Read on Twitter
I was going to write about whether there is any good evidence for chloroquine in the treatment of COVID19. There is none yet, and it might be *harmful*. This is why we need RCTs. My thread would not have been better than this: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764199/use-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-during-covid-19-pandemic-what-every-clinician">https://annals.org/aim/fulla... via @JYazdanyMD @AnnalsofIM
More sober-minded assessment of the possible efficacy of chloroquine for COVID19 via @Dereklowe https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/06/hydroxychloroquine-update-for-april-6">https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/... We could easily harm people by using this drug on a wide scale.
This behavior of high-profile recommendation of chloroquine, without adequate evidence, is irresponsible and may cost lives without saving any. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/04/06/trump-drug-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-170543">https://www.politico.com/amp/news/... Unlike the fictitious homeopathic cure Forsythia, this is being hawked by the president.
Wuhan doctors treating coronavirus patients with chloroquine for the past few months say there& #39;s no clear evidence the drug works against COVID19, raising questions about a remedy some have touted as a potential cure. #click=https://t.co/8N4iDcsRZn">https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-doctors-at-coronavirus-hub-cast-doubt-on-chloroquine-as-cure-11586448660?redirect=amp #click=https://t.co/8N4iDcsRZn">https://www.wsj.com/articles/... Via
@JNBPage @WSJ
@JNBPage @WSJ
Small Brazilian RCT of chloroquine for COVID19 (N=81) stopped early because treatment group developed concerning cardiac dysrhythmias. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v1">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1...
Observational study of US patients in VA system finds no benefit to chloroquine. N=368 patients were evaluated (HC, n=97; HC+AZ, n=113; no HC, n=158). Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1...
FDA weighs in on use of chloroquine in COVID19. They are sensible. And unamused. #click=https://t.co/9FFd5QBDz2">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/fda-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus.html #click=https://t.co/9FFd5QBDz2">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/2...
Another small cohort study (N=90) suggests chloroquine does more harm than good in COVID19 cases. via @JAMACardio https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2765631">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/...
This tweet about this topic, and the President’s reckless statement and Fox’s absurd and dangerous pandering to their crowd, was too good not to add to this thread. https://twitter.com/hoarsewisperer/status/1262488963639623680?s=21">https://twitter.com/hoarsewis... https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/1262488963639623680">https://twitter.com/TheRealHo...
Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...
Fine, detailed twitter thread via @kakape as we approach the end of the story regarding the use of chloroquine for COVID19: https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1270662640499638272?s=20">https://twitter.com/kakape/st...
More in vitro evidence via @CellPressNews that hydroxychloroquine is useless. It appears to inhibit trained immunity in vitro, which may not be beneficial for the antiviral innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(20)30190-7?utm_campaign=Coronavirus%202020&utm_content=146304354&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-18477428">https://www.cell.com/cell-repo...
New RCT of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in @NEJM shows no effect in prevention. 2314 contacts of 672 COVID19 patients were identified; 1116 were assigned to HCQ & 1198 to usual care. COVID19 was similar (5.7% and 6.2%; risk ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.52-1.42]). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801#.X72F7LP9ia0.twitter">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...
