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

111–120 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#111

Post by growlist »

bpaddock wrote: post #6

The Quinism Foundation Warns of Dangers from Use of Antimalarial Quinolines Against COVID‑19. "Use of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Mefloquine, Quinine, and Related Quinoline Drugs Risks Sudden and Lasting Neuropsychiatric Effects from Idiosyncratic Neurotoxicity." https://quinism.org/press-releases/dangers-of-antimalarial-q... The Anit-Malaria drugs They are pushing have a common ancestor to Fluoroquinolone antib…

I had a bad reaction to Ciprofloxacin. These drugs are poison - they should be an absolute last resort.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#112

Post by ginko »

milofeynman wrote: post #67
hannob wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The possible side effects include permanent blindness. Giving this drug to people while you simply don't know if it does any good is only justifiable if you do it within a properly designed clinical trial. Which is the thing you should do. If you feel lots of people should get this drug - do a large trial. Will give us better data.

Permanent blindness typically takes many weeks / years of use. https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-8633/chloroquine-oral/det...

Which might be necessary for prophylactic use.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#113

Post by hannob »

1996 wrote: post #84
hannob wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study wasn't randomized. It tells you basically nothing. I really don't understand why anyone approves such studies. They could've done something useful and we'd know a little bit now.

to the best of my knowledge, there has been no randomized study against placebo of several important things - like parachutes. Next time I am in a burning plane, I'll make sure to refuse a parachute, as the lack of studies means anecdotal evidence tells us basically nothing.

You may want to read this: http://cmajopen.ca/content/6/1/E31.full

I don't know if Chloroquine works, but I'm pretty sure Chloroquine is no parachute (i.e. it's not a drug where the benefits are so obvious that it doesn't need a proper trial).

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#114

Post by aazaa »

capableweb wrote: post #105
aazaa wrote: post #97

Only one clinical study has been published on chloroquine (by a French group), and the results are lackluster. No patient was cleared of virus after six days using hydroxychloroquine alone. A tiny fraction of patients were cleared in 4 days using an adjunct therapy (azithromycin). The study itself has issues, and it's not even clear whether it will clear peer review. The President is doing something very dangerous he…

> Although the drug has been used in humans for decades to treat malaria, it has not been used to any extent on humans to treat COVID-19 This isn't very weird, is it? Most people didn't start to hear about COVID-19 until January this year and many others didn't start hearing about it until people got infected in their countries. As with everything with clinical trials, even if it seems to be helping, it'll take many…

Chloroquine (not AFAIK hydroxychloroquine) has been made available to doctors (and therefore patients) through "Compassionate Use."

This means that doctors can prescribe chloroquine to patients before and outside of a clinical trial. I suspect many will take the chance.

In effect, the US will be conducting a large-scale, semi-controlled clinical study on a drug with a significant side effect profile in the midst of the worst pandemic in 100 years.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#115

Post by gnulinux »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #88

A vaccine was developed in haste for an outbreak of swine flu in 1976 (CDC feared it was a repeat of 1918 flu) and about 45 million Americans received it but 450 people developed GBS (Guillaine-Barre Syndrome) as a result. Going on a hunch or unproven stuff is simply going to give the anti-vaxxer idiots further ammo

I don't think even a scientific study would be effective against odds as small as 450 out of 45 million. Vaccines are tested by hundreds, or thousands of people before mass produced. Catching an event as unlikely as this doesn't seem possible. One would hope animal models would be helpful, but what if vaccine only causes GBS to humans?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#116

Post by jamesblonde »

fspeech wrote: post #90
guiriduro wrote: post #48

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

The main dangers for the general public are the acute toxicity and drug interactions. Take chloroquine, which comes in 500mg tablets, it does not take many tablets to get to toxic or even lethal dose. The drugs can prolong QT intervals, so combination with other drugs with similar side effects like some antibiotics or antidepressants could be dangerous.

I have 250mg tablets. I also have bisoprolol to counteract prolonged qt interval. Be prepared :)

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#117

Post by Judson »

aazaa wrote: post #97

Only one clinical study has been published on chloroquine (by a French group), and the results are lackluster. No patient was cleared of virus after six days using hydroxychloroquine alone. A tiny fraction of patients were cleared in 4 days using an adjunct therapy (azithromycin). The study itself has issues, and it's not even clear whether it will clear peer review. The President is doing something very dangerous he…

Are you referring to this study?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/186Bel9RqfsmEx55FDum4xY_IlWS...

Afaikt, 57% patients on HCQ alone were “virologically cleared” by day 6 and 100% on HCQ+Azithromycin were clear By day 6. Compared with ~12% of control group.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#118

Post by m0zg »

gnulinux wrote: post #108
_red wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lets stay home instead. For a couple of weeks, fine. However on the other end of this spectrum is "Millions starve". At some point we need to ask is that fair to the youth? (note: I'm an old fart)

Youth also doesn't want to deal with this disease. I'm 23 y.o., healthy as far as I know, but I still don't want to catch this disease. Why spend 2 weeks on the bed dealing with the worst flu, risk getting hospitalized? After all, even young patients can be hospitalized, even though fatality rate is lower. I vote everyone stay home for the time being.

>> Why spend 2 weeks

To acquire immunity while there are still hospital beds available in some places, in the unlikely event that you need one. That won't be the case a month from now.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#119

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

ggm wrote: post #76

I think the drug combinations are going to turn out to be as important as the single instances. One to bind to receptors. One to limit related infection risk. One to be an anti-pyretic. This is how HIV was fought, with cocktails. Single drug treatment comes later. Chloroquine is a powerful drug. It needs to be treated with respect. Yes it is cheap. it also has effects on the mind and we don't need a wave a psychosis…

We've already weathered at least one wave of panic induced psychosis. From panic buyers, to Congress members using privileged information to blatantly sell stock just before the first crash.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#120

Post by fspeech »

jamesblonde wrote: post #116
fspeech wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main dangers for the general public are the acute toxicity and drug interactions. Take chloroquine, which comes in 500mg tablets, it does not take many tablets to get to toxic or even lethal dose. The drugs can prolong QT intervals, so combination with other drugs with similar side effects like some antibiotics or antidepressants could be dangerous.

I have 250mg tablets. I also have bisoprolol to counteract prolonged qt interval. Be prepared :)

You may be interested in this study then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150618

Note in the full text article they show simulation of how long it takes for the drugs to reach therapeutic concentration at the lung. Since we don't know exactly where the antiviral effect comes from, these are only guess works.

Post reply on HN