Hydroxychloroquine lowers Alzheimer's disease and related dementias risk
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Note that this is an article making huge claims about Alzheimer's but is published in Molecular Psychiatry. Given that signal, I'm just going to look at the abstract and not read the full text.
Here, the study population is patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This tells you up front that we don't have a typical population, but a highly selected one.
The use of HCQ is observational, not randomly assigned.
So, how could HCQ look protective even if it had no effect on Alzheimer's biology?
1. Maybe more rheumatoid arthritis patients should be on HCQ. It's a disease-modifying drug, after all. So it may be the case that people with better care, or more wealth, are more likely to be on HCQ. And that could be associated with other lifestyle factors that are never fully accounted for in an observational analysis.
2. Or it could be the case that people with dementia are less likely to have their HCQ prescriptions renewed, so the arrow of causation could even be reversed.
Additionally, one could imagine that HCQ might actually protect against Alzheimer's disease in people with rheumatoid arthritis—but not in a general population. That would be very big news, but would require further study.
And sure, it could be the case that HCQ reduces Alzheimer's risk in everyone. But you'd need a lot more evidence to buy that.
Also, the study itself is clear about the amount of evidence needed to validate whether HCQ actually reduces Alzheimer's risk: "This hypothesis merits testing through adequately powered clinical trials in at-risk individuals during preclinical stages of disease progression."
So I would certainly expect some sort of difference in patient population. It would suggest those initiated on hydroxychloroquine would normally have less severe rheumatoid arthritis (or have some other difference that their doctor would choose to not use methotrexate by default), although I don’t know if that’s the case in reality.
If both drugs were equally good and were pretty much used at random, then they could be good instruments. But if there is confounding by indication, then it’s harder to get value out of an analysis that compares them.
It doesn’t mean the conclusions are wrong (and nor does my comment above), it just tempers my interpretation.
If Hydroxychloroquine reduces inflammation and reduces immune responses damaging connective tissue I could see it generally useful for incidents where the body damages itself (such as Alzheimer or dementia)
I don't think this is right, isn't the etiology of Alzheimers still pretty much completely unknown?
Generally hydroxychloroquine is used in mild rheumatoid, whereas methotrexate is used in moderate-severe disease.
Inflammation in rheumatoid (and other inflammatory diseases) contribute to atherosclerosis and plaque buildup. Rheumatoid increases the risk of coronary disease by 1.5-2x.
That difference alone could account for the difference in dementia, particularly vascular dementia.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1218173/life-expectancy-...
The largest effect size I know of, predicting incidence of real dementia in real people (46,000 people over 70), is that a recent Tdap booster predicts a 40% reduction. Nobody knows how or why, or isn't saying. Apparently treatment for herpes has a large effect size, too.
It is easy and safe to get both.
Being obese in your 30s-50s increases your chance of developing dementia or Parkinson's later in life by somewhere between 500 and 800 percent.
Losing the weight is such an OBVIOUS intervention for things like diabetes and CVD risk, but it affects risk factors for nearly every other chronic disease on the list, including something like half of all cancers.
And yet, we're researching the type of micro-optimizations indicated in this article.
Don't be fat from 30 to 60. That's it. That's the solution. And yet, all I see is:
Medically: Masking the symptoms with medication, with not even a cursory nod to improving lifestyle factors.
Societally: Wild adoration of Lizzo and "Health At Any Size" ridiculousness.
Not drinking water or eating food leads to lower risk of choking to death, but...
It's also a highly international forum and divisive topics play very differently in different places. Readers often mistake a comment for something weird and radical coming from a person nearby, when in fact it's an unremarkable comment coming from a person far away. It's unfortunate that this leads to so many brutal online arguments. In person, people instinctively modulate their communication with respect to such variables; online they don't, because the information isn't available and we can't make it available.
"Re-patent" would mean something different like Shire patenting Vyvanse by adding an amino acid cap to amphetamines, changing it enough that it becomes a new drug with a new patent. That would require clinical trials and all the expense that goes with them.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/cder-small-business-industry-assis...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs...
[3] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/cder-small-business-industry-assis...
They wouldn't need to modify it for exclusivity via Abbreviated New Drug Application - I just don't see the FDA accepting any evidence short of a phase III clinical trial that HCQ helps with Alzheimers to fulfill the new use requirements. At best they'd be able to run a proper clinical trial for some cocktail of generic drugs and use ANDAs to prevent competitors from using those generics in their own cocktail for a few years.
Once you have the new med you use the courts to prevent the off-label use. See eg lucentis or avastin for Wet AMD.
It is not a miracle drug and it is not useless for all medical purposes. It is a relatively mild anti-malarial drug with some anti-inflammatory properties. It is prescribed for autoimmune disorders in addition to malaria. Its anti-inflammatory/immune regulation effects are probably not that strong but its safety profile is well understood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214864/
Lots of literature 1 google/ddg search away for you, but there's an example.
iirc (I am not qualified!!) Alzheimers relates to plaques in our brain, and this sounds to me like it fixes a precursor to the plaque accumulation (the loss of plasticity?)
This "amyloid hypothesis" has not been a smashing success, to put in mildly.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...
It's an ion transport channel facilitator. It's never been alleged to work by itself to my knowledge. It allows the immune system to work better especially when used in conjunction with other agents (z-pack and ivermectin for example). It's effectiveness and molecular mechanism was well documented from the beginning. I learned about it in March 2020 and was able to read up on it and it's use in treating covid before social media started banning anything that referenced it. But it, like ivermectin (an equally well documented DNA replication inhibitor) were demonized and mocked despite the vast body of research on it and it's use.
Australia had great research (though small sample size, it was thorough) on it's use and effectiveness at the beginning of the pandemic and it was shut down despite it being clearly explained the strict conditions under which it was effective (treatment within the first 8 days of showing symptoms, used with z-pack, etc). They even had research quantifying how it's effectiveness dropped without the z-pack components or as those treated didn't start treatment until 8 or more days. Not a controlled study but even Idris Elba was treated with it and raved about it's effectiveness in conjunction with the z-pack. It was all over the news before Trump mentioned it and then BAM! Censorship and propaganda campaign against it.
But for the research itself I agree, there's no indication this article was in any way motivated by COVID or contains any misunderstandings of HCQ.
(* the sample is large but since it's purely observational in a very specific population it obviously requires follow-up work)
I suspect that concerns about safety were because people were using it off brand without medical supervision these last couple of years, which is less safe.
Secondly there are things like “pill organizers”/dossette boxes[2] where the pharmacy will actually dispense the drugs into a container which is designed to make it simple to ensure people take their correct daily dosage of drugs.
[1] Here in the UK the national health provides some community care and there are also voluntary organisations. Obviously individuals can also pay privately to have enhanced levels of support.
There are remarkably fewer demented people as a result of people taking Hydroxychloroquine.
Why "should" someone try to understand rather than judge?
What's the actual rationale for it?
What is the mutually agreed desired result of acting in those ways?
I don't really have an objective answer for you. I do find personal value in empathy, I get less mad when I can understand why someone did something I disagree with. It doesn't change what they did nor does it excuse it.
>What is the mutually agreed desired result of acting in those ways
Harmony.
Tossing the utilitarian perspective, being transactional and self-serving in your daily life tends to get you invited to less parties.
This is a philosophical question that man has sought to answer since the Stone Age. Much smarter people than us have dedicated their lives to the study of ethics and come up with wildly differing ideas, I don’t think you’re going to find an objective answer here.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.