President Trump Departs White House For Walter Reed
File photo of US President Donald Trump | Photo: Sarah Silbiger | Bloomberg
Text Size:

The need for any kind of treatment to help stem the coronavirus outbreak is acute as cases and hospitalizations continue to mount. But there’s a strong need to balance urgency and evidence.

President Donald Trump’s cheerleading of chloroquine and its derivative hydroxychloroquine — older malaria drugs with limited evidence of efficacy in Covid-19 — is arguably dangerous. As he touts the drugs in press conferences, people are reportedly poisoning themselves via self-administration and hoarding it to create hazardous shortages, making the prudent use and evaluation of it as a treatment more difficult. That said, sitting on medicines while they make their way through a lengthy trial and regulatory process is also a mistake. The worst of the pandemic will arrive soon in parts of the U.S. With vaccines and novel therapeutics far away, inaction has a high human cost.

A potential solution is innovation, not just in cleverly repurposing old drugs, but in how we test whether they work. While cautious use of existing treatments for the sickest patients should continue, simultaneously running a wide variety of ambitious clinical trials will help get more drugs to more patients and could help rapidly confirm what works best, the sooner we can generate data that helps doctors give the right drugs to the right people, the better.

Excitement about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine isn’t entirely baseless. Other countries have seen enough promise to include it in treatment guidelines. While a widely covered positive French trial that combined hydroxychloroquine with an antibiotic was small and flawed, the results warrant further study. The fact that these are cheap generics with a long history of use could make them especially helpful. On the other hand, this group of medicines can have side effects, and an abstract for a Chinese trial detailed in a recent research note by Evercore ISI analyst Umer Raffat describes poor results for hydroxychloroquine in mild patients. We know far too little to put too many eggs in any one basket.

Traditional trials are rigorously designed, generally run without deviation from the initial plan, and are only analyzed once the data is ready according to a pre-specified plan. Such trials are standard for a reason; it’s a battle-tested process and statistically reliable. But it can be slow and inflexible, which calls for new tools such as so-called adaptive trials that evolve based on incoming data. These more recently developed tests let researchers use data from their ongoing trials to count out treatments or doses that aren’t working and add new arms based on emerging evidence. They can also allocate more patients to regimens that are looking good, and focus recruiting on patients most likely to benefit.

Well-run adaptive trials can be smaller, faster, and more ethical, all features that make them well suited to this moment. And they are growing in popularity. Some researchers and parts of the drug industry have been slow to change, however. Now is the time to push the envelope.

The World Health Organization is taking a positive step with a large and rapidly designed adaptive trial testing multiple coronavirus approaches, including chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, Gilead Sciences Inc.’s remdesivir and an HIV drug. The worthy priority of the trial is simplicity; it aims to collect data from as many places as possible, without strict requirements that overwhelm health workers.

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.


It’s a crucial effort and a good blueprint. It needs to be supplemented by further similar studies in the U.S. and around the world to broaden access and answer emerging questions. The WHO trial doesn’t include every promising treatment, and the HIV drug it is testing has already failed to show a benefit in some small trials. The stage of infection, symptoms, age, and pre-existing conditions will likely create variation in how people respond to treatments and what they need, further underscoring the need for a wide variety of flexible designs.

It’d be a good thing if the president used his office to support responsible efforts to speed development. But perhaps his cheering section should be behind the scenes, rather than behind the podium. – Bloomberg

Also read: Modi govt assesses chloroquine stock, a potential COVID-19 drug, as it awaits WHO results


Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

1 Comment Share Your Views


  1. There is always a Pharma lobby, which always advocate for heavy prices new drug, instead applying old generics with different dose regimen. Their argument, it is not proved for this indication, even though it was safe and effective other indications. They leterally tie the hands of medical professionals and in the process medical professionals do not want any risk of legal suits. And the game goes on.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here