This was just a coincidence I noted in the other thread. This article, The antidepressant fluvoxamine could keep mild COVID-19 from worsening, goes over this topic. I also watched a piece on CNN last night, I believe from Sanjay Gupta, who discusses this and the issue of a lack of research about using existing low profit drugs for other purposes like this.
This drug can be is used to treat severe cases of Covid, it is not a vaccine to prevent it.
I started to make a new topic when discourse informed me there already was one. Its interesting to see there was already questions about this in February.
There have been two recent studies published in The Lancet and JAMA that seem very promising. Does anyone know if there is any other research in the works or any movement on treatment with this drug?
“There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19.”
I was wondering what happened to this, too. I hope it’s not being ignored because it’s cheap.
And speaking of cheap treatments we don’t hear about any more… Any recent updates on vitamin D to treat or prevent covid? Early on they found that correcting vitamin D deficiencies (which are incredibly common among people who work indoors) appeared to make a big difference.
I doubt that’s an issue (and I’m not sure why it would be)
Dexamethasone was the first big success of the “recovery trial”. It was identitfied quickly and has probably saved upward of a million lives as it has now been adopted as a standard treatment for severly ill covid patients around the world. It is off-patent and so is very cheap to manufacture and administer so if the results for fluvoxamine were equally as good then I’m sure the low cost won’t put people off.
I don’t believe fluvoxamine has yet been included in the recovery trial and judging by some of the reports noted here it seems like there are protocol issues that affect confidence in the results. Jury still seems to be out.
Studies need to be funded. Yes, governments fund studies. But a lot of the money for studies comes from drug companies, who hope to make money. So there’s always more money for expensive new things than for cheap old things.
For such as the NHS though, there are huge savings and other incentives (such as speed) to establish the efficacy of existing cheap treatments. That’s what prompted the “recovery trial” in the first place and I’m sure the same is true of other government funded health services around the world.
The pharma companies aren’t necessarily a limiting factor in this.
…like colchicine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? (though there’s still lots of misplaced hype about the latter two despite abundant evidence that they don’t work). You see, they’re being ignored/covered up because Pharma can’t make billions off them. Pharma is a Thing, not many thousands of people worried about themselves or their families dying.
There’s a myth that says all sorts of cheap, safe cures (i e. for cancer) are being ignored because they’re not lucrative for drug makers. What if someone could tweak fluvoxamine, make it much more effective against Covid and patent it? Big bucks would roll in (this has happened with other drugs). The positive publicity and acclaim for researchers would be enormous.
Given failures with other repurposed drugs for Covid, companies are gun-shy about potentially plunging tens of millions or more into large-scale clinical trials. It’s good that charitable foundations and universities have stepped in re fluvoxamine, but their trial results still have to be viewed with the same level of scrutiny as pharma-backed studies.
There’ve been tons of studies of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. I don’t have to wonder what’s up with those, because they’ve both been found to be ineffective.
I do wonder about vitamin D. And the antidepressants.
Pub Med (the free online database of medical research publications) is your friend.
There have been numerous mostly low-powered, low quality studies and anecdotal evidence supporting vitamin D as having a role in prophylaxis or treatment of Covid-19. More recently, systematic reviews have not supported its usage. For instance:
“We identified 31 peer-reviewed observational studies. In our primary analysis, there was a positive trend between serum 25(OH)D level <20 ng/ml and an increased risk of mortality, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or SARS-CoV-2 positivity. However, these associations were not statistically significant. Mean 25(OH)D levels was 5.9 ng/ml (95% CI [−9.5, −2.3]) significantly lower in COVID-19 positive, compared to negative patients. The certainty of the evidence was very low. We identified 32 clinical trial protocols, but only three have published results to-date. The trials administer vitamin D doses of 357 to 60,000 IU/day, from one week to 12 months. Eight megatrials investigate the efficacy of vitamin D in outpatient populations. A pilot trial revealed a significant decrease in ICU admission with calcifediol, compared to placebo (OR = 0.003), but the certainty of the evidence was unclear. Another small trial showed that supplementation with cholecalciferol, 60,000 IU/day, decreased fibrinogen levels, but did not have an effect on D-dimer, procalcitonin and CRP levels, compared to placebo. The third trial did not find any effect of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 related health outcomes.”
Not an enthusiastic endorsement for vitamin D in this scenario.
Authors of another such systematic review were not impressed either.
For the sake of balance, it should be noted that vitamin D still has some adherents.
Lastly, there are still ongoing clinical trials of vitamin D against Covid-19. One such is the COVIT-TRIAL, a multicenter study looking at the effect of vitamin D supplementation in high-risk older patients. Collaborating in this study is Mylan Laboratories, which recently merged with Upjohn and has a lot of drugs on the market. Evidently someone didn’t tell this Big Pharma outfit not to have anything to do with a cheap supplement that can’t be patented.
Taking vitamin D is one of those cases of it can’t hurt and it might help. In the past I have read up on the benefits of vitamin D. Some of the benefits are only supported and not proved by studies but again taking a supplement can’t hurt especially because I don’t tend to eat foods that are high in vitamin D. I was taking it before the pandemic and I have continued.
Yeah, it was prescribed for me before the pandemic, on general principles. I’ve been more consistent about taking it since the pandemic. It’s cheap, and in the doses I take, it’s extremely safe.
