Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the management of COVID-19: Much kerfuffle but little evidence.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are drugs that have shown in vitro activity on the replication of certain coronaviruses. In the context of the SARS-Cov-2 epidemic, the virus responsible for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), these two drugs have been proposed as possible treatments. The results of the first clinical studies evaluating the effect of hydroxychloroquine do not support any efficacy of this drug in patients with COVID-19, due to major methodological weaknesses. Yet, these preliminary studies have aroused considerable media interest, raising fears of massive and uncontrolled use. In the absence of evidence of clinical benefits, the main risk is of exposing patients unnecessarily to the well-known adverse effects of hydroxychloroquine, with a possibly increased risk in the specific setting of COVID-19. In addition, widespread use outside of any recommendation risks compromising the completion of good quality clinical trials. The chloroquine hype, fueled by low-quality studies and media announcements, has yielded to the implementation of more than 150 studies worldwide. This represents a waste of resources and a loss of opportunity for other drugs to be properly evaluated. In the context of emergency, rigorous trials are more than ever needed in order to have, as soon as possible, reliable data on drugs that are possibly effective against the disease. Meanwhile, serious adverse drug reactions have been reported in patients with COVID-19 receiving hydroxychloroquine, justifying to limit its prescription, and to perform suitable cardiac and therapeutic drug monitoring.

Truth distortion: A process to explain polarization over unsubstantiated claims related to covid-19

Knowing what to believe in the context of COVID-19 is challenging. Conflicting narratives from an array of prominent sources make distinguishing what is true and false difficult. This research examines how a preference for a source of information influences one’s truth judgments about controversial COVID-related statements. An early positive or negative evaluation of a public figure causes individuals to distort their truth judgments in the same direction as their preference. Interestingly, this truth distortion tends to increase linearly with a series of repeated controversial statements. Namely, most people tend to maintain their early preference and increasingly distort their evaluation of truth to make it fit the narrative of the source. Overall, this research provides insights into the process by which polarization occurs;that is, it demonstrates how people come to strongly believe in unsubstantiated claims over time, while others come to strongly reject the same information. © 2020 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved.