There is another new study this week on the treatment of COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug supported by President Trump. Bottom Line: Inpatient hospitalization seems to be no worse than patients not taking medication. Some patients had to stop taking drugs due to cardiac side effects.
The report has not yet been published and has not been through a standard review process, but doctors have begun to organize the results. It is not a good sign for the drug. However, this single study is not a killer blow.
This is because a single study or a single clinical trial provides little or no controversial evidence to falsify or reinforce a claim. Instead, you need to accumulate data from several large trials and studies to guide medical decision making. Everyone is desperate about the answers around COVID-19, so there is more eyes on each new data point added to the stake. Watching the process in real time shows how it can become a complex science.
Therefore, HCQ is not useful in advanced conditions. #covid-19 disease. To understand if HCQ can respond to the progression of the disease, you need to wait for the study results of patients with mild symptoms.https: //t.co/0PvNzCP8L7
2/2— Cristina Dragani (@CristinaDragani) April 14, 2020
This particular hydroxychloroquine study included 181 people, small enough to hesitate to allow scientists to draw big conclusions from the results. It also went along with people who were already sick enough to be hospitalized. Other studies of drugs that reached similar conclusions about the effectiveness of the drug were also done in hospitalized patients. But still Different An ongoing study is testing to see if it works for people who aren't sick and can prevent those who aren't infected with the virus from developing the most serious symptoms associated with COVID-19. For viral infections, initial treatment tends to be better. So people should take Tamiflu right away when they start getting sick to treat the flu.
Scientific research usually does not provide a yes / no answer. Instead, each new piece of evidence leans in one direction or the other. While this is happening, doctors make preliminary choices based on where the balance moves. New data on hydroxychloroquine continues to be reported and some decide not to use it, while others can keep trying. They cannot reasonably say that they know for sure that it will or will not work. It's still the most open-ended question, and treatment decisions are still made by patients.
Eventually, the balance of evidence will come to the conclusion that experts have more confidence. It can happen after researchers have compiled all the data from several small studies and analyzed it in groups from meta-analysis. A small hydroxychloroquine study already published.
You will be able to get more decisive data from larger studies. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity Trial is testing several drugs (including hydroxychloroquine) in dozens of countries. Another study of antiviral remsicivir, which targets hundreds of patients, may provide a clearer signal. This type of study requires more time and resources, but produces more definitive results.
Patients are sick and dying of COVID-19, and there is tremendous pressure to test drugs that may help. In the United States, however, mediation between trial groups is limited. It is more difficult to understand where the balance of evidence is when research is fragmented and disconnected and when all researchers ask slightly different questions.
“This is a dissonance. It is not an orchestra. Derek Angus, chairman of the Department of Critical Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, has no conductor. that much Washington Post. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said a coordination plan is underway.
Scientific research is difficult under the best circumstances. Finding answers that doctors and scientists trust is a long and frustrating process. In aggressive public health emergencies where patient care is a priority, it becomes more difficult many times. The constant disclosure of new information can feel like a whip. It turns out that what looks like a solution a week is less useful next time. Rather than answer each bit of new data on its own, reconstructing it into puzzle pieces can help you understand the flood.