Scientists Have Launched a Global Race for a Coronavirus Cure

A World Health Organization study puts Trump’s unproven coronavirus treatment to the test.

A coronavirus patient in Tehran, Iran.Rouzbeh Fouladi/ZUMA

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

The bigger the scientific study, the stronger the findings. That’s why nations are teaming up to launch a worldwide research project called SOLIDARITY to find a treatment for the deadly coronavirus. The study, announced by the World Health Organization last week, will include thousands of patients in several countries in an effort to determine if any existing drugs can safely treat the coronavirus.

“We commend the researchers around the world who have come together to systematically evaluate experimental therapeutics,” WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said while announcing the trial. “Multiple small trials with different methodologies may not give us the clear, strong evidence we need about which treatments help to save lives.” He added that “this large international study is designed to generate the robust data we need.”

With a vaccine expected to be a year or more away, scientists and doctors are looking for existing treatments that can target the virus. While developing new drugs can take years—and testing their general safety years more—the medical community hopes that medications already on the market or in research can help, including drugs designed to treat HIV and ebola. The WHO panel that crafted the trial is focusing on four treatments that its experts believe are the most promising, according to Science. These include the malaria medications chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, drugs that President Donald Trump has been hyping despite Science calling the data supporting their use both “murky” and “thin”; WHO initially decided there was “insufficient evidence” to investigate chloroquine, but agreed to include it after noting a need for a decision on its use after it received “significant attention” in several countries.

The trial makes it easy for patients anywhere to quickly become a part of the research. With a subject’s consent, physicians simply enter the data from a confirmed COVID-19 case into a WHO website, taking note of any underlying conditions such as HIV or diabetes. The physician next inputs which drugs are available in their area, and the website will assign the patient one of the experimental treatments. As Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, a medical officer at WHO’s Department of Immunization Vaccines and Biologicals, explained to Science, all that’s then left is for the physician to record when the patient left the hospital or died, how long the patient was in the hospital, and whether they required oxygen or a ventilator. “It will be important to get answers quickly, to try to find out what works and what doesn’t work,” she said. “We think that randomized evidence is the best way to do that.”

Thus far ten countries around the world have joined the trial, and researchers in Europe have announced a complementary study called Discovery that will exclude chloroquine. The United States was not among the countries that first pledged to participate.

 

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate