╌>

WHO halts hydroxychloroquine trials after failure to reduce death

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  4 years ago  •  14 comments

By:   Tal Axelrod (TheHill)

WHO halts hydroxychloroquine trials after failure to reduce death
The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Saturday it is halting its trials of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and HIV treatment lopinavir-ritonavir in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus after results showed the drugs did not reduc

And here I thought I read hydroxychloroquine was worth a damn...butt I guess not!


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Tal Axelrod

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Saturday it is halting its trials of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and HIV treatment lopinavir-ritonavir in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus after results showed the drugs did not reduce mortality rates.

"These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. Solidarity trial investigators will interrupt the trials with immediate effect," the WHO said in a statement, referencing multicountry trials it is conducting.

The group, a United Nations agency, said it was ending the tests on the recommendation of the drug trial's international steering committee. The pause does not impact other studies in which the drugs are used for patients who are not hospitalized.

The WHO is also examining the potential effect of remdesivir, an anti-viral drug from Gilead, on COVID-19.

The WHO's announcement comes two days after a study was released linking the use of hydroxychloroquine by COVID-19 patients to lower death rates.

In patients who received the drug, the death rate was 13 percent, compared with a death rate of 26.4 percent in patients who weren't administered the treatment.

Studies have offered a scattershot assessment of hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness in battling the coronavirus. The Food and Drug Administration earlier this year yanked the drug's emergency use authorization, citing data from a large randomized controlled trial that showed no difference between using hydroxychloroquine and standard COVID-19 treatment.

President Trump had emerged as a chief cheerleader for the drug, at one point even saying he was taking it himself as a preventative measure.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    4 years ago

I told you so...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2  Buzz of the Orient    4 years ago

Oh, come on, if the conservatives' demi-god, lord and master, says it does the trick, how can anyone argue with that?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    4 years ago

Are you talking about Bad Fish?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @2.1    4 years ago

The words "Bad Fish" make me think of the time at my lakeside home in Ontario when a carcass of a dead fish washed up on my shore, teaming with maggots. Nothing in my life ever smelled so rotten. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    4 years ago
if the conservatives' demi-god, lord and master, says it does the trick, how can anyone argue with that?

Some don't argue it. That's the problem. They simply go along and parrot the same spiel. It's doubtful they actually understand the science behind the drug or the studies conducted. It boggles the mind that some people would look to a politician for medical advise rather than an actual doctor. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    4 years ago

Would you prefer the World Health Organization operate like a religion and hold fast to its original positions and never change when new information becomes available?

Or would you prefer the WHO not make any statement until they are certain they will never have to make a change in their statement?   (That is impossible by the way.)

One needs to factor in the reality that the human body and viruses are a complex business and science, in spite of the amazing accomplishments, still has plenty of unknowns.   The best we can get, realistically, is ' this is what we know today ' qualified by the implied ' we are continuing to learn more and will update accordingly '.   And that is how science typically operates.

That said, let's look more carefully at your example quotes (with more context from your sources):

World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick. Masks may actually increase your coronavirus risk if worn improperly, surgeon general warns "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday. "There also is the issue that we have a massive global shortage," Ryan said about masks and other medical supplies. "Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific."
Dr Ryan was speaking in general terms (mass population of almost entirely healthy people wearing arbitrary masks).   He noted that they lack evidence (critical note) suggesting that people wearing arbitrary masks is net effective but that there is evidence (at an individual level) where the wearing of an poorly fitting mask is detrimental.   He further notes that the masks are better suited for frontline health professionals (hot spots of viral infections) and, in so doing, shows that properly fitting, quality masks were seen as effective (and mandatory).
His comment was substantially more nuanced and qualified than the simple summary of:  the WHO says we do not need to wear masks .
The next quote (again with context from your source):
The WHO had previously argued there was not enough evidence to say that healthy people should wear masks. However, WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Friday that " in light of evolving evidence , the WHO advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments".

Here the WHO has revised its position based on new information ('in light of evolving evidence').   As I noted, when science gains new information do you want this information to be suppressed and have the public operate only on obsolete recommendations?  


Both of these quotes have plenty of supporting details and explanations suitable for anyone to investigate and come to a sensible conclusion — one that actually considers the scientific reasoning behind the recommendations.   If one considers that early information on a virus will be sketchy and that, given time, science will naturally gain more information which will naturally cause a change in early recommendations, one can see the value in a process of staying abreast of the current recommendations while doing enough research to understand why these recommendations are made and the qualifications associated with them.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    4 years ago

It's ironic how agencies can't change their views on an evolving virus but I'm expected to change my political views by the comments shared here.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5  Nerm_L    4 years ago

More importantly the World Health Organization did not indicate that hydroxychloroquine caused harm.  The drug is important for treating malaria which is a much larger global problem than the coronavirus.  200 to 250 million cases of malaria are reported annually with 400,000 to 500,000 deaths annually.

COVID-19 is an academically interesting disease.  But malaria has been causing more sickness and death around the world without any indication that the death toll will be abated in the foreseeable future.  Politicizing the use of hydroxychloroquine really can kill a lot of people.  

 
 

Who is online



Kavika
Sean Treacy
Freefaller


85 visitors