Small Trial indicates that hydroxyquinone is ineffective against Covid-19
From US edition of The Conversation (French science publication) ;In response to:
A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
April 3, 2020 8.40am EDT Updated April 3, 2020 10.10am EDT
On Saturday the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of two antimalarial drugs, hydroxychloroquine and a related medication, chloroquine, for emergency use to treat COVID-19. The drugs were touted by President Trump as a “game changer” for COVID-19.
However, a study just published in a French medical journal provides new evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not appear to help the immune system clear the coronavirus from the body. The study comes on the heels of two others - one in France and one in China - that reported some benefits in the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 patients who didn’t have severe symptoms of the virus.
I am a medicinal chemist who has specialized in discovery and development of antiviral drugs for the past 30 years, and I have been actively working on coronaviruses for the past seven. I am among a number of researchers who are concerned that this drug has been given too much of a high priority before there is enough evidence to show it is indeed effective.
There are already other clinical studies that showed it is not effective against COVID-19 as well as several other viruses. And, more importantly, it can have dangerous side effects, as well as giving people false hope. The latter has led to widespread shortages of hydroxychloroquine for patients who need it to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the indications for which it was originally approved.
The idea that the combination of hydroxychloroquine with an antibiotic drug, azithromycin, was effective against COVID-19 gained more attention after a study published on March 17. This study described a trial of 80 patients carried out by Philippe Gautret in Marseille, France. Although some of their results appeared to be encouraging, it should also be noted that most of their patients only had mild symptoms. Furthermore, 85% of the patients didn’t even have a fever – one of the major telltale symptoms of the virus, thus suggesting that these patients likely would have naturally cleared the virus without any intervention.
In another study, posted on medRxiv, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, Chinese scientists from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, in Wuhan, China, gave hydroxychloroquine to patients with only mild infections who were free of medical issues, similar to the Gautret study. The results showed that the 31 patients who received the drug showed a lessening of their symptoms 24 hours earlier than patients in the control group. In addition, pneumonia symptoms improved in 25 of the 31 patients versus 17 of 31 in the control group. As noted in several of the comments associated with the manuscript, there are issues related to the translation of the paper, thus clouding interpretations of some of the results. The paper also appears to focus more on pneumonia than COVID-19. However, these issues may be cleared up or addressed once the paper finishes the peer-review process.
But two other studies have conflicting results.
A second French group, led by Jean-Michel Molina, has now tested the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin combination treatment in 11 patients at the Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, France, and their results were strikingly different.
Like the Marseille study, the Molina trial was also a small pilot study. Molina and colleagues used the same dosing regimen as Gautret. In contrast, however, to the Gautret study, eight of the 11 patients had underlying health conditions, and 10 of 11 had fevers and were quite ill at the time the dosing began.
A small trial finds that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus
April 3, 2020 8.40am EDT Updated April 3, 2020 10.10am EDT
On Saturday the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of two antimalarial drugs, hydroxychloroquine and a related medication, chloroquine, for emergency use to treat COVID-19. The drugs were touted by President Trump as a “game changer” for COVID-19.
However, a study just published in a French medical journal provides new evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not appear to help the immune system clear the coronavirus from the body. The study comes on the heels of two others - one in France and one in China - that reported some benefits in the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19 patients who didn’t have severe symptoms of the virus.
I am a medicinal chemist who has specialized in discovery and development of antiviral drugs for the past 30 years, and I have been actively working on coronaviruses for the past seven. I am among a number of researchers who are concerned that this drug has been given too much of a high priority before there is enough evidence to show it is indeed effective.
There are already other clinical studies that showed it is not effective against COVID-19 as well as several other viruses. And, more importantly, it can have dangerous side effects, as well as giving people false hope. The latter has led to widespread shortages of hydroxychloroquine for patients who need it to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the indications for which it was originally approved.
The idea that the combination of hydroxychloroquine with an antibiotic drug, azithromycin, was effective against COVID-19 gained more attention after a study published on March 17. This study described a trial of 80 patients carried out by Philippe Gautret in Marseille, France. Although some of their results appeared to be encouraging, it should also be noted that most of their patients only had mild symptoms. Furthermore, 85% of the patients didn’t even have a fever – one of the major telltale symptoms of the virus, thus suggesting that these patients likely would have naturally cleared the virus without any intervention.
In another study, posted on medRxiv, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, Chinese scientists from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, in Wuhan, China, gave hydroxychloroquine to patients with only mild infections who were free of medical issues, similar to the Gautret study. The results showed that the 31 patients who received the drug showed a lessening of their symptoms 24 hours earlier than patients in the control group. In addition, pneumonia symptoms improved in 25 of the 31 patients versus 17 of 31 in the control group. As noted in several of the comments associated with the manuscript, there are issues related to the translation of the paper, thus clouding interpretations of some of the results. The paper also appears to focus more on pneumonia than COVID-19. However, these issues may be cleared up or addressed once the paper finishes the peer-review process.
But two other studies have conflicting results.
A second French group, led by Jean-Michel Molina, has now tested the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin combination treatment in 11 patients at the Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, France, and their results were strikingly different.
Like the Marseille study, the Molina trial was also a small pilot study. Molina and colleagues used the same dosing regimen as Gautret. In contrast, however, to the Gautret study, eight of the 11 patients had underlying health conditions, and 10 of 11 had fevers and were quite ill at the time the dosing began.
(continued below)
Comments (11)
These Paris researchers found that after five to six days of treatment with hydroxychloroquine (600 mg per day for 10 days) and azithromycin (500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 2 to 5), eight of the 10 patients still tested positive for COVID-19. Of these 10 patients, one patient died, two were transferred to the ICU and another had to be removed from the treatment due to serious complications.
In addition, a similar study in China also showed no difference in viral clearance after seven days either with or without the hydroxychloroquine with the patients in the trial. This supports Molina’s findings.
Thus, despite the recent approval of this drug for use against COVID-19, questions remain as to the efficacy of this treatment. As Molina and colleagues note: “Ongoing randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine should provide a definitive answer regarding the alleged efficacy of this combination and will assess its safety.”
There are still varying results. Even towards positive still. Not sure what levels of infection Dr. Stephen Smith's patients were; his trials went complete opposite of what your article states. I think he had 20.
A 2nd doctor or I think the first, had good results but he didn't have any serious cases and not sure how many.
Here's another:
There are about a 1/2 dozen and more out right now on trials.
Part of the clinical trial is supposed to be at what stage of infection the patient(s) is. Truth be told, it shouldn't be allowed to advance that far if something helps now.
Keep reading around and hope none this stuff they're trying, has the negative effects they can have on people. I think ALL of them have something bad as well as potential good. Some mild. Remdesivir for pregnant women is unknown concerning it's effects.
the most promising thus far. Human testing should begin on it later this month.
Just a snipet from some back ground of remdesivir, along with hydroxyquinone and one other.:
In late January 2020, in response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, Gilead began laboratory testing of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2, stating that remdesivir had been shown to be active against SARS and MERS in animal models of CoV infection. It also provided remdesivir for treatment of a "small number of patients" in collaboration with Chinese medical authorities. Also in late January 2020, remdesivir was administered to the first U.S. patient confirmed to be infected by SARS-CoV-2, in Snohomish County, Washington, for "compassionate use" after he progressed to pneumonia. While no broad conclusions can be made based on the single treatment, the patient's condition improved dramatically the next day, and he was eventually discharged. Also in late January 2020, Chinese medical researchers reported that remdesivir and two other drugs, hydroxychloroquine and favipiravir, seemed to have "fairly good inhibitory effects" on SARS-CoV-2 (after exploratory research that examined 30 drug candidates), after which requests to begin clinical testing were submitted. On 6 February 2020, a clinical trial of remdesivir began in China.
On 17 March 2020, remdesivir was provisionally approved for use for COVID-19 patients in a serious condition in the Czech Republic. While no broad conclusions can be made based on the single treatment, results of remdesivir treatment of an Italian COVID-19 patient in Genoa, a 79-year-old, were described as successful on 18 March 2020. Other patients also received the treatment, the results of which are not known.[verification needed] On that date, the WHO announced the launch of a large four-arm pragmatic clinical trial (SOLIDARITY trial) that includes one group of patients treated with remdesivir.
Maybe some of these shouldn't be held back for "humanitarian" reasons.
It's from the company itself, and thus perhaps a little too rosey.
The tests it mentions were covered in much more detail within THIS blog,
by a qualified scientist and the flaws in those results are explained.
This article is much more recent, less than 3 days ago at this time.
The Longer the Home Remedy remains little known, the BETTER!
I'll not mention either the News or the Remedy until it's Put Out There
This Will kill people
I'm not making it up
Heres more info on Trumps corrution machine and the reason he was so gung ho on the anti malaria drug despite its dangers!!