Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#11

Post by cm2187 »

AdmiralBumbleB wrote: post #3

This chloroquinine rush is already out of control. My pharmacy is already out of it and is unable to procure from other pharmacies (which are also out already!) My pharmacist placed orders for all her patients to prefill prescriptions (where possible) for the next few months. I can understand a shortage when there's a clear evidence-based need, but the rumour-mill hasn't even ramped to full bore yet and it's already…

It's more than the rumour-mill. There was a scientific study with a small number of patients that showed clear results, and several countries have now launched larger studies to confirm those findings.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#12

Post by chimichangga »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
AdmiralBumbleB wrote: post #3

This chloroquinine rush is already out of control. My pharmacy is already out of it and is unable to procure from other pharmacies (which are also out already!) My pharmacist placed orders for all her patients to prefill prescriptions (where possible) for the next few months. I can understand a shortage when there's a clear evidence-based need, but the rumour-mill hasn't even ramped to full bore yet and it's already…

It's more than the rumour-mill. There was a scientific study with a small number of patients that showed clear results, and several countries have now launched larger studies to confirm those findings.

Also, Bayer thinks there's enough merit to this to issue their own press release and donate 3M pills.

"New data from initial preclinical and evolving clinical research conducted in China, while limited, shows potential for the use of Resochin in treating patients with COVID-19 infection.

Bayer in recent days has been in talks with the White House, HHS, CDC, and the FDA, offering any assistance we can provide with a focus on donating Resochin to help in the government’s efforts to combat the virus.

Currently not approved for use in the United States, Bayer is working with appropriate agencies on an Emergency Use Authorization for the drug’s use in the U.S.

Bayer thanks the Trump administration for moving quickly to enable this donation and will continue to work closely with the administration to support its efforts in the fight against COVID-19."

https://bayer2019tf.q4web.com/news/news-details/2020/Bayer-P...

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#13

Post by AdmiralBumbleB »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
AdmiralBumbleB wrote: post #3

This chloroquinine rush is already out of control. My pharmacy is already out of it and is unable to procure from other pharmacies (which are also out already!) My pharmacist placed orders for all her patients to prefill prescriptions (where possible) for the next few months. I can understand a shortage when there's a clear evidence-based need, but the rumour-mill hasn't even ramped to full bore yet and it's already…

It's more than the rumour-mill. There was a scientific study with a small number of patients that showed clear results, and several countries have now launched larger studies to confirm those findings.

The rumour-mill is that it _will_ prevent or cure.

As you've said, studies are still being conducted. I've read the original chinese study and it's promising, but there's still work to be done.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#14

Post by the8472 »

cm2187 wrote: post #11
AdmiralBumbleB wrote: post #3

This chloroquinine rush is already out of control. My pharmacy is already out of it and is unable to procure from other pharmacies (which are also out already!) My pharmacist placed orders for all her patients to prefill prescriptions (where possible) for the next few months. I can understand a shortage when there's a clear evidence-based need, but the rumour-mill hasn't even ramped to full bore yet and it's already…

It's more than the rumour-mill. There was a scientific study with a small number of patients that showed clear results, and several countries have now launched larger studies to confirm those findings.

No, that's the rumor-mill, spreading the preliminary results as if they were a confirmed cure.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#15

Post by brucer »

I was intrigued by the results from the recent quick french study: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

I read through the paper, and it's not immediately obvious, but if you look at the two graphs at the bottom, the hydroxychloroquine is 75% effective in the first chart, but only 50% in the second one. That's because the actual test was:

Control: 16

hydroxychloroquine: 14

hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin: 6

The first chart includes all 20 people who got hydroxychloroquine - including the 6 who also got azithromycin.

My question: do we know how effective azithromycin would be on it's own? Maybe it's the wonder drug we should be focused on, which would be great since it's available everywhere.

It should go without saying these are VERY preliminary results from a small trial but it's something!

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#17

Post by Nav_Panel »

brucer wrote: post #15

I was intrigued by the results from the recent quick french study: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/20... I read through the paper, and it's not immediately obvious, but if you look at the two graphs at the bottom, the hydroxychloroquine is 75% effective in the first chart, but only 50% in the second one. That's because the actual test was: Control: 16 hydroxychloroquine: 14 hydroxychloroquin…

It's an antibiotic. Severe patients will be dealing with secondary (bacterial) infections, so it makes sense to use both. But on its own, I expect it would have little effect.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#18

Post by ng12 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #9
annoyingnoob wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We stocked up on my daughters medications last week, there was already a non-covid-19 related shortage. Thank god we got what we need for several weeks. Its pretty scary when you rely on a common drug and it runs out.

Reminds me of a comment I read on Reddit some week ago; the commenter was going from store to store looking for disinfectant for a family member that has a prosthetic and needs to disinfect it daily, lest an infection gets into the wound.

Those tiny square alcohol prep pads (e.g. for diabetics and others who need daily injections) are sold out everywhere. I suspect people who couldn't find hand sanitizer or Clorox just grabbed whatever sanitizing products they could.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#20

Post by the8472 »

brucer wrote: post #15

I was intrigued by the results from the recent quick french study: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/20... I read through the paper, and it's not immediately obvious, but if you look at the two graphs at the bottom, the hydroxychloroquine is 75% effective in the first chart, but only 50% in the second one. That's because the actual test was: Control: 16 hydroxychloroquine: 14 hydroxychloroquin…

> but it's something!

And that something may turn out to be noise.

Post reply on HN