Doctors are already saying that it's definitely no magic bullet, but they debate whether it is effective at a certain stage of illness.
What I don't understand is why we're focusing so much on this specific drug when there are some great antivirals out thee that have a more effective theoretical mechanism of action. (eg Remdesivir)
[1] https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/gilead-clinical-data-h...
The US government could simply seize the patent if Gilead acted in a manner against the public good.
Incentivizing people to not do productive things like develop drugs seems like a really bad idea.
[1] https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-com... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru...
That's absolutely not what would happen. I was chatting with a family member who used to work in biotech/pharma and posed the question what would happen if Remdesivir is found to have efficacy against covid-19. What they said is basically there would be licensing done immediately to other pharma companies which would run manufacturing in parallel with what Gilead is doing. Gilead will be getting profits from each pharma company that gets a license. I am unsure why the lead time is so long, however it may be that the company does not want to create a huge supply of a drug that may not be effective. But this is very interesting, the pentagon is getting lots of remdesivir for troops so there must be some info that leadership has about its success rate: https://qz.com/1834939/how-the-military-secured-experimental...
So the subpopulation needing remdesivir is probably less than 5% of the positive cases (or 1250 of the 25,000 who tested positive here). BTW, the county population is 900,000.
...so a targeted application of anti-virals is definitely worthwhile.
And how funny is it (at least to me) that this is only because Trump came down on one side initially. If he had come out saying exactly the opposite, that HCQ was bad and we should be skeptical, everyone hoping it doesn’t work now would be looking for the 10 person studies saying it totally works and defending its use.
It’s almost beyond reason how hyper partisan this specific issue is.
If you listen to virologist podcast, TWIV, they talk about the effectiveness of HCQ. They aren't all "it's amazing!", but they do not make the claim that it doesn't work.
For some issues there's plenty of partisan hackery to go around, but in this instance there is clearly one person to blame for turning this into a partisan issue. Politicians should not be offering their opinions on drug efficacy, full stop.
Can we expect preliminary data from this trial before the primary completion date?
* Have had close contact with a known positive individual within the past 4 days (but not have any symptoms themselves yet).
* Have developed symptoms (and tested positive) within the past 4 days.
Technically that's not really a prophylaxis, but it's early enough that it's practically the same thing. It's also more representative of how we would be likely to employ the medication in the real world. (Also I don't see how it would be ethical to intentionally expose people, and waiting for people to be inadvertently exposed seems impractical for a number of reasons).
Edit: Whoops. I had slightly confused the smaller PATCH trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329923) and the larger University of Minnesota one (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04308668). It looks like the PATCH trial is indeed only testing actual prophylaxis in healthcare workers, and specifies a two month period for each participant in the trial.
The "most promising" study I saw early on was this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102549/ - which seemed to suggest that the combo eliminated the viral load in 3-5 days.
The only followup study I've found was this one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551v... - that urged caution with the combo because of a possibility of increased heart failure.
Obviously, that's a very small study with
The opportunistic bacterial infection is separate (although you’re correct that it has a role here)
> Worryingly, significant risks are identified for combination users of HCQ+AZM even in the short-term as proposed for COVID19 management, with a 15-20% increased risk of angina/chest pain and heart failure, and a two-fold risk of cardiovascular mortality in the first month of treatment.
Based on that, azithromycin would appear to be a decidedly bad choice of antibiotic to use in conjunction with HCQ. Luckily there are many others available.
Derek Lowe has a recent and much more detailed analysis of all of this. (https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/11/th...)
What's the mechanism supposed to be here? If it suppresses replication of the virus, shouldn't that be effective up to close to the point of death - once replication is slowed enough, viral load should fall off, and recovery should happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F1cnWup9M&list=PLQ_IRFkDIn...
If you can moderate the immune system's reaction you can prevent significant damage. HCQ is useful for this type of immuno-suppression.
Here's a pre-print of an article from a few years back which talks about HCQ and cytokine storms:
Scott W. Canna, Edward M. Behrens. Making Sense of the Cytokine Storm: a conceptual framework for understanding, diagnosing and treating hemophagocytic syndromes. Pediatric Clinics of North America [Preprint]. April 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3368378/
Published article link: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pcl.2012.03.002
It's decently likely from what I've been reading that there might end up being effective pharmaceuticals for each stage, but that they'll be totally different from one another: maybe HCQ and antivirals like remdesivir or favipiravir early, and maybe immune-modulators like tocilizumab or even corticosteroids in this second phase. But again, the devil will be in the details, as it looks like HCQ doesn't work late, and steroids or other immune modulators might be actively harmful in that first stage when the virus is still surging.
As for mechanism: nobody is really sure. HCQ does have some immune-modulating effects (that's what makes it useful for lupus), but there's also speculation that it might have some effect on the interaction between the ACE2 receptor and the coronavirus spike protein, and so somehow inhibit viral entry (see, e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0).