Showing posts with label chloroquine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chloroquine. Show all posts

Monday, June 1, 2020

Clues to hydroxychloroquine effectiveness in cross-country comparisons. 2nd UPDATE: 7/8/2020.

Copyright 2020 Robert Clark



 Perhaps the evidence for HCQ effectiveness is there if we are willing to put together the clues:

Researchers ponder why covid-19 appears deadlier in the U.S. and Europe than in Asia.

 Graphic showing radically reduced death rates in Asian countries:



And:

National Consumption of Antimalarial Drugs and COVID-19 Deaths Dynamics : an Ecological Study.
“COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease-2019) is an international public health problem with a high rate of severe clinical cases. Several treatments are currently being tested worldwide. This paper focuses on anti-malarial drugs such as chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, which have been currently reviewed by a systematic study as a good potential candidate and that has been reported as the most used treatment by a recent survey of physicians. We compare the dynamics of COVID-19 death rates in countries using anti-malaria drugs as a treatment from the start of the epidemic versus countries that do not, the day of the 3rd death and the following 10 days. We show that the first group have a much slower dynamic in death rates that the second group.”

 Here’s the key graphic showing radically reduced death rates in those countries using the antimalarials:


And:

WORLD NEWS MARCH 12, 2020 / 9:51 AM
South Korea experts recommend anti-HIV, anti-malaria drugs for COVID-19
By
“The groups advised discretion among medical professionals, while recommending the administration of Kaletra, an anti-HIV medication that includes the drugs lopinavir and ritonavir.
Kaletra blocks the ability of HIV to replicate itself, and also inhibits the growth of cancer cells.
South Korean experts are also recommending the use of hydroxychloroquine in combination with the anti-HIV medication. HCQ is sold under the brand name Plaquenil, among others, and is used for the prevention and treatment of malaria.”

Treatment Response to Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, and Antibiotics for Moderate COVID 19: A First Report on the Pharmacological Outcomes from South Korea.   
“Conclusion: This first report on pharmacological management of COVID 19 from South Korea revealed that HQ with antibiotics was associated with better clinical outcomes in terms of viral clearance, hospital stay, and cough symptom resolution compared to Lop/R with antibiotics or conservative treatment. The effect of Lop/R with antibiotics was not superior to conservative management. The adjunct use of the antibiotics may provide additional benefit in COVID 19 management but warrants further evaluation.”

 And:

Indonesia to keep prescribing two malaria drugs for COVID-19 despite bans in Europe.  
“The world’s fourth-most populous nation has since late March recommended that chloroquine and its derivative, hydroxychloroquine, be widely administered, including to coronavirus patients with moderate to severe symptoms, according to Food and Drug Monitoring Agency guidelines.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-indonesia-drugs/indonesia-to-keep-prescribing-two-malaria-drugs-for-covid-19-despite-bans-in-europe-idUSKBN2341XG

And:

India Promotes Hydroxychloroquine, as WHO Stops Trials Over Safety Issues
BY AILA SLISCO ON 5/26/20 AT 7:42 PM EDT

And:

Commentary on “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open label non-randomized clinical trial” by Gautret et al.
Mondher Toumi & Samuel Aballea
Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 8:1, 1758390, DOI:10.1080/20016689.2020.1758390
...
“Hydroxychloroquine treatment with massive testing and limited confinement has successfully worked in South Korea to control the outbreak with an impress- ively low rate of fatalities[44].”
...
“So far, European decision-makers have shown very little ability to learn from China [45] and South Korea [44], the only two countries that have been able to control the outbreak. Cultural differences, language barriers, and arrogance from the old Europe may cer- tainly explain why best practice knowledge sharing failed in this situation.”

And:

The Battle Over the Numbers: Turkey’s Low Case Fatality Rate.
BLOG - 4 MAY 2020
“Despite the prevalence of the virus among the population and rapidly increasing infection rates, what is striking is Turkey’s lower death rate. Turkey’s death rate per 1 million population is 37, making it even more successful than most comparable European countries for COVID-19. On the basis of official figures, Turkey ranked better than Germany, which has received a great deal of attention and admiration for its low fatality rates.”
COVID-19 Rates (as of 30 April 2020)
Country
Total cases
Total Deaths
Deaths/1 M population
Tests/1 Million population
USA
1,064,572
61,669
186
18,549
Spain
236,899
24,275
519
30,253
Italy
203,591
27,682
458
31,603
France
166,420
24,087
369
7,103
Germany
161,539
6,467
77
30,400
UK
165,221
26,097
384
12,058
Turkey
117,589
3,081
37
11,157

Coronavirus: How Turkey took control of Covid-19 emergency.

  • 29 May 2020
Turkey embraces hydroxychloroquine
The country has public health lessons to offer, according to acting head of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Turkey, Dr Irshad Shaikh.
"Initially we were worried," he told the BBC. "They were having 3,500 positive cases per day. But what has worked is testing. And they did not have to wait five or six days for results." He also credits the quarantine, isolation and contract tracing measures but says it's too soon to judge Turkey's treatment protocol for patients.
Controversially that includes the anti-malarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, as standard. It's much touted by President Donald Trump - but has been roundly rejected by the latest international research.
The WHO has temporarily suspended it from their trial of possible treatments for the virus. That followed research published in the Lancet which suggested hydroxychloroquine can cause cardiac problems in Covid-19 patients, and could do more harm than good.
We were given access to a hospital where it has been part of the standard treatment for thousands of patients. The Dr Sehit Ilhan Varank hospital, a two-year old-state hospital, is also state of the art. It's a bright, spacious battlefront against the virus.
Turkey has been using the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 patients

Chief doctor Nurettin Yiyit - whose art work is on the hospital walls - says it's key to use hydroxychloroquine early. "Other countries are using this drug too late," he says, "especially the United States. We only use it at the beginning. We have no hesitation about this drug. We believe it's effective because we get the results."


  Bob Clark

UPDATED, 6/10/2020:

 It can be argued that because of confounding effects this is not a firm argument for the effectiveness of HCQ against COVID-19. For example many of the Asian countries have much reduced rates of obesity compared to Western countries, and obesity is a key risk factor for poor outcome for COVID-19.

 More persuasive would be rates of infection and death within the same country. In this post I discussed some doctors in Italy who found HCQ effective with early treatment: Success in Italy reported in early treatment of COVID-19 using hydroxychloroquine.

 Dr. Pietro Garavalli in Italy also found it effective for early treatment:

NEWS | april 28, 2020, 5:40 pm
Hydroxychloroquine VS Covid-19, a therapy considered effective but controversial. The opinion of the Infectivologist Pietro Garavelli.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsbiella.it%2F2020%2F04%2F28%2Fleggi-notizia%2Fargomenti%2Fattualita-1%2Farticolo%2Fidrossiclorochina-vs-covid-19-una-terapia-considerata-efficace-ma-controversa-il-parere-dellinfet-4.html

 And this report noted greatly reduced recent COVID-19 death rates in two Italian provinces and suggests antivirals such as HCQ as a possible explanation:

SARS-CoV-2 lethality decreased over time in two Italian Provinces.

Maria Elena Flacco, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Francesca Bravi, Giustino Parruti, Alfonso Mascitelli, Lorenzo Mantovani,  View ORCID Profile Lamberto Manzoli
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.23.20110882
...
Discussion 
...

 "In the two provinces under investigation, the treatment is currently based upon antiviral agents (Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir / Ritonavir), intensive respiratory support [18, 19], and, from the latest days of March, low molecular weight heparin and monoclonal antibodies against inflammatory cytokines (e.g. Tocilizumab), which showed some preliminary, promising results [18, 20-23]." 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.23.20110882v1?versioned=true

 In regard to this report however, I am dismayed that the authors decided to release a second version where they deleted all mention of HCQ:

SARS-CoV-2 lethality decreased over time in two Italian Provinces.

Maria Elena Flacco, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Francesca Bravi, Giustino Parruti, Alfonso Mascitelli, Lorenzo Mantovani,  View ORCID ProfileLamberto Manzoli
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.23.20110882
...
Discussion 
,,,
"In the two provinces under investigation, the treatment is currently based upon antiviral agents (lopinavir / ritonavir), intensive respiratory support [18, 19], and, from the latest days of March, low molecular weight heparin and monoclonal antibodies against inflammatory cytokines (e.g. tocilizumab), which showed some preliminary, promising results [18, 20-23]."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.23.20110882v2

 In the first version, the authors report on the antivirals used in treatments which included HCQ. So that must have still been true in the second version released three days later.


  Another case where great differences in COVID-19 death rates occur within the same country is in France:


A Look at COVID Mortality in Paris, Marseille, New York and Montreal.

Posted on May 23, 2020
"COVID mortality is found to be 5 times higher in Paris than in Marseille: 751 deaths per million in Paris, versus 147 deaths per million in Marseille.

http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/marseille-5-paris-1-juste-les-chiffres

The table compiled by France Soir shows that, in Marseille, 3295 COVID patients were treated with the hydroxychloroquine – azithromycin bi-therapy, while 1564 were not.

In Marseille, the case fatality rate among those treated with the bi-therapy was 0.52%, while it was 8.63% for those who did not receive it.



The average case fatality rate was 3.13% for Marseille as whole. In Paris, the case fatality rate reached a staggering 19.12%."
http://covexit.com/a-look-at-covid-mortality-in-paris-marseille-new-york-and-montreal/

 The 5 times lower mortality in Marseille compared to Paris is quite significant. But even beyond that focusing on Dr. Raoults hospital at IHU Marseille, it has nearly 40 times lower mortality than Paris(!)


 Dr. Raoult in noting this disparity has asserted that COVID-19 is disappearing in Marseille:


Covid-19 is disappearing in Marseille, says leading virologist Dr Raoult.

Issued on: 16/04/2020 - 08:37
Modified: 16/04/2020 - 08:37
http://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20200416-coronavirus-disappearing-controversial-marseille-doctor-didier-raoult


  Robert Clark



UPDATED, 7/8/2020:

During a discussion of treatments of COVID-19 the question of Indonesia and Singapore came up. A commonly given explanation for why the Asian countries have death rates at 50 to 100 times lower rates than Western countries is because of their greater testing. However, Indonesia belies that explanation as it counts among the worst in testing but among the best in lowering the death rate:

Indonesia ranks among world's worst in coronavirus testing rate.
Wahyudi Soeriaatmadja
The Straits Times/Asia News Network
Jakarta, Indonesia   /   Tue, April 7, 2020   /   11:11 am

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/04/07/indonesia-ranks-among-worlds-worst-in-coronavirus-testing-rate.html

 But as shown in the first image above it counts among the lowest in COVID-19 death rates. And like most of the Asian countries it advocates for extensive use of HCQ:

Indonesia, major advocate of hydroxychloroquine, told by WHO to stop using it.
Kate Lamb and Tom Allard
Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation, had told doctors to use the drugs to treat all COVID-19 patients with symptoms from mild to severe. The country has ramped up production since March, granting two dozen licenses to local manufacturers who have churned out millions of doses.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/05/27/indonesia-major-advocate-of-hydroxychloroquine-told-by-who-to-stop-using-it.html 

 Singapore, again like most Asian countries has a remarkably low COVID-19 death rate. Singapore though does not promote HCQ as the primary treatment regimen for COVID-19. But actually it promotes a drug that might be even better, interferon. 

 In this blog post I wrote about an early report that claimed that HCQ was ineffective against COVID-19, "A new possible treatment for COVID-19: interferon alpha." I was really quite amazed in reading the various news articles about the report that the most important take away was missed: the report showed that for the patients in their study interferon alpha had a 100% cure rate against COVID-19! 

 It was really quite remarkable in reading the news articles about the report that the focus was so much on highlighting the (inaccurate) claim that it disproved HCQ, that science journalists and doctors reviewing the results of the report completely missed the surprising results on interferon it contained.

 Since that report numerous other reports have come out reporting on the effectiveness of interferon of various types on treating COVID-19. 

 The Singapore treatment protocol is discussed here:

Interim Treatment Guidelines for COVID-19.
(Version 1.0, dated 2 April 2020).

https://www.ncid.sg/Health-Professionals/Diseases-and-Conditions/Documents/Treatment%20Guidelines%20for%20COVID-19%20%282%20Apr%202020%29%20-final.pdf 

 It's interesting also how the Singaporeans breakdown their treatment guidelines. The guidelines recommend Lopinavir-Ritonavir (Kaletra), an antiviral HIV medication, for early treatment, i.e., less than 12 days after symptoms appear, and interferon for later treatment, after 12 days after symptoms appear. 

 Lopinavir-Ritonavir has not been found effective for patients under severe disease, but as an antiviral it would be expected to be most effective for early treatment. And the Singapore guideline document does give a reference to a report, ref. #3, where it was effective for early treatment.

 The fact that antivirals are most effective when given early is a well known fact among infectious disease experts - for other infectious diseases. But, oddly, this doesn't seem to be appreciated for COVID-19. The Singaporean treatment guideline document is rather singular and recognizing this fact in their treatment guidelines on COVID-19.

 Based on the facts that they used an effective antiviral early and included the potent antiviral and anti cancer medication interferon as part of their treatment protocol, and that they have been very successful in keeping their death rates low, I think the Singaporeans treatment strategies should be investigated as possible models to follow for Western countries.


 I must say I have been dismayed that Western countries have been so loathe to consider the treatment strategies used in Asian countries as models for their own treatment strategies. The Western countries have been content to look just at things like the infection tracking policies used, which is certainly important. But with death rates from 50 to 100 times lower than in Western countries it is really unfortunate that the Asian countries treatment strategies are not also considered.

 Another recent study reported on some surprising results:

Evidence That Quinine Exhibits Antiviral Activity against SARS-CoV-2 Infection In Vitro.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0102/v1 

 Not only did quinine have antiviral capability in vitro against COVID-19 but at 10 times better effectiveness than HCQ or CQ! 

 Interesting! I’ve been puzzling about the low death rate in Germany compared to other European nations:



 I once read someone suggest on Facebook that it was because the amount of tonic water, which is quinine in water, that the Germans drink. This possibility was discounted by medical professionals because of the low amount of quinine in tonic water:

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/the-right-chemistry-tonic-water-wont-help-with-covid-19

 For instance, it might take ten times the amount of quinine you would get in a liter of tonic water to have the beneficial effects of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. But if this report is true that quinine itself has ten times the antiviral activity that HCQ or CQ has that means the amount in a liter would be in the therapeutic range!

Note also here that in alcoholic spirits the amount allowed is much higher:

https://mixology.eu/seven-facts-about-tonic-water/

 A couple ways this could be tested would be to see if people who drink tonic water or mixed drinks with tonic water on a regular basis have reduced rates of COVID-19. Another test would be to see if regular users have higher levels of quinine or its metabolites in their blood, and if this is high enough to be protective according to this recent research. 

    Robert Clark














Thursday, April 9, 2020

A new possible treatment for COVID-19: interferon alpha.

Copyright 2020 Robert Clark


 A recent Chinese study testing hydroxychloroquine for the coronavirus has been badly reported on by the media:

EDITORS' PICK|113,401 views|
Hydroxychloroquine Use For COVID-19 Coronavirus Shows No Benefit In First Small—But Limited—Controlled Trial.
Tara Haelle Senior Contributor
Healthcare

 The headline is highly misleading, but this is how most articles on this research is being presented.
 But reading what the article actually says is different than the impression the headline gives. The headline falsely gives the impression the conventional treatment group or control group didn’t get any medicine and all they did was give bed rest and perhaps some inhalers, and that for either testing group or control group there was little improvement. Actually, no.
 ALL patients both in the test group and control got antivirals. Plus, most importantly ALL patients showed no virus after two weeks. They were essentially cured!
 Here's the passage in the article by Ms. Haelle where it is discussed that all patients received antivirals of some type:

Usual care included bed rest, oxygen inhalation, and antiviral or antibiotic drugs as needed or recommended according to the hospital’s treatment plan. All patients in both groups received interferon alpha with a nebulizer, and umifenovir—an antiviral treatment approved in China for influenza—was administered to 67% of the usual care patients and 80% of the patients receiving hydroxychloroquine. Two patients received lopinavir-ritonavir, an anti-viral normally used to treat HIV infections. 

 And here it is discussed in Ms. Haelle's article the results showing all patients tests and controls were free of virus in two weeks:

Here were the main findings:
  • One patient developed severe disease. That patient was in the hydroxychloroquine group and stopped receiving it on the fourth day. The authors state that developing severe disease did not appear related to the medication.
  • One week after hospitalization, 86.7% of patients in the experimental group and 93.3% of patients in the usual care group tested negative. This difference was not statistically significant. 
  • It took 4 days for half the hydroxychloroquine patients to test negative and 2 days for half the control group to test negative. This difference was not statistically significant.
  • Patients’ temperatures returned to normal at approximately the same rate in both groups. 
  • Disease progression in CT images was statistically similar between the groups (33.3% of the hydroxychloroquine group and 46.7% of the usual care group).
  • At two weeks, all patients in both groups tested negative and showed improvement in their symptoms. 
  • Short-term diarrhea and abnormal liver function occurred in 26.7% of the hydroxychloroquine group and 20% of the usual care control group.
  • The rate of adverse events (side effects that may or may not be related to the medication) were similar in both groups. 

 The focus has been so much in the news articles describing this research in disproving hydroxychloroquine, that they completely overlook the fact that hospitalized patients with the disease showed a 100% cure rate after using certain antivirals!
 Ms. Haelle has done an admirable job in summarizing in English the results of the original research report written in Chinese. I advise everyone also to read the original research report. It can be downloaded here:


To see an English translation, uploaded it to translate.google.com under the "Documents" option:


 Ms. Haelle mentions both test and control group patients temperatures returned to normal at same rate, but in fact it took on average only 1 day(!) for their temperatures to return to normal, a key indicator for lessening in the severity of the disease. Also important in regards to the rapidity of response to the medication, in both test and control groups while all patients tested negative in two weeks for the virus, in about 90% of the cases, they tested negative in only one week. Moreover for the control group, it took on average only 2 days for the patients to test negative for the virus.
 A rapid positive response to the medication is extremely important. The longer the disease persists the more damage is done to the lungs. This increases the likelihood the patient will have to be intubated, where a tube is inserted down the throat and a ventilator is used to assist with breathing.
 However, doctors treating COVID-19 patients have noted that only 1/3rd to only 1/5th of intubated COVID-19 patients survive. This may be because at that point the damage to the lungs is too severe, or it may be the intubation itself is too damaging. In any case, it is extremely important to stop the progression of the disease before intubation becomes necessary.
 In the Chinese study different drugs were given to different patients. But there was a common denominator for all the patients. The common denominator was that interferon alpha, a potent antiviral, was given to ALL patients. An internet search reveals that interferon of all three types, alpha, beta, and gamma, has previously shown success against other corona-type viruses such as MERS and SARS in all of test tube, animal, and human studies.

 Then THIS should be the focus of the articles reporting on this research, that there maybe a drug that has a 100% cure rate for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

  Aside, from the effectiveness of interferon alpha, you really can't make any conclusions on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine from this study. The reason is the interferon alpha was 100% effective, and it's pretty hard to improve on 100%!
 Since interferon alpha was given to even the hydroxychloroquine patients, it's hard to disentangle the hydroxychloroquine effectiveness from that of interferon alpha. It could be 0%, it could be 50%, it could be 100%, just like interferon alpha. You can't tell since it was always combined with the interferon alpha.
 Better would be a study that applied hydroxychloroquine and interferon alpha to separate groups of patients. Likely though for this recent study they didn't want to do that since this was for hospitalized patients and it was felt unethical to give patients only an unproven treatment.
 Now that hydroxychloroquine has been reported to have some success against COVID-19, such a study could be undertaken that compared it to interferon alpha in separate groups.
 By the way, if interferon alpha really is 100% effective, can there be any benefit in using instead hydroxychloroquine? Conceivably there could be. If say HCQ, perhaps with its associated side medications of azithromycen and zinc, proves to be 90%+ effective as a protective against COVID-19 likely you would have to be taking it continually while the virus is considered actively spreading. Then since HCQ is so well characterized over decades for millions of people for long term use, you would have more understanding of its side effects than for interferon alpha under a scenario of long-term use.

      Bob Clark


UPDATE, April 10, 2020:

 In this review article the authors also suggest that interferon can be used to treat COVID-19 with the recommendation it should be used in the early stages of the disease, and perhaps it can also act as a prophylactic(protective) agent:

Antiviral Research
Available online 7 April 2020, 104791
In Press, Journal Pre-proof
Short Communication
Type 1 interferons as a potential treatment against COVID-19
Erwan Sallard 1, François-Xavier Lescure 2,3, Yazdan Yazdanpanah 2,3, France Mentre 2, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja 2,3
for the C-20-15 DisCoVeRy French Steering Committee
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302059

 The authors here though argue interferon beta(IFNβ) is a more potent inhibitor of corona virus than interferon alpha(IFNα). Certainly interferon of all three types alpha, beta, and gamma should be tried as treatments.


UPDATE, April 16, 2020:

 This research preprint on a trial of interferon also showed it significantly reduced the length of time of detectable virus and lung inflammation:

Interferon-a2b treatment for COVID-19.

Qiong Zhou, Xiao-Shan Wei, Xuan Xiang, Xu Wang, Zi-Hao Wang, Virginia Chen, Casey P Shannon, Scott J Tebbutt, Tobias R Kollmann, Eleanor N Fish
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.06.20042580
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract
Summary Background The global pandemic of COVID-19 cases caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2 is ongoing. We describe here the clinical course of COVID-19 in a cohort of confirmed cases in Wuhan, China, treated with the repurposed potential experimental therapeutics IFN-α2b, arbidol or a combination of IFN-α2b plus arbidol. Methods 77 adults with confirmed COVID-19 were treated with either nebulized IFN-α2b (5mU,b.i.d.), arbidol (200mg dispersible tablet, t.i.d.) or a combination of IFN-α2b plus arbidol. Serial SARS-CoV-2 testing along with hematological measurements, including cell counts and blood biochemistry, serum cytokine levels, temperature and blood oxygen saturation levels were recorded for each patient during their hospital stay. Findings Treatment with IFN-α2b with or without arbidol significantly reduced the duration of detectable virus in the upper respiratory tract and in parallel reduced duration of elevated blood levels for the inflammatory markers IL-6 and CRP. Interpretation IFN-α2b should be investigated as therapy in COVID-19 cases.


UPDATE, April 17, 2020:

 This is a bombshell report if confirmed. Over 2,400 medical professions in China were given interferon nasal drops as a possible protective against COVID-19. Of these, over 500 were directly involved with care for COVID-19 patients. After, 28 days none of the medical professionals developed COVID-19. 

 This becomes especially important when you consider the large number of medical professionals in China directly involved with COVID-19 patient care who became infected. From the report:

"The control group was drawn from a literature report in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology [3] on medical staff diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia nationwide and in Wuhan from January 1 through February 11, 2020. Chinese medical staff diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia as reported by the China-World Health Organization joint inspection expert group as of February 23 were also included in the control group. The 422 medical institutions providing diagnosis and treatment services for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia reported that among 3387 medical personnel, there were 1716 confirmed cases, 1070 clinically diagnosed cases, and 157 suspected cases, and 3062 cases came from Hubei (Table 2)."
p. 5.

(Note: the original version of my blog post interpreted this passage as saying the 3,387 number was all medical professionals in the hospitals considered and the 1,716 number as those infected. Actually, the 3,387 number is those infected from all the hospitals. So a flaw in this report is it doesn't say what is the percentage of all medical professionals that are infected.)

  Table 2 from the report:

P. 13.


An experimental trial of recombinant human interferon alpha nasal drops to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 in medical staff in an epidemic area.
Zhongji Meng, Tongyu Wang, Chen Li, Xinhe Chen, Longti Li, Xueqin Qin, Hai Li, Jie Luo
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20061473

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human interferon alpha1b (rhIFN-α) nasal drops in healthy medical staff to prevent 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Methods A prospective, open-label study was conducted. Starting January 21, 2020, at Taihe Hospital in Shiyan City, Hubei Province, 2944 medical staff members were recruited and allocated into a low-risk group or a high-risk group according to whether they were directly exposed to the coronavirus. Participants in the low-risk group received rhIFN-α nasal drops (2-3 drops/nostril/time, 4 times/day) for 28 days; those in the high-risk group received rhIFN-α nasal drops combined with thymosin-α1 (1.6 mg, hypodermic injection, once a week). The primary outcome was new-onset COVID-19 over 28 days. The secondary outcome was new-onset fever or respiratory symptoms but with negative pulmonary images. The results were compared with the number of new cases in medical staff in the same areas of Hubei Province (including Wuhan) during the same period. Adverse reactions to interferon nasal drops were also observed. Results Among the 2944 subjects in our study, 2415 were included in the low-risk group, including 997 doctors and 1418 nurses with average ages of 37.38 and 33.56 years, respectively; 529 were included in the high-risk group, including 122 doctors and 407 nurses with average ages of 35.24 and 32.16 years, respectively. The 28-day incidence of COVID-19 was zero in both the high- and low-risk groups. The 28-day incidence of new-onset clinical symptoms with negative images for pneumonia was also zero in both the high- and low-risk groups. As controls, a total of 2035 medical personnel with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from the same area (Hubei Province) was observed between January 21 to February 23, 2020. There were no serious adverse effects in the 2944 subjects treated during the intervention period. Conclusion In this investigator-initiated open-label study, we observed that rhIFN-α nasal drops can effectively prevent COVID-19 in treated medical personnel. Our results also indicate that rhIFN-α nasal drops have potential promise for protecting susceptible healthy people during the coronavirus pandemic.



Could Blue Origin develop a lander for Artemis III?

Copyright 2025 Robert Clark SpaceX is coming under increasing criticism for its delay in developing the Starship lunar lander: U.S. Is Losin...