New study casts doubt on hyrdoxychloroquine’s effectiveness in treating coronavirus vs. standard existing best practice for conventional care

Tech Crunch ^ | 03/25/2020 | Darrel Etherington

[SeekAndFind]

In a prime example of why President Trump shouldn’t be endorsing any unproven potential treatments for the novel coronavirus behind the current global pandemic, a new small-scale study by researchers in China indicates that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine actually isn’t any more effective than standard, existing best practice for conventional care of patients with the virus.

The study, which included 30 patients with a control of 15 who received no treatment, with the other half being treated with hydroxychloroquine, showed that there was a statistically insignificant difference in the number of patients who tested negative for the drug after a week. During the study, those who received conventional treatment were provided anti-virals that are currently recommended for use in China, including Iopinavir and ritonavir, and after a week, 13 of the 15 control patients showed no sign of the virus, while 14 of the 15 who were treated with hydroxychloroquine showed the same.

An earlier small-scale study of 30 patients by French researchers published last week had shown indication that hydroxychloroquine used alone was effective in reducing the duration and severity of COVID-19, while using it in combination with an antibiotic called azithromycin increased its effectiveness. The study has been criticized by some for its methods – which is the entire purpose of scientific study and medical research, wherein people submit their studies for peer review prior to publication, and then other researchers challenge their assumptions, results and findings.

Trump is obviously not a scientist or medical professional, and yet he has been touting the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine during the White House’s daily coronavirus task force press briefings, and on Twitter, including when he called for them to be “put in use IMMEDIATELY” on March 21.

[Sequoyah101]

Well, if the chicoms say it is so it must be true. /s

Why have we not heard about their special sauce treatment before now?

I see confirmation bias.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So it can show the same results as other treatments or is effective by itself. What a BS headline.

In The headline, the author has an agenda -- TO BASH TRUMP FOR HOLDING OUT HOPE FOR A CHEAP DRUG THAT MIGHT WORK. A more accurate headline, based on the content of the article would have been this:

New study shows hyrdoxychloroquine is slightly more effective in treating coronavirus vs. the use of more expensive antivirals

[wastoute]

We could know within the hour if someone could answer one question. Surely there is someone who knows the answer at this moment. Why aren’t they talking?

[wastoute]

I actually read that study. It has likely been recognized as the trash it is. They “didn’t follow their patients to the ICU.” Malpractice.

[Kazan]

The Chinese would never put out false information....

[mmichaels1970]

In a prime example of why President Trump shouldn’t be endorsing any unproven potential treatments

At least they weren't subtle about the point of their article.

a new small-scale study

Oh...ok. Yesterday small-scale studies didn't prove anything and were unimportant (when they reflected positive news), today they ARE important (when they reflect negative news).

by researchers in China

I don't trust the Chinese at all.

[mmichaels1970]

Ah, the American Left. Criticize the French study that shows it works, accept uncritically the Communist Chinese government study that says it doesn’t.

You summed it up perfectly.

[CMAC51]

New study casts doubt on hyrdoxychloroquine’s effectiveness in treating coronavirus vs. standard existing best practice for conventional care

The study, which included 30 patients with a control of 15 who received no treatment, with the other half being treated with hydroxychloroquine...During the study, those who received conventional treatment were provided anti-virals that are currently recommended for use in China, including Iopinavir and ritonavir, and after a week, 13 of the 15 control patients showed no sign of the virus, while 14 of the 15 who were treated with hydroxychloroquine showed the same.

The headline is incorrect. The study showed that Hydroxychloroquine is equally or more effective than other antivirals. Iopinavir has shelf price of $375. Ritonavir has a shelf price of $400. Hydroxychloroquine has a shelf price of $177. Hydroxychloroquine is actually readily available for around $20 for a 1 month supply. Covid 19 patients only need a 1 week supply so they can be successfully treated for $5. Just about anyone can handle that.

[Jane Long]

Any word out of NY, yet? Didn’t they begin protocols yesterday?

[mmichaels1970]

Well, if you don’t trust the studies in China, then you would not trust the OTHER studies coming out of China that calls the use of Hydroxychloroquine a BREAKTHROUGH (Yes the word was used) in the treatment of CoVid-19.

You're absolutely right. I trust the French. If China happens to back that up, so be it. But I don't trust anything out of China.

[wastoute]

From what I read they make it sound like people are getting it now.

[mmichaels1970]

The headline is incorrect. The study showed that Hydroxychloroquine is equally or more effective than other antivirals.

So that's pretty awesome news! Thanks. I still don't trust the Chinese though.

[wastoute]

Again, “Are there people who had been taking Plaquenil every day a month ago among the dead?” If the answer is no they should consider full speed ahead. If the answer is yes we may want to tap the brakes. If there are as many o average as for any other comorbidity may be we should stop talking about it.

[Cboldt]

The medical profession knows how to use this treatment safely. The question is where or not it is effective, or better, “how effective.” According to this article, it is as effective as the 100 times more expensive drugs.

[normbal]

Ah, so.

Yes, that too.

[mmichaels1970]

Again, “Are there people who had been taking Plaquenil every day a month ago among the dead?”

Absolutely. I've been asking that question here and elsewhere for days.

I want to know COVID-19 deaths AFTER treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. I'm waiting to hear about even ONE. And if there is one, I'm surprised the media hasn't pounced all over it.

[mmichaels1970]

Ah, so.

Is that a subtly racist Chinese joke?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

A 30 patient study in France.
A 30 patient study in China.

The French study showed these results.

The lead Frech researcher, Didier Raoult, has some excellent credentials. He is not a quack.

Didier Raoult is a French physician and microbiologist with M.D. and Ph.D. degrees and specializes in infectious diseases. In 1984, Didier Raoult created the Rickettsia Unit at Aix-Marseille University (AMU). He also teaches infectious diseases in the Faculty of Medicine of Aix-Marseille University, and since 1982 has supervised many M.D. and Ph.D. degrees. Since 2008, Raoult has been the director of "URMITE" i.e. the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases, collaborating with CNRS (National Center for the Scientific Research), IRD (Research for the Development Institute), INSERM (National Institute of Health and Medical Research) and the Aix Marseille University, in Marseille. His laboratory employs more than 200 people, including 86 very active researchers who publish between 250 and 350 papers per year and have produced more than 50 patents. Didier Raoult is also involved in the creation of 8 startups to date.

[LTC.Ret]

A Chinese study -— maybe they don’t want us to recover before they do!!!

[Tellurian]

So the expensive drug combo, Iopinavir and ritonavir, made 13 of 15 patients with "no treatment" (WTF) better.

The inexpensive drug, hydroxychloroquine, without the azithromycin kicker this time, made 14 of 15 patients better.

OK, let's go with the less effective more expensive drug. Right, makes perfect sense.