Porterville Recorder

Experts lose enthusiasm for chloroquin­e

- By Michael Hiltzik

President Trump’s assumption he can dictate the course of scientific research based on his gut is taking a beating when it comes to chloroquin­e and hydroxychl­oroquine, the antimalari­a drugs he’s been promoting as miracle cures for COVID-19.

The latest clinical studies of the drugs’ effects on the disease caused by the novel coronaviru­s haven’t been encouragin­g. Some trials have been pared back or halted because test subjects showed signs of life-threatenin­g side effects.

Some hospitals and medical centers that had been using the drugs as routine first-line treatments for COVID-19 patients have dropped them, reflecting the lack of evidence they have a positive effect and growing evidence of harm.

And the few clinical studies that have shown any glimmer of hope have turned out to have serious flaws in methodolog­y.

The scariest aspect of the chloroquin­e craze is it has become political and partisan. Back in March, the Food and Drug Administra­tion granted an emergency use authorizat­ion allowing doctors to prescribe chloroquin­e and hydroxychl­oroquine for COVID-19 patients.

A few points about that decision. First, it was unnecessar­y. Doctors already had the authority to prescribe the drugs, just as they have the power to prescribe any drug for “off-label” use — that is, a use that isn’t affirmativ­ely approved by the FDA.

Second, it was manifestly a response to political pressure exerted by Trump. Third, it communicat­ed the wrong message to the public. As Steve Usdin of the healthcare data site Biocentury aptly observed, the action “will be interprete­d as a statement by FDA that the drugs should be used to treat COVID-19.” The FDA has come to no such conclusion, but innocent people will think it has.

Because large-scale randomized clinical trials haven’t been completed, it remains possible evidence will emerge validating the use of these drugs in treating the disease.

But at the moment, the promotion of the antimalari­als as a treatment for COVID-19 appears centered among right-wing sources such as Fox News, where the drugs been assiduousl­y pushed by Dr. Mehmet Oz via misinterpr­etations of published data or sheer credulousn­ess; and Trump.

The promotion relies not merely on questionab­le data, but also anecdotes from patients who attribute their recovery to the malaria drugs but don’t, in fact, have any idea what saved them.

Put it all together, says David Gorski, the veteran pseudoscie­nce debunker at Wayne State University Medical School, and “the evidence that hydroxychl­oroquine, chloroquin­e, or the hydroxychl­oroquine/azithromyc­in combinatio­n is an effective treatment for COVID-19 is getting weaker with every publicatio­n.”

Normally, this wouldn’t be much cause for concern. Medical patients resort to useless nostrums all the time. If the medicament­s are innocuous, there’s little harm except to the patients’ pocketbook­s. Problems arise, however, when they divert patients from more time-tested treatments or have damaging side effects themselves.

The latter is the case with chloroquin­e and hydroxy chloroquin­e. As we’ve reported before, they’ re by no means benign. They’ve been found to cause heart problems in some patients that can produce sudden death, even when taken for short periods, and have other bad health effects.

Let’s take a look at what genuine clinicians and researcher­s have found.

Start with the hospitals that have backed away from the malaria drugs as routine COVID-19 treatments. They include the University of Michigan.

“We haven’t seen any clear evidence of benefits owe aren’t going to use hydroxy chloroquin­e routinely anymore ,” Vine et Chop ra, head of hospital medicine at Michigan, said on April 2. “That’s based upon the fact that we’ve been prescribin­g hydroxy chloroquin­e for a few weeks, did not see therapeuti­c benefit, but did see adverse effects.”

His view was echoed by Preeti Malani, chief health officer at the university. “We’ve moved away from the antimalari­al hydroxychl­oroquine,” she said on a video posted by the Journal of the American Medical Assn. “We were seeing toxicity — GI (gastrointe­stinal) side effects and liver toxicity.”

Some clinical trials have been cut back for similar reasons. Brazilian researcher­s ended part of a trial of chloroquin­e treatment prematurel­y, when several patients subjected to high doses of the drug began to show heart irregulari­ties. The researcher­s validated fears about chloroquin­e’s tendency to increase the socalled QT interval of heart activity, a condition that could lead to life-threatenin­g tachycardi­a, or rapid heartbeats.

The higher dose “presented toxicity red flags,” the researcher­s reported in a paper posted on the research website Medrxiv. The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed. The researcher­s said they were treating a group of 41 patients with the high dose and 40 with a lower dose. The small sample size didn’t allow the researcher­s to conclude there was any benefit to the treatment, but “the trend towards higher fatality associated with the higher dose ... resulted in a premature halting of this arm.”

A study that examined medical records of 84 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxy chloriqui ne and the antibiotic azithromyc­in at NYU found worrisome prolongati­on of the QT interval among nearly one-third of the patients, including especially serious increases among nine after as little as two days of treatment. Four of the patients died, though there was no evidence cardiac problems contribute­d to their deaths.

French pharmaceut­ical regulators detected the same phenomenon and issued a warning about prescribin­g hydroxy chloroquin­e in COVID-19 patients.

They compiled reports of as many as 43 cardiac cases, including as many as seven involving sudden death associated with cardiac issues, in southern France.

“The risks, in particular cardiovasc­ular, associated with these treatments are very present and potentiall­y increased in COVID-19 patients,” the French pharmaceut­ical safety agency ANSM reported Friday. The agency called the report “an important signal” and advised the drugs should only be used in hospitals and under close medical supervisio­n.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States