3 ms·
I don't understand why they aren't trialing chloroquine. Isn't it more readily available and cheaper? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 https:/
by allovernow 7y ago
I don't understand why they aren't trialing chloroquine. Isn't it more readily available and cheaper?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
- exabrial 7y agoSide effects would be my guess.
- jws 7y agohttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04261517?cond=covid-19&draw=6&rank=45 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04261517?cond=covid-1... That is studying hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic metabolite of chloroquine. If you navigate up a bit on that web site and enter COVID-19 for your search you will find about 50 studies, roughly a dozen or so are checking drugs.
- gnulinux 7y agoBut how are they having 50 studies if there are barely 50 confirmed cases in the US? Are they testing these drugs on other viral pneumonia patients? Or is this a "once we have patients we will initiate testing" sort of thing?
- jimrandomh 7y agoMost of the trials are happening in China, not the US.
- gnulinux 7y agoSo if they do succeed they won't have any implications in the US since FDA doesn't approve of them and insurances will refuse pay, right?
- tlb 7y agoClinical trials cost a lot of money, which someone has to pay for. Chloroquine is long out of patent and nobody has much incentive to run trials for it. It should be the job of the NIH to sponsor trials for out-of-patent medicines, but they aren't very effective at it compared to pharma companies.