. . . and, they expect a secondary wave.
Sermo is a global Doctors’ forum site, which allows building of a global consensus of Physicians. As a part of its efforts, it has had a “statistically significant” survey of over 6,000 doctors, regarding Covid-19. Excerpting the just linked report:
Largest Statistically Significant Study by 6,200 Multi-Country Physicians on COVID-19 Uncovers Treatment Patterns and Puts Pandemic in Context
April 2, 2020
Sermo Reports on Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy, Rise in Prophylaxis Use; Over 80% Expect 2nd Outbreak
New York, New York – April 2, 2020 – Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a centralized and dynamic knowledge base, Sermo, the largest healthcare data collection company and global social platform for physicians, leveraged its capabilities to publish results of a COVID-19 study with more than 6,200 physicians in 30 countries. The study was completed in three days. Data covers current treatment and prophylaxis options, timing to the outbreak peak, effectiveness of government responses, and much more. Results of the first wave can be found at sermo.com . . . .
Key findings; Sermo Real Time Barometer*:
Treatments & Efficacy
The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK and 7% in Japan
Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters)
The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients
Second Wave of Outbreak
The second global outbreak is anticipated by 83% of global physicians, 90% of U.S. physicians but only 50% of Chinese physicians . . . .
Peak Timing & Restrictions
In the U.S., 63% of physicians recommend restrictions be lifted six or more weeks from now and 66% believe the peak is at least 3-4 weeks away
Notice, that: ” Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters). “
That is the global report from those who are on the frontlines.
Food for thought, given the aftermath of the second Didier Raoult study. And it certainly fits what we have been hearing from Dr Zelenko et al.
It is time for re-thinking in light of what Dr Zelenko has called “World War III” — it would actually be V BTW, III was obviously the 40-year Cold War and IV the ongoing long term conflict with aggressive Islamism. The rules have to change in light of differing risks and opportunities in the face of a fast moving deadly pandemic. END
The world’s physicians weigh in — they want Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin
I appreciate what you are doing here but I fear from reading the comments made in the past that simply,because you and president Trump see hope in this drug, it is being classified as a Republican or an intelligent design drug, and therefore to be mocked or subjected to chin-pulling sage advice to wait until large scale testing is done and 50% of patients were offered the placebo.
Going back 3000 years there was a Latin saying Tabula in Naufragio which essentially translates as any plank in a storm. No one in their right mind who tests positive would refuse to take HCQ, no one in their right mind would take a chance on a placebo.
Belfast, the first duty of reason is to truth, thus also to right reason and prudence (which involves warrant) as close corollaries. If in the midst of a life threatening, up to recently exponentially growing pandemic is stereotyping, scapegoating and attacks to the man, that speaks tellingly. As it is, this live case is a study in cumulative warrant, the challenge of how crooked yardsticks warp judgement, how selective hyperskepticism fails, and how we must learn to judge and balance inductive cases in light of evidence, risks, values and duties. Where, good or bad intellectual habits are just that, habits. This case study demonstrates that serious rethinking and reform are indicated. Not, that that was not already evident on the design debates and many other clashes. If the despicable heretics keep getting things right, what does that say? Which, BTW, was precisely the question I asked myself about the Austrians in Economics. As a result of which, I have found Garrison’s approach to Macro very useful as a complement and balance to other schools of thought. Whichever way we look at it on this matter we are tickling a dragon’s tail. That’s why Zelenko’s battlefield medicine approach is so telling, especially on the decision that risks to benefits led to rapid deployment of Penicillin. We have some serious rethinking to do. KF
PS: The myth that Mr Trump fiddled while the pandemic conflagration brewed needs to be corrected. This summary on where experts were on record — as opposed to, in the dominant, media trumpeted narrative — in January (time of the ill-advised, star chamber tactic impeachment) is telling: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/03/virus_experts_early_statements_belie_prescient_portrayal_142845.html
Interesting. While everyone else turns chloroquine into a political football and asks whether we should START using it, doctors have BEEN using it all along.
There is no doubt that in the case of COVID-19 we all want the same thing – an effective treatment. But that end is not best served by fastening on a couple of drugs whose efficacy is supported at present by weak evidence and anecdotal claims. I hope hydrochloroquine and azithromycin prove to be as effective as they are claimed to be – “prove” being the operative word. But it would be a tragedy if the furore surrounding these two agents were to distract attention and scarce resources from the search for other, perhaps better, treatments. A more balanced and measured approach is perhaps better:
There is also the issue of collateral damage to patients suffering from other disorders who may find their proven drugs are no longer available because they are being diverted to unproven prophylactic treatment of COVID-19.
100% success by a US doctor. Support for the approach based on past research on two US medical sites for medical practitioners. Use by South Korea to ameliorate their infections. My guess if anyone is affected, they would be at the head of the line demanding this treatment.
No one is suggesting not doing something else. But until a better solution comes down the pike, don’t suggest holding back because the information is not perfect.
Seversky, just the most recent Raoult studies should be more than sufficient to show that it is vanishingly unlikely that the HCQ-Z-Pac cocktail worked or seemed to work in these cases by chance. Say, 1/10 of the time something like this would work by chance if given in adequate time. The odds it worked like this 79 times in a test run are vanishingly small. Take the 38% of the time placebo yardstick and apply the same, and there is no material difference. We have several potential mechanisms, and it is possible that multiple actions happen. Then factor in his and other chemical tests. These show that in reasonable concentrations in reasonable tissue contexts, the chemical and/or the cocktail should work. There is a reason why, a week ago, after the second tests, France approved the drug and the US moved up the approvals ladder. Pharmaceutical companies are putting their money on the drug and expect to produce 250 million tablets by mid month. The views and actions of the physicians on the front lines around the world make good sense. The underlying epistemological and decision theory issue is that we need to move away from a hyperskepticism model to balanced prudence. KF
Polistra, would it surprise you to learn the US media viewed it as promising until about the time Mr Trump supported it as promising the day after the FDA approved it for compassionate and emergency use? It seems to me the physicians took the studies in China etc and reports of positive results seriously and are likely seeing at least some of what Dr Zelenko and Dr Raoult have seen. KF
@5 Seversky
So because an imbecile drank fish tank cleaner and died therefore CQ is not effective and is dangerous?
Massive non-sequitur here.
What does this have to do with science?
Sev, I should add to TF, that the couple only became poisoning patients because they ignored warning labels on fish tank cleaner and common sense then consumed a teaspoonful apiece, such never having been recommended by anyone, and certainly not Mr Trump. The attempt to taint Mr Trump with guilt by association in sections of the media was grossly irresponsible AND required omitting a cluster of fairly accessible facts from across the world including the FDA’s compassionate and emergency use approval of March 19. Likewise, it seems reasonable to observe that while arthritis is a long term complaint we are here dealing with a disease that has a track record of killing within days. More can be taken up later KF
PS: As a reminder, I again clip a report from mid-Feb, in Clinical Trials Arena, February 18th::
Also, a Pharmacy Times report on the March 19 initial approval by FDA, yes, a month later:
Both of these are taken from earlier OP’s in our coverage here at UD.
@KF
Don’t misunderstand me, I appreciate what you’re doing and I applaud what you are doing. I was trying to tell you to brace yourself for the ignorant comments of people like Seversky and asking that they don’t let them deter you, or tear your hair it at their inane parroting and their pretence of caution to cover their TDR.
BTW I was on to Hqc and zinc after reading an article in an engineering blog, of all places, even before Dr Zelensky came on the scene., or Raoult.
What I want is an end to the economic rebellion that has been taking place in the United States. No state can put an undue burden on interstate commerce without violating the Commerce Clause. There is nothing in the Constitution to allow the actions under any circumstances. Unlike COVID-19, which is a coronavirus, influenza does not need certain conditions to be met in order to be lethal. Are we to shut down the global economy every time flu season comes around? Influenza kills 500,000 people every year on average.
BR, that annual toll speaks to our need for better antivirals and a new generation of antibiotics. KF
Here is an American doctor who has had some success in in treating patients with COVId-19 with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-stephen-smith-on-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine-with-coronavirus-symptoms-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-pandemic
It appears to me that he is recommending that the treatment begin early. At least as soon as their symptoms appear to become serious.
One of the problems with using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin as a COVID-19 therapeutic is scientifically explaining how and why it works. On the other hand, one LA doctor has been prescribing and HCQ with zinc, rather than azithromycin. Why? It’s not just because he has been having very promising results but because he can, at least tentatively, explain scientifically why it works.
https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-drug-covid-19-malaria-hydroxychloroquine/6079864/
Do any of the researchers investigating hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have a hypothesis why it works? If they do I have been unable to find it.
To gain broader acceptance it would be good to have a scientifically sound explanation. Maybe we need a clinical trial comparing HCQ + azithromycin vs. HCQ + zinc.
JAD, The usual thought is, Z-Pac addresses secondary infection, typically bacterial. HCQ has several suggested mechanisms, which may be working in parallel. Which would be good. KF
There is another Zelenko video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=400&v=Z7SDemHGl8U&feature=emb_logo
I haven’t seen it all but it essentially says the same thing as before.
F/N: I cross-post from the current Zelenko thread, as notable:
>>F/N: Dr Mehmet Oz on with Lou Dobbs: Didier Raoult has initial results on his first 1,000 patients, 7 deaths, 20 to ICU, observes “a case series of 1,000 patients is not anecdotal.” He notes that NY Gov Cuomo’s ruling locked down his outpatient study, parallel to Raoult. A transcript of a key part:
Something very wrong is going on at governance and policymaking level.
He is also calling for someone with Lupus on HCQ with CV19 to come forward, in concert with a support group. So far, he has not had anyone.
He also reports the colleague who heads the Lupus Society and others in that world of practice see fears over side effects as punched up, i/l/o their collective experience. This holds for heart effects and he says eye effects show up after five years of chronic use.
Another straw in the wind.>>
KF