@Terminalxylem (and others in the know), have you heard anything corroborating this? This could be huge if trials turn out to confirm their theories.
tl;dr: Team sets out to find approved drugs that can interfere with the way the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to cells. Blocking that connection essentially locks a cellular doorway that inhibits the virus’s transmission to the respiratory system. --
they found 3: Hydroxyzine, sold as Atarax, and the nasal spray azelastine, which are prescription medications. The third one, diphenhydramine is sold over-the-counter as Benadryl, a treatment for cold and allergy symptoms.
Existing antihistamine drugs show effectiveness against COVID-19 virus in cell testing
Start hiding Benadryl??
I remember seeing something early on about antihistamines, and a litany of other "old" drugs being studied to prevent/treat Covid. These included ivermectin, melatonin and atorvastatin mentioned upthread, as well as hydroxychloroquine.
Some of those were identified as potential therapies based on computer modeling, which checks for 3-D interactions between drug molecules and SARS-CoV-2 virus, or its binding sites. If it looks like a given drug will interfere the virus, the next step is
in vitro testing on animal, then human cell lines. But none of that is sufficient to prove efficacy
in vivo. Interestingly, the link you've provided shows researchers are also working in reverse, by assessing rates of covid among people taking common meds, then trying to prove they do something in the lab.
As you probably know, the standard for clinical efficacy is randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials. Collecting that data usually takes months-years, assuming funding is available and an adequate sample population can be recruited.
While it's nice to study drugs with a proven safety record, one should be careful before jumping to conclusions based on pre-clinical data. Killing virus in cell culture hardly equates to the complex environment encountered in a living being. Ensuring adequate drug delivery to the site of infection is one major hurdle, as many lab studies employ drug concentrations severalfold higher than are typically achieved
in vivo. Likewise for your link, it's important to understand correlation doesn't mean causation, but it's clever to look for biologic plausibility after identifying meds from clinical databases.
I understand desperate times call for desperate measures, but taking a bunch of incompletely studied meds and supplements is not without risk. In addition to cost, potential for toxicity/side effects and drug interactions still needs to be considered, as well as diverting medications from their intended usage. Lastly, it's not inconceivable someone taking one of these readily available "miracle cures" will alter their behavior in ways which promote SARS-CoV-2 spread.
As I responded to Culdeus, I favor the
primum non nocere approach - even if something appears benign, I'd rather avoid the potential to cause harm with drugs/supplements that aren't clinically vetted. But it is clear all clinicians don't share this philosophy, and there's a multibillion dollar supplement/nutraceutical industry committed to providing unproven treatments to the masses.