on unverified data.

Data that isn't peer reviewed is not reliable.


But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context.

Is that not exactly what's going on?  There have been quite a few studies of hydroxycholoroquine so far, with more in the works.  Nobody's suppressing it.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2020, 03:34:10 PM »
Data that isn't peer reviewed is not reliable.

Agreed.

Is that not exactly what's going on?  There have been quite a few studies of hydroxycholoroquine so far, with more in the works.  Nobody's suppressing it.

Is it though? Look at the tone of the commentary linked to above. The personal attacks. And in this very thread:

At this point, HCQ appears to be a Zombie Covid treatment PURELY because of politics.

It appears to me that these bullshit Op-Ed's and low powered studies keep on coming up because there is a market for them in the right wing universe as opposed to because they are accurate. Some idiot somewhere will get a bunch of clicks/attention/publicity/eventually money for repeating this garbage.

Basically, this is a blatant misuse of science that ultimately, will poison the entire respectability of the scientific method.

It would seem politicization cuts both ways.

If this was coming from Billy Bob down the street or a known quack, then sure, I would just say "look, we can't test every hair-brained idea." So pardon my ignorance of medical research, but are any of the pending studies an attempt to duplicate the parameters Dr Risch has detailed? If so then I'm more than happy to accept the results. Otherwise, it seems rather unscientific for people to short circuit the process in the negative.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2020, 06:37:50 PM »
To the best of my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong on this) . . . nobody in this thread is a covid-19 drug treatment researcher.  How does an indication of politicization in an off-topic online forum has any bearing on research of drugs for treatment?

As mentioned, there have been multiple drug trials going on for hydroxychloroquine.  I've seen no indication of suppression of this research (beyond the natural chilling effect that multiple peer-reviewed studies which show little to no benefit or active harm in application).

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2020, 10:50:38 AM »
Whether or not someone is a COVID-19 researcher, I think the rhetoric around this matters. It's very possible that this is a true dead-end. But prematurely dismissing a potential life saving medicine because it has been tarnished as a right-wing conspiracy in the media is unfortunate. Public opinion does indeed influence research dollars.

Clearly we're going to talk in circles on this. But it sounds like we are in agreement that it should be further researched. I'm happy to leave it at that.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2020, 11:18:19 AM »
Whether or not someone is a COVID-19 researcher, I think the rhetoric around this matters.

For the scientific process - it should not.

Generally, for a field like medicine - it does not.

When political positions start polluting a field that fashions itself as a "science" - that tends to make national news, and rightly so.
e.g.1: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html
e.g.2: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/10/10/grievance-studies-academia-fake-feminist-hypatia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

I haven't heard/read anything, anywhere that would indicate that the scientific processes of a field like medicine is impacted by any such bias. Have you? If not - your statement "I think the rhetoric around this matters" does not describe reality.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2020, 11:19:09 AM »
Whether or not someone is a COVID-19 researcher, I think the rhetoric around this matters. It's very possible that this is a true dead-end. But prematurely dismissing a potential life saving medicine because it has been tarnished as a right-wing conspiracy in the media is unfortunate. Public opinion does indeed influence research dollars.

Clearly we're going to talk in circles on this. But it sounds like we are in agreement that it should be further researched. I'm happy to leave it at that.

What the media reports or thinks doesn't matter in research.  Any researcher who finds a way to seriously mitigate deaths/symptoms from covid will become incredibly rich.  There's great pressure right now to falsely report things and distort the truth (as happened with several of the early hydroxychloroquine studies).  The scientific framework means that they need to prove their hunches and feelings - regardless of what popular opinion is, or what news networks are saying.  Public opinion doesn't matter at all if research results are good (reproducible, without making stupid assumptions, without manipulating data) - to argue otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand how science works.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2020, 11:49:42 AM »
I'm not an epidemiologist, nor do I have any medical training whatsoever. So I'm stumbling around in the dark, almost entirely at the mercy of medical reporting when it comes to understanding this pandemic.

Earlier this year I was perplexed by the debate around, and politicization of, HCQ. Trump's bizarre promotion of it as a treatment seemed entirely inappropriate and alarming. And subsequent studies all seemed to indicate that HCQ was a dead end. I was happy to leave it at that.

But then I came across this today: https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535 This is from Harvey A. Risch, a respected epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. I did some searching around on-line and he appears to be the real deal, not a quack, and not a hack.

I read his full paper and found it compelling, but of course I'm out of my depth. His premise seems to be that COVID-19 is really two diseases: early infection (when anti-virals are effective) vs. later stages (e.g. hospitalization) due to immune-system overreaction. As such, studies to evaluate HCQ+AZ (azithromycin) in critically ill patients (such as in compassionate use cases) are likely irrelevant. Instead, HCQ+AZ should be evaluated in the early stages of infection as an outpatient treatment for high-risk individuals, and there appears to be quite a bit of evidence (albeit imperfect) to support this.

Thoughts from anyone that knows more about this stuff? If he's made a fatal error in his analysis I'm willing to accept that. But part of me worries that perhaps, just maybe, we've collectively written off HCQ too early because of Trump's off-putting hype.

There's nothing compelling about what I have read of his 'paper'. He's repackaging unreliable data with a heaping dose of appeal to authority (his) and transparently invalid reasoning (e.g. assuming causation where only correlation is demonstrated).

Caroline PF

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2020, 01:16:51 PM »
But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context. One of the upsides perhaps (if you can call it that) of the politicalization of HCQ is that there should be a willing population of COVID-19 participants in places like Texas and Arizona.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=hydroxychloroquine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

This links to a search of clinical trials for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. It came up with 243 studies.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2020, 03:05:51 PM »
But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context. One of the upsides perhaps (if you can call it that) of the politicalization of HCQ is that there should be a willing population of COVID-19 participants in places like Texas and Arizona.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=hydroxychloroquine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

This links to a search of clinical trials for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. It came up with 243 studies.

Thanks for the great link. I'll have to keep that in my bookmarks. Looks like there are several HCQ+AZ trails in an outpatient setting either underway, or completed with results not yet posted.

JGS1980

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2020, 12:18:10 PM »
But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context. One of the upsides perhaps (if you can call it that) of the politicalization of HCQ is that there should be a willing population of COVID-19 participants in places like Texas and Arizona.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=hydroxychloroquine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

This links to a search of clinical trials for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. It came up with 243 studies.

Thanks for the great link. I'll have to keep that in my bookmarks. Looks like there are several HCQ+AZ trails in an outpatient setting either underway, or completed with results not yet posted.

FINate, I'm not trying to convert you, but you would agree that the AP is a pretty good news source right?

https://apnews.com/86f61f3ffb6173c29bc7db201c10f141

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2020, 01:21:11 PM »
But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context. One of the upsides perhaps (if you can call it that) of the politicalization of HCQ is that there should be a willing population of COVID-19 participants in places like Texas and Arizona.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=hydroxychloroquine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

This links to a search of clinical trials for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. It came up with 243 studies.

Thanks for the great link. I'll have to keep that in my bookmarks. Looks like there are several HCQ+AZ trails in an outpatient setting either underway, or completed with results not yet posted.

FINate, I'm not trying to convert you, but you would agree that the AP is a pretty good news source right?

https://apnews.com/86f61f3ffb6173c29bc7db201c10f141

What is it that you're not...uh...trying to convert me to? :) There are trials underway to test the efficacy of early treatment with various HCQ cocktails. The scientific and intellectually honest route is to let these run their course to see what results emerge.

Clearly HCQ is not a magic "cure" as Trump and that fellow in Brazil have promoted it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's entirely useless. The Lancet paper prompting concerns that HCQ is dangerous, resulting in many studies terminating early, was later retracted because the data were unreliable. Which makes sense, since HCQ has been broadly used throughout the world for ~65 years, so it would be surprising (though not impossible) for it to suddenly be dangerous. When Trump politicized HCQ this was tragic interference in the scientific process. Likewise, prematurely writing off HCQ because Trump promoted it only adds to the tragedy.

I'm not a MSM conspiratorist and regard the AP as a mostly centric and reliable new source. Yet no media source is without bias, it is impossible to write about any topic in purely factual terms. If nothing else, the editorial process of what's included or excluded is a reflection of one's own biases. And most media sources routinely make a hash of scientific reporting. This isn't malicious, but thanks to the internet they are all competing with each other to publish very quickly, and they are all desperately competing for readership/ad dollars.

A lesson that stuck with me after work for a time in SE Asia and later Europe: When a topic has become hotly politicized it's usually helpful to get outside perspective from foreign media. So I'll provide this article from the BBC which, I think, is fairly balanced: https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731

Quote
The Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) is conducting mass clinical trials and has enrolled 40,000 frontline workers in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, giving participants either chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or a placebo.

Professor Sir Nick White, who's leading the trial, said: "Most experts agree there is a much better chance of benefit in prevention than treatment."

This study is able to resume after being placed on hold following the fallout from The Lancet's retracted study.

There haven't yet been results from this or other ongoing randomised studies on the drugs as a preventative treatment.

I don't have high hopes for HCQ in it's various concoctions, but it's worth exploring in depth. Even if HCQ itself isn't useful, we may find that early treatment with AZ and/or Zinc is helpful.

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2020, 01:47:14 PM »
But shouldn't the scientific response be to investigate this more thoroughly? Like double-blind study of the exact drug cocktail, dosage, short duration, very early in an outpatient context. One of the upsides perhaps (if you can call it that) of the politicalization of HCQ is that there should be a willing population of COVID-19 participants in places like Texas and Arizona.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=hydroxychloroquine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

This links to a search of clinical trials for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. It came up with 243 studies.

Thanks for the great link. I'll have to keep that in my bookmarks. Looks like there are several HCQ+AZ trails in an outpatient setting either underway, or completed with results not yet posted.

FINate, I'm not trying to convert you, but you would agree that the AP is a pretty good news source right?

https://apnews.com/86f61f3ffb6173c29bc7db201c10f141

What is it that you're not...uh...trying to convert me to? :) There are trials underway to test the efficacy of early treatment with various HCQ cocktails. The scientific and intellectually honest route is to let these run their course to see what results emerge.

Clearly HCQ is not a magic "cure" as Trump and that fellow in Brazil have promoted it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's entirely useless. The Lancet paper prompting concerns that HCQ is dangerous, resulting in many studies terminating early, was later retracted because the data were unreliable. Which makes sense, since HCQ has been broadly used throughout the world for ~65 years, so it would be surprising (though not impossible) for it to suddenly be dangerous. When Trump politicized HCQ this was tragic interference in the scientific process. Likewise, prematurely writing off HCQ because Trump promoted it only adds to the tragedy.

I'm not a MSM conspiratorist and regard the AP as a mostly centric and reliable new source. Yet no media source is without bias, it is impossible to write about any topic in purely factual terms. If nothing else, the editorial process of what's included or excluded is a reflection of one's own biases. And most media sources routinely make a hash of scientific reporting. This isn't malicious, but thanks to the internet they are all competing with each other to publish very quickly, and they are all desperately competing for readership/ad dollars.

A lesson that stuck with me after work for a time in SE Asia and later Europe: When a topic has become hotly politicized it's usually helpful to get outside perspective from foreign media. So I'll provide this article from the BBC which, I think, is fairly balanced: https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731

Quote
The Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) is conducting mass clinical trials and has enrolled 40,000 frontline workers in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, giving participants either chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or a placebo.

Professor Sir Nick White, who's leading the trial, said: "Most experts agree there is a much better chance of benefit in prevention than treatment."

This study is able to resume after being placed on hold following the fallout from The Lancet's retracted study.

There haven't yet been results from this or other ongoing randomised studies on the drugs as a preventative treatment.

I don't have high hopes for HCQ in it's various concoctions, but it's worth exploring in depth. Even if HCQ itself isn't useful, we may find that early treatment with AZ and/or Zinc is helpful.

The assumption that HCQ is safe for use in C19 patients because it's safe for treating malaria and lupus is an entirely unfounded and dangerous claim.

The safety of any drug is both dose dependent and dependent on the physical health of the patient.

A simple example is decongestants. Decongestants are 'safe' for most people, but only in the doses people use for the relief of congestion. Decongestant drugs might potentially have other uses but may require a dose that is unsafe. They are generally also not safe for people with high blood pressure.

The safety of HCQ for any possible treatment of C19 is absolutely not a certainty based on other uses.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2020, 01:52:42 PM »
The assumption that HCQ is safe for use in C19 patients because it's safe for treating malaria and lupus is an entirely unfounded and dangerous claim.

The safety of any drug is both dose dependent and dependent on the physical health of the patient.

A simple example is decongestants. Decongestants are 'safe' for most people, but only in the doses people use for the relief of congestion. Decongestant drugs might potentially have other uses but may require a dose that is unsafe. They are generally also not safe for people with high blood pressure.

The safety of HCQ for any possible treatment of C19 is absolutely not a certainty based on other uses.

Makes sense. Brings to mind the concerns with Ibuprofen early in the pandemic. I actually don't know where this ended up.

But trials have to start somewhere, so a drug that is known to be generally safe seems reasonable. To be clear, if it was demonstrated to be unsafe in COVID-19 patients then of course, discontinue it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2020, 02:03:40 PM »
To be clear, if it was demonstrated to be unsafe in COVID-19 patients then of course, discontinue it.

This is what the current evidence produced by studies has concluded.  Either detrimental or not beneficial.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2020, 02:10:29 PM »
To be clear, if it was demonstrated to be unsafe in COVID-19 patients then of course, discontinue it.

This is what the current evidence produced by studies has concluded.  Either detrimental or not beneficial.

From the BBC article:

Quote
There's been some hope that hydroxychloroquine could be effective if used early on when a person gets the virus, before there's a need for them to be hospitalised.

However, there's no clear evidence on this and the jury is very much out as to its effectiveness in the early stages of infection.

There are in fact overall more than 200 trials currently underway around the world on its impact either as a prophylactic or treatment for Covid-19.

I hope it's found to be useful early on because it would be great to have another treatment option to reduce suffering and death. But not holding my breath.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2020, 06:17:02 AM »
From this review, it seems that Risch cherrypicked studies when running his meta-analysis?
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: Hydroxychloroquine is dead, long live hydroxychloroquine?
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2020, 06:21:17 AM »
There are trials underway to test the efficacy of early treatment with various HCQ cocktails. The scientific and intellectually honest route is to let these run their course to see what results emerge.

Clearly HCQ is not a magic "cure" as Trump and that fellow in Brazil have promoted it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's entirely useless. The Lancet paper prompting concerns that HCQ is dangerous, resulting in many studies terminating early, was later retracted because the data were unreliable. Which makes sense, since HCQ has been broadly used throughout the world for ~65 years, so it would be surprising (though not impossible) for it to suddenly be dangerous. When Trump politicized HCQ this was tragic interference in the scientific process. Likewise, prematurely writing off HCQ because Trump promoted it only adds to the tragedy.

I'm not a MSM conspiratorist and regard the AP as a mostly centric and reliable new source. Yet no media source is without bias, it is impossible to write about any topic in purely factual terms. If nothing else, the editorial process of what's included or excluded is a reflection of one's own biases. And most media sources routinely make a hash of scientific reporting. This isn't malicious, but thanks to the internet they are all competing with each other to publish very quickly, and they are all desperately competing for readership/ad dollars.

A lesson that stuck with me after work for a time in SE Asia and later Europe: When a topic has become hotly politicized it's usually helpful to get outside perspective from foreign media. So I'll provide this article from the BBC which, I think, is fairly balanced: https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731

Quote
The Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) is conducting mass clinical trials and has enrolled 40,000 frontline workers in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, giving participants either chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or a placebo.

Professor Sir Nick White, who's leading the trial, said: "Most experts agree there is a much better chance of benefit in prevention than treatment."

This study is able to resume after being placed on hold following the fallout from The Lancet's retracted study.

There haven't yet been results from this or other ongoing randomised studies on the drugs as a preventative treatment.

I don't have high hopes for HCQ in it's various concoctions, but it's worth exploring in depth. Even if HCQ itself isn't useful, we may find that early treatment with AZ and/or Zinc is helpful.

Agree!

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!