Morning Briefing
Summaries of health policy coverage from major news organizations
Scientists At Odds Over Hydroxychloroquine's Future In The Battle Against COVID-19
Reuters: WHO Continues Hydroxychloroquine Trial After UK Test Halts
The World Health Organization is continuing its clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine, after British scientists halted a large trial that had been exploring use of the drug to treat patients with COVID-19 when initial results showed no evidence of benefit. “There are two distinct trials with their own protocols, their own oversight committees. Therefore we will continue for now,” Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, told an online news briefing when asked about the British trial halt. (6/5)
Stat: New Study Likely Closes Door On Use Of Hydroxychloroquine For Covid-19
A major clinical trial showed the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for patients hospitalized with Covid-19, likely closing the door to the use of the highly publicized medicine in the sickest patients — a use for which it was widely prescribed as the pandemic hit the U.S. The results come from a study called RECOVERY, funded by the U.K. government, that sought to randomly assign large numbers of patients to multiple potential treatments in the country’s National Health Service. The goal was to rapidly get answers as to what worked and what didn’t. (Herper, 6/5)
NBC News: Hydroxychloroquine Is Not Dead Yet
Hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug touted and previously taken by President Donald Trump to fight coronavirus, has fallen out of favor and public view as studies — like one halted Friday — have suggested it does little to treat infection while exposing users to dangerous side effects. Not all researchers have given up on the drug, however, and recent developments show it is not yet dead as a potential weapon against COVID-19, especially as a preventative in people not yet exposed to the virus. (Cavazuti, 6/7)
Meanwhile —
Stat: After Retractions Of Two Covid-19 Papers, Scientists Ask What Went Wrong
With last week’s retractions of two Covid-19 papers from a pair of the world’s top medical journals, the scientific community is once again wrestling with the question that arises any time a high-profile publication blows up: Could this have been prevented? Entire forests have been felled so scholars can write papers on “the flawed process” of peer review, in which journal editors ask (usually three) outside experts to read a manuscript for rigor, methodological soundness, consistency, and overall quality. (Begley, 6/8)
Stat: Researcher Has Faculty Appointment Terminated After Lancet Retraction
The University of Utah has “mutually agreed” to terminate the faculty appointment of Amit Patel, who was among the authors of two retracted papers on Covid-19 and who appears to have played a key role in involving a little-known company that has ignited a firestorm of controversy. “The terminated position was an unpaid adjunct appointment with the Department of Biomedical Engineering,” a university spokesperson told STAT. Patel had listed the affiliation on both papers, published in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. The spokesperson declined to comment on whether the decision was related to the retractions. (Herper and Sheridan, 6/7)
