This is the same for remedisivir, and also for ritonavir/lopinavir/ribavirin: they must be given within 7 days of symptom onset to be effective. In fact, the latter was deemed unsuccesful in a first paper, because it was given late, then it was reconsidered when given earlier during the disease.
This is not surprising, given how the disease works (outlined also by the Cell paper from yesterday): at some point the consequences of the highly altered inflammatory reaction greatly surpass the effects of the replication of the virus itself.
This calls more for extensive and early testing, IMO.
HCQ's issue may be a bad combination of "has to be taken early" and "has significant side effects".
Not in an antiviral context, and certainly not for SARS-CoV-2.
Yes, which is why all of the studies keep saying that it's too dangerous to use as treatment for covid-19.
It may be too toxic, it may not cause a noticeable effect, but currently it is a big question mark.
[1] Except now we know (and we always thought this) that it won't save their life; it'll increase their risk of death.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, we'll have to answer soon, but power speaks with a forked tongue in this case. Too many anecdotal observations to be comfortable in the very loud politicization of the science.
The Lancet study and others cannot be accepted a conclusion to the safety & efficacy of early/prophylactic use. Let's wait for and encourage some proper, specific studies.
participants who entered the trial more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms actually showed a better response to remdesivir than those who started being treated during the first 10 days of being symptomatic.
It's not a huge improvement, but it doesn't seem to be too dependent on starting treatment early.