3 ms·
There is NOT good RCT evidence for the efficacy of chloroquine for COVID —— Medical Professional Stop acting like there is. It’s insane at this point. It might
by et2o 7y ago
There is NOT good RCT evidence for the efficacy of chloroquine for COVID —— Medical Professional
Stop acting like there is. It’s insane at this point. It might work, but frankly it’s unlikely given the history of chloroquine’s failures as an antiviral.
- pbreit 7y agoThere is...both in vitro and in vivo. The pushback on chloroquine is completely insane. It's a 90 year old, well-understood drug used safely by millions with mild side effects.
- et2o 7y agoSorry, this is just not true. The in-vitro results for chloroquine as an antiviral have been positive for many viruses, but it has never worked out in RCTs. Claiming there is good evidence from in-vivo studies is scientifically illiterate. Please post links to well-done RCTs if you believe they exist. There is a reason the WHO is running a 5-arm clinical trial for COVID. Edit: Your response to me literally says “In-Vitro” in the title. Edit 2: “There is absolutely evidence” ... But no links. No, sorry, you are still just wrong.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pbreit 7y agoThere is absolutely evidence of effectiveness against COVID-19 in humans from China, South Korea & France.
- et2o 7y agoPlease let me and the CDC know of these well-conducted trials of chloroquine for COVID. I take it you are not familiar with epidemiology, clinical evaluation of drug efficacy, or medical statistics. That’s fine! No one is saying you need to be. But you shouldn’t be extremely confident of your conclusions when experts are telling you that you’re wrong. The French chloroquine+azithromycin trial was terrible and no one in the medical world believes it. There’s a reason no respectable journal would publish it. SIX of the people in the C+A arm died and were removed from the analysis, which is absurd. The outcome was viral titers, which were different for different arms. Just maddening.
- gus_massa 7y agoI agree. Nitpicking: I think only 1 person in the treatment group died. It is not clear that the 3 that were transferred to the ICU finally died. (And 1 just left the hospital and 1 had too much nausea with the drugs, I hope that at least they are fine.)
- et2o 7y agoYou are exactly right. I was remembering wrong.
- pbreit 7y agoOne died. I am not extremely confident in what is not even a conclusion. I am simply shocked at the pushback and resistance to a promising treatment with minimal downsides. Medecine appears to be the only profession in the world that only accepts one form of evidence. That is what is maddening.
- blhack 7y agoOkay well you're going to have to tell the FDA, the CDC, the WHO and many other equivalent organizations all over the world that.
- et2o 7y agoThey are doing clinical trials for it in COVID, so those will reveal its efficacy. The FDA, CDC, and WHO’s position is the same as mine.
- blhack 7y agoWho are you arguing with that you thinks we shouldn't be doing clinical trials? Why do you think these things are "insane"?
- et2o 7y agoIn case you have been reading a different post, there are innumerable people who are totally confident chloroquine works for COVID-19 and that sufficient evidence already exists. Such as you, a few posts higher in this chain. That view is “insane”, or at least strongly misinformed and medically/scientifically illiterate. In fact, there is no strong evidence that supports this and substantial prior evidence that contradicts it. Unfortunately, this belief leads to bad outcomes, such as people literally dying, as is the case here.