Hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin combination being touted as a Corona treatment

iguana

iguana wrote: »

Under what condition would this treatment be administered? Would it be given prophylactically to asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic confirmed cases? With what we are learning about the virus that would seem unnecessary unless the patient was quite elderly or has relevant underlying health issues. Or only when a patient has started having severe symptoms but before they turn critical?

Patients who show clinical signs of deterioration secondary to moderate-severe COVID-19.

Jurgen Klopp

silverharp wrote: »

Ireland or somewhere else?

Poster said they are in North Dublin in another thread

Very interesting to see they are also using this combo here, as well as France, Italy, the US and Nigeria as off yesterday

If it could significantly reduce the need for hospital stays and more importantly reduce the number needing ICU we could be on to a game changer here

bo0li5eumx12kp

Via JRE I've been following primarily of guru on all things bacterial and viral infections based - Dr Michael Osterholm who runs the website,

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/about-us/cidrap-staff/michael-t-osterholm-phd-mph

Hydroxychlororquine will apparently come to light efficacy wise in about 6 to 10 weeks.

It the fews weeks of circulation thus far, not quite the miracle cure we may have hoped, but a potential weapon in the tool bag - how effective a weapon, clinical trials lasting 6 to 10 weeks will offer better clarity.

mvl

Just reading it's approved in Ireland from 13 March - guess this is used elsewhere on the continent way before that - so maybe smaller number of weeks to wait.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/acute-hospitals-division/drugs-management-programme/guidelines/specific-antiviral-therapy-in-the-clinical-management-of-acute-respiratory-infection-with-sars-cov-2-covid-19.pdf

JP Liz V1

manster wrote: »

Currently taking Azithromycin Teva 250mg tablets (One per day) + Hydroxchloroquine Sulphate 200mg (one X 3 times daily)

Issued by hospital pharmacy after being admitted for 4 days last week. Tested positive. Back at home now in isolation but improving every day. Not sure if it is the meds but I'm sleeping a lot.

I was on a bottle, Bisolvon which contained Bromhexine Hydrochloride, would this be a lower form of Hydroxychloroquine?

Fleetwoodmac

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Patients who show clinical signs of deterioration secondary to moderate-severe COVID-19.

What's the rationale behind waiting until this stage?

Fleetwoodmac

mvl wrote: »

Just reading it's approved in Ireland from 13 March - guess this is used elsewhere on the continent way before that - so maybe smaller number of weeks to wait.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/acute-hospitals-division/drugs-management-programme/guidelines/specific-antiviral-therapy-in-the-clinical-management-of-acute-respiratory-infection-with-sars-cov-2-covid-19.pdf

UK banned export of chloroquine at end of February so they took indications of its purported efficacy seriously, presumably

Esel

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I was on a bottle, Bisolvon which contained Bromhexine Hydrochloride, would this be a lower form of Hydroxychloroquine?

IANAD, but that seems to be a mucolytic cough medication, with absolutely no connection to Hydroxychloroquine.

kaymin

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

France have done two trials.

One of 6 patients and one of 80. Of the 80 patient trial (results came out 27 March) one died and one is in intensive care.

I personally don't judge that as a complete success but the authors of report on the trial do.

The patient that died was 86 and at an advanced stage when they commenced treating him. Full report:

https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf

iguana

Fleetwoodmac wrote: »

What's the rationale behind waiting until this stage?

From what I've read the medication is tough on your system. If a person is likely to recover without taking them that's a better option.

Fleetwoodmac

iguana wrote: »

From what I've read the medication is tough on your system. If a person is likely to recover without taking them that's a better option.

But are they not repurposed drugs with known safety parameters..that's what confused me. Given that we are being told covid19 can cause long term lung damage..

The Hound Gone Wild

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is Teva antibiotics?

Teva is a pharmaceutical company

The Hound Gone Wild

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I was on a bottle, Bisolvon which contained Bromhexine Hydrochloride, would this be a lower form of Hydroxychloroquine?

These are in no way related.

Arrival

EDit wrote: »

Good point. Forgot both of these are generic, so should be relatively cheap. Apparently they are being tested in larger trials with results expected in ~20 days. Fingers crossed the data look good.

Any update on this, should we still be expecting this this week?

Arrival

begbysback wrote: »

Im baffled too as to why more isnt being discussed about drug treatment of COVID19 - theres no doubts its going on in countries, when I questioned the HSE consultant in the AMA thread on their exaggerated death forecast in Ireland I got the below as a source for the predictions - what I consider to be strange is this specifies non pharmaceutical intervention, as if there was nothing available - I find it bizzare to be honest that nobody as yet has produced a larger scale report than the french one about drug treatments. Ive no doubt the Chinese have such reports, but dont seem to be sharing them, or at least us public are not told about them.

I would hate to think that the large discrepancies in death numbers when comparing countries is caused by lack of shared information about a treatment.


https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

This is genuinely a huge anxiety of mine during all of this, I'm worried that something will be announced to work well in other countries and we won't have had that information shared quickly and be slow on the uptake

Surely there's a big effort, in European countries at least, going into sharing the data they all have to come to the best conclusions and help each other?

JP Liz V1

Esel wrote: »

IANAD, but that seems to be a mucolytic cough medication, with absolutely no connection to Hydroxychloroquine.

The Hound Gone Wild wrote: »

These are in no way related.

mvl

Arrival wrote: »

This is genuinely a huge anxiety of mine during all of this, I'm worried that something will be announced to work well in other countries and we won't have had that information shared quickly and be slow on the uptake

Surely there's a big effort, in European countries at least, going into sharing the data they all have to come to the best conclusions and help each other?

well, think we rather need to stay away from misinformation (so glad I don't have a TV these days !!!).
I posted earlier the HSE link about treatment options for this, the directive was available next day after WHO announced the pandemic situation (before this thread started)

then seeing a recommendation for tocilizumbab also exists (but preliminary) - https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/acute-hospitals-division/drugs-management-programme/interim-recommendations-for-the-use-of-tocilizumab-in-the-management-of-patients-with-severe-covid-19.pdf

plodder

FDA authorizes widespread use of unproven drugs to treat coronavirus, saying possible benefit outweighs risk

Millions of doses of anti-malarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine will be distributed to hospitals across the country to try to slow the disease in seriously ill patients

Side-effect is that 10% of people taking it may risk heart problems, with 1% at especially high risk.

Ackerman said in an interview that identifying at-risk patients for heart problems caused by the drugs will be a crucial mission for front-line health-care providers. About 10 percent of the population is at risk of a side-effect of prolonging the split-second interval between electrical recharges of the heart, he said. One percent of the population is at especially high risk, he said.

If the interval reaches 500 milliseconds, the heart gets close to “getting tripped up and spiraling out of control'' in an arrhythmia that can lead to sudden heart attack and death, he said.

Wibbs

As an aside aren't our bodies incredibly complex and precise. I mean when a deviation of just 500 milliseconds can cause things to go south, that's incredibly finely balanced. We're all sitting around reading these threads, living our lives, doing what we do and our hearts and autonomic systems are there going, be cool mofo, we got this, no bother. And we expect them to do this quietly in the background through good times and bad for around 80 years. Even in this current crisis, the vast majority of us, even if we get this virus our even more crazily complex immune system will kick in and kick its teeth in. Oh and while doing all that still keeping an eye out for any other biological **** who want to take up residence. How fantastically effin cool is that?

Your immune system. As we speak.

iguana

Fleetwoodmac wrote: »

But are they not repurposed drugs with known safety parameters..that's what confused me. Given that we are being told covid19 can cause long term lung damage..

We've literally known for 92 days that this virus exists. We have no idea whatsoever that it causes long term lung damage. The more we do learn about Covid-19, the more we are learning that the vast majority of cases are either asymptomatic or genuinely mild. The odds are that most people who have had the virus will only ever know for sure when a reliable antibody test is made available. I honestly find it very hard to believe that all of those people are left with permanent lung damage. They might have lung inflammation that's visible in scans in the weeks after their recovery but it's very unlikely that a mild illness that their body fought off successfully without intervention in a matter of days/weeks causes them lifelong issues. I could be wrong but anyone saying people are left with lifelong problems from a mild experience with a virus that didn't exist 6 months ago is more likely to be scaremongering or catastrophising. Because nobody knows enough right now to be sure of something so unlikely.

plodder

iguana wrote: »

We've literally known for 92 days that this virus exists. We have no idea whatsoever that it causes long term lung damage. The more we do learn about Covid-19, the more we are learning that the vast majority of cases are either asymptomatic or genuinely mild. The odds are that most people who have had the virus will only ever know for sure when a reliable antibody test is made available. I honestly find it very hard to believe that all of those people are left with permanent lung damage. They might have lung inflammation that's visible in scans in the weeks after their recovery but it's very unlikely that a mild illness that their body fought off successfully without intervention in a matter of days/weeks causes them lifelong issues. I could be wrong but anyone saying people are left with lifelong problems from a mild experience with a virus that didn't exist 6 months ago is more likely to be scaremongering or catastrophising. Because nobody knows enough right now to be sure of something so unlikely.

An Italian doctor on RTE last week said that it does not cause permanent lung damage in survivors.

stockshares

plodder wrote: »

An Italian doctor on RTE last week said that it does not cause permanent lung damage in survivors.

It's far too early to know.

plodder

stockshares wrote: »

It's far too early to know.

What we know is that one reputable doctor in an Italian hospital has said that he found no evidence of fibrosis in surviving patients. I'll go with that until I see evidence to the contrary.

Sweet.Science

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/henry-ford-uses-hydroxychloroquine-treat-covid-19-symptoms-says-benefits-outweigh-risks

Im sure this will be widespread soon

The Hound Gone Wild

plodder wrote: »

What we know is that one reputable doctor in an Italian hospital has said that he found no evidence of fibrosis in surviving patients. I'll go with that until I see evidence to the contrary.

This is not how we inform clinical judgements. Andrew Wakefield was one reputable doctor so was Harold Shipman.

silverharp

any update on its (the virus) testicle damaging properties?

plodder

The Hound Gone Wild wrote: »

This is not how we inform clinical judgements. Andrew Wakefield was one reputable doctor so was Harold Shipman.

Nobody is claiming that the information is conclusive*. It's obviously anecdotal at this point.

I'm not sure what your point is. Should the doctor not have said it on the radio?

Should we not reply to the post above which said "..Given that we are being told covid19 can cause long term lung damage.." Are you saying there is evidence that it does cause long term lung damage in surviving/recovered patients?

* though maybe my post sounded that way

begbysback

Arrival wrote: »

This is genuinely a huge anxiety of mine during all of this, I'm worried that something will be announced to work well in other countries and we won't have had that information shared quickly and be slow on the uptake

Surely there's a big effort, in European countries at least, going into sharing the data they all have to come to the best conclusions and help each other?

from a link posted earlier WHO seem to have now coordinated treatment studies across countries

interesting to note that Czech Republic have relatively low mortality rates at the moment and they have been approved a couple of weeks ago for the use of remdesivir as a trial - I say interesting from an Irish perspective as they have first reported case roughly same as ours, Dublin & Prague are comparable in population, and they have transparent wikipedia page - one thing for sure though is that there is, or are, effective treatments out there, at least we are in a much better place than a couple of weeks ago when health officials were reporting as if nothing could be done except put people on ventilators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_Czech_Republic#Policies_to_fight_the_contagion

Jurgen Klopp

The Czech Republic also believe mandatory mask wearing in public is as important as washing hands and social distancing, for preventing people from shedding the virus more than preventing getting it.

It's why they've made it mandatory

begbysback

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

The Czech Republic also believe mandatory mask wearing in public is as important as washing hands and social distancing, for preventing people from shedding the virus more than preventing getting it.

It's why they've made it mandatory

This is surely the next step here, can only assume there is a shortage at the moment, which is why the directive has not yet been given.