VÉronique Duqueroy

An international study, Colive Voice, presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 conference, shows that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have different voice characteristics compared with healthy controls of the same age and gender. These results “open up possibilities for developing a first-line, noninvasive, and rapid screening tool for T2D, feasible with just a few seconds of voice recording on a smartphone or during consultations,” explained the study’s principal investigator Guy Fagherazzi, PhD, a diabetes epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, in an interview with this news organization.

How did the idea of detecting diabetes through voice come about?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we began analyzing voice recordings from patients with chronic diseases. We wanted to find solutions to assess people’s health remotely, without physical contact. We quickly realized that this approach could be extended to other diseases. Because my main research focus has always been diabetes, I looked into how voice characteristics might correlate with diabetes. Previous studies had indicated that patients with diabetes have distinct voices compared with the general population, and this insight formed the starting point.

What mechanism could explain why patients with T2D have different voice characteristics?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single factor that would explain why patients with T2D have different voices from those without diabetes. Several factors are involved.

Some biological mechanisms, especially those affecting the vascular system, influence symptoms in people with metabolic diseases such as diabetes. For example, people with T2D have more frequent cardiorespiratory fatigue. Obesity and overweight are also key factors, as these conditions can slightly alter vocal parameters compared with people of normal weight. Hypertension, common in patients with T2D, adds to the complexity.

Neurologic complications can affect the nerves and muscles involved in voice production, particularly the vocal cords.

Therefore, respiratory fatigue, neuropathies, and other conditions such as dehydration and gastric acid reflux, which are more common in patients with diabetes, can contribute to differences in voice.

These differences might not be noticeable to the human ear. That’s why we often don’t notice the link between voice and diabetes. However, technological advancements in signal processing and artificial intelligence allow us to extract a large amount of information from these subtle variations. By analyzing these small differences, we can detect diabetes with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
 

In your study, you mention that voice tone can indicate diabetic status. Could you elaborate?

Yes, voice tone can be affected, though it’s a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

Patients who have had diabetes for 5-10 years, or longer, tend to have a rougher voice than those without diabetes of the same age and gender. In our study, we were able to extract many voice characteristics from the raw audio signal, which is why it’s difficult to isolate one specific factor that stands out.
 

Is there a difference in voice changes between patients with well-managed diabetes and those whose disease is uncontrolled?

The roughness of the voice tends to increase with the duration of diabetes. It’s more noticeable in people with poorly controlled diabetes. Our hypothesis, based on the results we presented at the EASD conference, is that fluctuations in blood sugar levels, both hypo- and hyperglycemia, may cause short-term changes in the voice. There are also many subtle, rapid changes that could potentially be detected, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. We’re currently conducting additional studies to explore this.

Why did you ask participants to read a passage from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

We used a highly standardized approach. Participants completed several recordings, including holding the sound “Aaaaaa” for as long as possible in one breath. They also read a passage, which helps us better distinguish between patients with and those without diabetes. This method works slightly better than other sounds typically used for analyzing diseases. We chose this particular text in the participant’s native language because it’s neutral and doesn’t trigger emotional fluctuations. Because Colive Voice is an international, multilingual study, we use official translations in various languages.

Your research focuses on T2D. Do you plan to study type 1 diabetes (T1D) as well?

We believe that individuals with T1D also exhibit voice changes over time. However, our current focus is on T2D because our goal is to develop large-scale screening methods. T1D, typically diagnosed in childhood, requires different screening approaches. For now, our research mainly involves adults.

Were there any gender differences in the accuracy of your voice analysis?

Yes, voice studies generally show that women have different vocal signatures from men, partly owing to hormonal fluctuations that affect pitch and tone. Detecting differences between healthy individuals and those with diabetes can sometimes be more challenging in women, depending on the condition. In our study, we achieved about 70% accuracy for women compared with 75% for men.

The EASD results focused on a US-based population. When can we expect data from France?

We started with the US because we could quickly gather a large number of patients. Now, we’re expanding to global and language-specific analyses. French data are certainly a priority, and we’re working on it. We encourage people to participate — it takes only 20 minutes and contributes to innovative research on noninvasive diabetes detection. Participants can sign up at www.colivevoice.org

Dr. Fagherazzi heads the Deep Digital Phenotyping laboratory and the Department of Precision Health at the Luxembourg Institute of Health. His research focuses on integrating new technologies and digital data into diabetes research. He has declared no relevant financial relationships. 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An international study, Colive Voice, presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 conference, shows that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have different voice characteristics compared with healthy controls of the same age and gender. These results “open up possibilities for developing a first-line, noninvasive, and rapid screening tool for T2D, feasible with just a few seconds of voice recording on a smartphone or during consultations,” explained the study’s principal investigator Guy Fagherazzi, PhD, a diabetes epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, in an interview with this news organization.

How did the idea of detecting diabetes through voice come about?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we began analyzing voice recordings from patients with chronic diseases. We wanted to find solutions to assess people’s health remotely, without physical contact. We quickly realized that this approach could be extended to other diseases. Because my main research focus has always been diabetes, I looked into how voice characteristics might correlate with diabetes. Previous studies had indicated that patients with diabetes have distinct voices compared with the general population, and this insight formed the starting point.

What mechanism could explain why patients with T2D have different voice characteristics?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single factor that would explain why patients with T2D have different voices from those without diabetes. Several factors are involved.

Some biological mechanisms, especially those affecting the vascular system, influence symptoms in people with metabolic diseases such as diabetes. For example, people with T2D have more frequent cardiorespiratory fatigue. Obesity and overweight are also key factors, as these conditions can slightly alter vocal parameters compared with people of normal weight. Hypertension, common in patients with T2D, adds to the complexity.

Neurologic complications can affect the nerves and muscles involved in voice production, particularly the vocal cords.

Therefore, respiratory fatigue, neuropathies, and other conditions such as dehydration and gastric acid reflux, which are more common in patients with diabetes, can contribute to differences in voice.

These differences might not be noticeable to the human ear. That’s why we often don’t notice the link between voice and diabetes. However, technological advancements in signal processing and artificial intelligence allow us to extract a large amount of information from these subtle variations. By analyzing these small differences, we can detect diabetes with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
 

In your study, you mention that voice tone can indicate diabetic status. Could you elaborate?

Yes, voice tone can be affected, though it’s a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

Patients who have had diabetes for 5-10 years, or longer, tend to have a rougher voice than those without diabetes of the same age and gender. In our study, we were able to extract many voice characteristics from the raw audio signal, which is why it’s difficult to isolate one specific factor that stands out.
 

Is there a difference in voice changes between patients with well-managed diabetes and those whose disease is uncontrolled?

The roughness of the voice tends to increase with the duration of diabetes. It’s more noticeable in people with poorly controlled diabetes. Our hypothesis, based on the results we presented at the EASD conference, is that fluctuations in blood sugar levels, both hypo- and hyperglycemia, may cause short-term changes in the voice. There are also many subtle, rapid changes that could potentially be detected, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. We’re currently conducting additional studies to explore this.

Why did you ask participants to read a passage from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

We used a highly standardized approach. Participants completed several recordings, including holding the sound “Aaaaaa” for as long as possible in one breath. They also read a passage, which helps us better distinguish between patients with and those without diabetes. This method works slightly better than other sounds typically used for analyzing diseases. We chose this particular text in the participant’s native language because it’s neutral and doesn’t trigger emotional fluctuations. Because Colive Voice is an international, multilingual study, we use official translations in various languages.

Your research focuses on T2D. Do you plan to study type 1 diabetes (T1D) as well?

We believe that individuals with T1D also exhibit voice changes over time. However, our current focus is on T2D because our goal is to develop large-scale screening methods. T1D, typically diagnosed in childhood, requires different screening approaches. For now, our research mainly involves adults.

Were there any gender differences in the accuracy of your voice analysis?

Yes, voice studies generally show that women have different vocal signatures from men, partly owing to hormonal fluctuations that affect pitch and tone. Detecting differences between healthy individuals and those with diabetes can sometimes be more challenging in women, depending on the condition. In our study, we achieved about 70% accuracy for women compared with 75% for men.

The EASD results focused on a US-based population. When can we expect data from France?

We started with the US because we could quickly gather a large number of patients. Now, we’re expanding to global and language-specific analyses. French data are certainly a priority, and we’re working on it. We encourage people to participate — it takes only 20 minutes and contributes to innovative research on noninvasive diabetes detection. Participants can sign up at www.colivevoice.org

Dr. Fagherazzi heads the Deep Digital Phenotyping laboratory and the Department of Precision Health at the Luxembourg Institute of Health. His research focuses on integrating new technologies and digital data into diabetes research. He has declared no relevant financial relationships. 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An international study, Colive Voice, presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 conference, shows that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have different voice characteristics compared with healthy controls of the same age and gender. These results “open up possibilities for developing a first-line, noninvasive, and rapid screening tool for T2D, feasible with just a few seconds of voice recording on a smartphone or during consultations,” explained the study’s principal investigator Guy Fagherazzi, PhD, a diabetes epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, in an interview with this news organization.

How did the idea of detecting diabetes through voice come about?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we began analyzing voice recordings from patients with chronic diseases. We wanted to find solutions to assess people’s health remotely, without physical contact. We quickly realized that this approach could be extended to other diseases. Because my main research focus has always been diabetes, I looked into how voice characteristics might correlate with diabetes. Previous studies had indicated that patients with diabetes have distinct voices compared with the general population, and this insight formed the starting point.

What mechanism could explain why patients with T2D have different voice characteristics?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single factor that would explain why patients with T2D have different voices from those without diabetes. Several factors are involved.

Some biological mechanisms, especially those affecting the vascular system, influence symptoms in people with metabolic diseases such as diabetes. For example, people with T2D have more frequent cardiorespiratory fatigue. Obesity and overweight are also key factors, as these conditions can slightly alter vocal parameters compared with people of normal weight. Hypertension, common in patients with T2D, adds to the complexity.

Neurologic complications can affect the nerves and muscles involved in voice production, particularly the vocal cords.

Therefore, respiratory fatigue, neuropathies, and other conditions such as dehydration and gastric acid reflux, which are more common in patients with diabetes, can contribute to differences in voice.

These differences might not be noticeable to the human ear. That’s why we often don’t notice the link between voice and diabetes. However, technological advancements in signal processing and artificial intelligence allow us to extract a large amount of information from these subtle variations. By analyzing these small differences, we can detect diabetes with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
 

In your study, you mention that voice tone can indicate diabetic status. Could you elaborate?

Yes, voice tone can be affected, though it’s a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

Patients who have had diabetes for 5-10 years, or longer, tend to have a rougher voice than those without diabetes of the same age and gender. In our study, we were able to extract many voice characteristics from the raw audio signal, which is why it’s difficult to isolate one specific factor that stands out.
 

Is there a difference in voice changes between patients with well-managed diabetes and those whose disease is uncontrolled?

The roughness of the voice tends to increase with the duration of diabetes. It’s more noticeable in people with poorly controlled diabetes. Our hypothesis, based on the results we presented at the EASD conference, is that fluctuations in blood sugar levels, both hypo- and hyperglycemia, may cause short-term changes in the voice. There are also many subtle, rapid changes that could potentially be detected, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. We’re currently conducting additional studies to explore this.

Why did you ask participants to read a passage from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

We used a highly standardized approach. Participants completed several recordings, including holding the sound “Aaaaaa” for as long as possible in one breath. They also read a passage, which helps us better distinguish between patients with and those without diabetes. This method works slightly better than other sounds typically used for analyzing diseases. We chose this particular text in the participant’s native language because it’s neutral and doesn’t trigger emotional fluctuations. Because Colive Voice is an international, multilingual study, we use official translations in various languages.

Your research focuses on T2D. Do you plan to study type 1 diabetes (T1D) as well?

We believe that individuals with T1D also exhibit voice changes over time. However, our current focus is on T2D because our goal is to develop large-scale screening methods. T1D, typically diagnosed in childhood, requires different screening approaches. For now, our research mainly involves adults.

Were there any gender differences in the accuracy of your voice analysis?

Yes, voice studies generally show that women have different vocal signatures from men, partly owing to hormonal fluctuations that affect pitch and tone. Detecting differences between healthy individuals and those with diabetes can sometimes be more challenging in women, depending on the condition. In our study, we achieved about 70% accuracy for women compared with 75% for men.

The EASD results focused on a US-based population. When can we expect data from France?

We started with the US because we could quickly gather a large number of patients. Now, we’re expanding to global and language-specific analyses. French data are certainly a priority, and we’re working on it. We encourage people to participate — it takes only 20 minutes and contributes to innovative research on noninvasive diabetes detection. Participants can sign up at www.colivevoice.org

Dr. Fagherazzi heads the Deep Digital Phenotyping laboratory and the Department of Precision Health at the Luxembourg Institute of Health. His research focuses on integrating new technologies and digital data into diabetes research. He has declared no relevant financial relationships. 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

This story was translated from Medscape France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

This story was translated from Medscape France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

This story was translated from Medscape France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A controversial study led by Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with COVID-19 was published March 20. The latest results from the same Marseille team, which involve 80 patients, were reported on March 27.

The investigators report a significant reduction in the viral load (83% patients had negative results on quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing at day 7, and 93% had negative results on day 8). There was a “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” One death occurred, and three patients were transferred to intensive care units.

If the data seem encouraging, the lack of a control arm in the study leaves clinicians perplexed, however.

Benjamin Davido, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, Paris, spoke in an interview about the implications of these new results.
 

What do you think about the new results presented by Prof. Raoult’s team? Do they confirm the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine?

These results are complementary [to the original results] but don’t offer any new information or new statistical evidence. They are absolutely superimposable and say overall that, between 5 and 7 days [of treatment], very few patients shed the virus. But that is not the question that everyone is asking.

Even if we don’t necessarily have to conduct a randomized study, we should at least compare the treatment, either against another therapy – which could be hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, or just standard of care. It needed an authentic control arm.

To recruit 80 patients so quickly, the researchers probably took people with essentially ambulatory forms of the disease (there was a call for screening in the south of France) – therefore, by definition, less severe cases.

But to describe such a population of patients as going home and saying, “There were very few hospitalizations and it is going well,” does not in any way prove that the treatment reduces hospitalizations.
 

The argument for not having a control arm in this study was that it would be unethical. What do you think?

I agree with this argument when it comes to patients presenting with risk factors or who are starting to develop pneumonia.

But I don’t think this is the case at the beginning of the illness. Of course, you don’t want to wait to have severe disease or for the patient to be in intensive care to start treatment. In these cases, it is indeed very difficult to find a control arm.
 

In the ongoing Discovery trial, which involves more than 3,000 patients in Europe, including 800 in France, the patients have severe disease, and there are five treatment arms. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine is given without azithromycin. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a mistake. It will not answer the question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19, especially as they’re not studying azithromycin in a situation where the compound seems necessary for the effectiveness of the treatment.

In addition, Discovery reinforces the notion of studying Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir, AbbVie] again, while Chinese researchers have shown that it does not work, the argument being that Kaletra was given too late (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282). Therefore, if we make the same mistakes from a methodological point of view, we will end up with negative results.
 

What should have been done in the Marseille study?

The question is: Are there more or fewer hospitalizations when we treat a homogeneous population straight away?

The answer could be very clear, as a control already exists! They are the patients that flow into our hospitals every day – ironically, these 80 patients [in the latest results, presented March 27] could be among the 80% who had a form similar to nasopharyngitis and resolved.

In this illness, we know that there are 80% spontaneous recoveries and 20% so-called severe forms. Therefore, with 80 patients, we are very underpowered. The cohort is too small for a disease in which 80% of the evolution is benign.

It would take 1,000 patients, and then, even without a control arm, we would have an answer.

On March 26, Didier Raoult’s team also announced having already treated 700 patients with hydroxychloroquine, with only one death. Therefore, if this cohort increases significantly in Marseille and we see that, on the map, there are fewer issues with patient flow and saturation in Marseille and that there are fewer patients in intensive care, you will have to wonder about the effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We will find out very quickly. If it really works, and they treat all the patients presenting at Timone Hospital, we will soon have the answer. It will be a real-life study.
 

What are the other studies on hydroxychloroquine that could give us answers?

There was a Chinese study that did not show a difference in effectiveness between hydroxychloroquine and placebo, but that was, again, conducted in only around 20 patients (J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03). This cohort is too small and tells us nothing; it cannot show anything. We must wait for the results of larger trials being conducted in China.

It surprises me that, today, we still do not have Italian data on the use of chloroquine-type drugs ... perhaps because they have a care pathway that means there is no outpatient treatment and that they arrive already with severe disease. The Italian recommendations nevertheless indicate the use of hydroxychloroquine.

I also wonder about the lack of studies of cohorts where, in retrospect, we could have followed people previously treated with hydroxychloroquine for chronic diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.). Or we could identify all those patients on the health insurance system who had prescriptions.

That is how we discovered the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco: There was an increase in the number of prescriptions for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim) that corresponded to a population subtype (homosexual), and we realized that it was for a disease that resembled pneumocystosis. We discovered that via the drug!

If hydroxychloroquine is effective, it is enough to look at people who took it before the epidemic and see how they fared. And there, we do not need a control arm. This could give us some direction. The March 26 decree of the new Véran Law states that community pharmacies can dispense to patients with a previous prescription, so we can find these individuals.
 

Do you think that the lack of, or difficulty in setting up, studies on hydroxychloroquine in France is linked to decisions that are more political than scientific?

Perhaps the contaminated blood scandal still casts a shadow in France, and there is a great deal of anxiety over the fact that we are already in a crisis, and we do not want a second one. I can understand that.

However, just a week ago, access to this drug (and others with market approval that have been on the market for several years) was blocked in hospital central pharmacies, while we are the medical specialists with the authorization! It was unacceptable.

It was sorted out 48 hours ago: hydroxychloroquine is now available in the hospital, and to my knowledge, we no longer have a problem obtaining it.

It took time to alleviate doubts over the major health risks with this drug. [Officials] seemed almost like amateurs in their hesitation; I think they lacked foresight. We have forgotten that the treatment advocated by Prof. Didier Raoult is not chloroquine but rather hydroxychloroquine, and we know that the adverse effects are less [with hydroxychloroquine] than with chloroquine.
 

You yourself have treated patients with chloroquine, despite the risk for toxicity highlighted by some.

Initially, when we first started treating patients, we thought of chloroquine because we did not have data on hydroxychloroquine, only Chinese data with chloroquine. We therefore prescribed chloroquine several days before prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

The question of the toxicity of chloroquine was not unjustified, but I think we took far too much time to decide on the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. Is [the latter] political? I don’t know. It was widely publicized, which amazes me for a drug that is already available.

On the other hand, everyone was talking at the same time about the toxicity of NSAIDs. ... One has the impression it was to create a diversion. I think there were double standards at play and a scapegoat was needed to gain some time and ask questions.

What is sure is that it is probably not for financial reasons, as hydroxychloroquine costs nothing. That’s to say there were probably pharmaceutical issues at stake for possible competitors of hydroxychloroquine; I do not want to get into this debate, and it doesn’t matter, as long as we have an answer.

Today, the only thing we have advanced on is the “safety” of hydroxychloroquine, the low risk to the general population. ... On the other hand, we have still not made any progress on the evidence of efficacy, compared with other treatments.

Personally, I really believe in hydroxychloroquine. It would nevertheless be a shame to think we had found the fountain of youth and realize, in 4 weeks, that we have the same number of deaths. That is the problem. I hope that we will soon have solid data so we do not waste time focusing solely on hydroxychloroquine.
 

What are the other avenues of research that grab your attention?

The Discovery trial will probably give an answer on remdesivir [GS-5734, Gilead], which is a direct antiviral and could be interesting. But there are other studies being conducted currently in China.

There is also favipiravir [T-705, Avigan, Toyama Chemical], which is an anti-influenza drug used in Japan, which could explain, in part, the control of the epidemic in that country. There are effects in vitro on coronavirus. But it is not at all studied in France at the moment. Therefore, we should not focus exclusively on hydroxychloroquine; we must keep a close eye on other molecules, in particular the “old” drugs, like this antiviral.

The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency, under the Investissements d’avenir program, Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, and European funding FEDER PRIMI. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A controversial study led by Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with COVID-19 was published March 20. The latest results from the same Marseille team, which involve 80 patients, were reported on March 27.

The investigators report a significant reduction in the viral load (83% patients had negative results on quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing at day 7, and 93% had negative results on day 8). There was a “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” One death occurred, and three patients were transferred to intensive care units.

If the data seem encouraging, the lack of a control arm in the study leaves clinicians perplexed, however.

Benjamin Davido, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, Paris, spoke in an interview about the implications of these new results.
 

What do you think about the new results presented by Prof. Raoult’s team? Do they confirm the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine?

These results are complementary [to the original results] but don’t offer any new information or new statistical evidence. They are absolutely superimposable and say overall that, between 5 and 7 days [of treatment], very few patients shed the virus. But that is not the question that everyone is asking.

Even if we don’t necessarily have to conduct a randomized study, we should at least compare the treatment, either against another therapy – which could be hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, or just standard of care. It needed an authentic control arm.

To recruit 80 patients so quickly, the researchers probably took people with essentially ambulatory forms of the disease (there was a call for screening in the south of France) – therefore, by definition, less severe cases.

But to describe such a population of patients as going home and saying, “There were very few hospitalizations and it is going well,” does not in any way prove that the treatment reduces hospitalizations.
 

The argument for not having a control arm in this study was that it would be unethical. What do you think?

I agree with this argument when it comes to patients presenting with risk factors or who are starting to develop pneumonia.

But I don’t think this is the case at the beginning of the illness. Of course, you don’t want to wait to have severe disease or for the patient to be in intensive care to start treatment. In these cases, it is indeed very difficult to find a control arm.
 

In the ongoing Discovery trial, which involves more than 3,000 patients in Europe, including 800 in France, the patients have severe disease, and there are five treatment arms. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine is given without azithromycin. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a mistake. It will not answer the question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19, especially as they’re not studying azithromycin in a situation where the compound seems necessary for the effectiveness of the treatment.

In addition, Discovery reinforces the notion of studying Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir, AbbVie] again, while Chinese researchers have shown that it does not work, the argument being that Kaletra was given too late (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282). Therefore, if we make the same mistakes from a methodological point of view, we will end up with negative results.
 

What should have been done in the Marseille study?

The question is: Are there more or fewer hospitalizations when we treat a homogeneous population straight away?

The answer could be very clear, as a control already exists! They are the patients that flow into our hospitals every day – ironically, these 80 patients [in the latest results, presented March 27] could be among the 80% who had a form similar to nasopharyngitis and resolved.

In this illness, we know that there are 80% spontaneous recoveries and 20% so-called severe forms. Therefore, with 80 patients, we are very underpowered. The cohort is too small for a disease in which 80% of the evolution is benign.

It would take 1,000 patients, and then, even without a control arm, we would have an answer.

On March 26, Didier Raoult’s team also announced having already treated 700 patients with hydroxychloroquine, with only one death. Therefore, if this cohort increases significantly in Marseille and we see that, on the map, there are fewer issues with patient flow and saturation in Marseille and that there are fewer patients in intensive care, you will have to wonder about the effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We will find out very quickly. If it really works, and they treat all the patients presenting at Timone Hospital, we will soon have the answer. It will be a real-life study.
 

What are the other studies on hydroxychloroquine that could give us answers?

There was a Chinese study that did not show a difference in effectiveness between hydroxychloroquine and placebo, but that was, again, conducted in only around 20 patients (J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03). This cohort is too small and tells us nothing; it cannot show anything. We must wait for the results of larger trials being conducted in China.

It surprises me that, today, we still do not have Italian data on the use of chloroquine-type drugs ... perhaps because they have a care pathway that means there is no outpatient treatment and that they arrive already with severe disease. The Italian recommendations nevertheless indicate the use of hydroxychloroquine.

I also wonder about the lack of studies of cohorts where, in retrospect, we could have followed people previously treated with hydroxychloroquine for chronic diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.). Or we could identify all those patients on the health insurance system who had prescriptions.

That is how we discovered the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco: There was an increase in the number of prescriptions for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim) that corresponded to a population subtype (homosexual), and we realized that it was for a disease that resembled pneumocystosis. We discovered that via the drug!

If hydroxychloroquine is effective, it is enough to look at people who took it before the epidemic and see how they fared. And there, we do not need a control arm. This could give us some direction. The March 26 decree of the new Véran Law states that community pharmacies can dispense to patients with a previous prescription, so we can find these individuals.
 

Do you think that the lack of, or difficulty in setting up, studies on hydroxychloroquine in France is linked to decisions that are more political than scientific?

Perhaps the contaminated blood scandal still casts a shadow in France, and there is a great deal of anxiety over the fact that we are already in a crisis, and we do not want a second one. I can understand that.

However, just a week ago, access to this drug (and others with market approval that have been on the market for several years) was blocked in hospital central pharmacies, while we are the medical specialists with the authorization! It was unacceptable.

It was sorted out 48 hours ago: hydroxychloroquine is now available in the hospital, and to my knowledge, we no longer have a problem obtaining it.

It took time to alleviate doubts over the major health risks with this drug. [Officials] seemed almost like amateurs in their hesitation; I think they lacked foresight. We have forgotten that the treatment advocated by Prof. Didier Raoult is not chloroquine but rather hydroxychloroquine, and we know that the adverse effects are less [with hydroxychloroquine] than with chloroquine.
 

You yourself have treated patients with chloroquine, despite the risk for toxicity highlighted by some.

Initially, when we first started treating patients, we thought of chloroquine because we did not have data on hydroxychloroquine, only Chinese data with chloroquine. We therefore prescribed chloroquine several days before prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

The question of the toxicity of chloroquine was not unjustified, but I think we took far too much time to decide on the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. Is [the latter] political? I don’t know. It was widely publicized, which amazes me for a drug that is already available.

On the other hand, everyone was talking at the same time about the toxicity of NSAIDs. ... One has the impression it was to create a diversion. I think there were double standards at play and a scapegoat was needed to gain some time and ask questions.

What is sure is that it is probably not for financial reasons, as hydroxychloroquine costs nothing. That’s to say there were probably pharmaceutical issues at stake for possible competitors of hydroxychloroquine; I do not want to get into this debate, and it doesn’t matter, as long as we have an answer.

Today, the only thing we have advanced on is the “safety” of hydroxychloroquine, the low risk to the general population. ... On the other hand, we have still not made any progress on the evidence of efficacy, compared with other treatments.

Personally, I really believe in hydroxychloroquine. It would nevertheless be a shame to think we had found the fountain of youth and realize, in 4 weeks, that we have the same number of deaths. That is the problem. I hope that we will soon have solid data so we do not waste time focusing solely on hydroxychloroquine.
 

What are the other avenues of research that grab your attention?

The Discovery trial will probably give an answer on remdesivir [GS-5734, Gilead], which is a direct antiviral and could be interesting. But there are other studies being conducted currently in China.

There is also favipiravir [T-705, Avigan, Toyama Chemical], which is an anti-influenza drug used in Japan, which could explain, in part, the control of the epidemic in that country. There are effects in vitro on coronavirus. But it is not at all studied in France at the moment. Therefore, we should not focus exclusively on hydroxychloroquine; we must keep a close eye on other molecules, in particular the “old” drugs, like this antiviral.

The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency, under the Investissements d’avenir program, Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, and European funding FEDER PRIMI. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A controversial study led by Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, on the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with COVID-19 was published March 20. The latest results from the same Marseille team, which involve 80 patients, were reported on March 27.

The investigators report a significant reduction in the viral load (83% patients had negative results on quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing at day 7, and 93% had negative results on day 8). There was a “clinical improvement compared to the natural progression.” One death occurred, and three patients were transferred to intensive care units.

If the data seem encouraging, the lack of a control arm in the study leaves clinicians perplexed, however.

Benjamin Davido, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Raymond-Poincaré Hospital in Garches, Paris, spoke in an interview about the implications of these new results.
 

What do you think about the new results presented by Prof. Raoult’s team? Do they confirm the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine?

These results are complementary [to the original results] but don’t offer any new information or new statistical evidence. They are absolutely superimposable and say overall that, between 5 and 7 days [of treatment], very few patients shed the virus. But that is not the question that everyone is asking.

Even if we don’t necessarily have to conduct a randomized study, we should at least compare the treatment, either against another therapy – which could be hydroxychloroquine monotherapy, or just standard of care. It needed an authentic control arm.

To recruit 80 patients so quickly, the researchers probably took people with essentially ambulatory forms of the disease (there was a call for screening in the south of France) – therefore, by definition, less severe cases.

But to describe such a population of patients as going home and saying, “There were very few hospitalizations and it is going well,” does not in any way prove that the treatment reduces hospitalizations.
 

The argument for not having a control arm in this study was that it would be unethical. What do you think?

I agree with this argument when it comes to patients presenting with risk factors or who are starting to develop pneumonia.

But I don’t think this is the case at the beginning of the illness. Of course, you don’t want to wait to have severe disease or for the patient to be in intensive care to start treatment. In these cases, it is indeed very difficult to find a control arm.
 

In the ongoing Discovery trial, which involves more than 3,000 patients in Europe, including 800 in France, the patients have severe disease, and there are five treatment arms. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine is given without azithromycin. What do you think of this?

I think it’s a mistake. It will not answer the question of the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19, especially as they’re not studying azithromycin in a situation where the compound seems necessary for the effectiveness of the treatment.

In addition, Discovery reinforces the notion of studying Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir, AbbVie] again, while Chinese researchers have shown that it does not work, the argument being that Kaletra was given too late (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282). Therefore, if we make the same mistakes from a methodological point of view, we will end up with negative results.
 

What should have been done in the Marseille study?

The question is: Are there more or fewer hospitalizations when we treat a homogeneous population straight away?

The answer could be very clear, as a control already exists! They are the patients that flow into our hospitals every day – ironically, these 80 patients [in the latest results, presented March 27] could be among the 80% who had a form similar to nasopharyngitis and resolved.

In this illness, we know that there are 80% spontaneous recoveries and 20% so-called severe forms. Therefore, with 80 patients, we are very underpowered. The cohort is too small for a disease in which 80% of the evolution is benign.

It would take 1,000 patients, and then, even without a control arm, we would have an answer.

On March 26, Didier Raoult’s team also announced having already treated 700 patients with hydroxychloroquine, with only one death. Therefore, if this cohort increases significantly in Marseille and we see that, on the map, there are fewer issues with patient flow and saturation in Marseille and that there are fewer patients in intensive care, you will have to wonder about the effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We will find out very quickly. If it really works, and they treat all the patients presenting at Timone Hospital, we will soon have the answer. It will be a real-life study.
 

What are the other studies on hydroxychloroquine that could give us answers?

There was a Chinese study that did not show a difference in effectiveness between hydroxychloroquine and placebo, but that was, again, conducted in only around 20 patients (J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03). This cohort is too small and tells us nothing; it cannot show anything. We must wait for the results of larger trials being conducted in China.

It surprises me that, today, we still do not have Italian data on the use of chloroquine-type drugs ... perhaps because they have a care pathway that means there is no outpatient treatment and that they arrive already with severe disease. The Italian recommendations nevertheless indicate the use of hydroxychloroquine.

I also wonder about the lack of studies of cohorts where, in retrospect, we could have followed people previously treated with hydroxychloroquine for chronic diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.). Or we could identify all those patients on the health insurance system who had prescriptions.

That is how we discovered the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco: There was an increase in the number of prescriptions for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim) that corresponded to a population subtype (homosexual), and we realized that it was for a disease that resembled pneumocystosis. We discovered that via the drug!

If hydroxychloroquine is effective, it is enough to look at people who took it before the epidemic and see how they fared. And there, we do not need a control arm. This could give us some direction. The March 26 decree of the new Véran Law states that community pharmacies can dispense to patients with a previous prescription, so we can find these individuals.
 

Do you think that the lack of, or difficulty in setting up, studies on hydroxychloroquine in France is linked to decisions that are more political than scientific?

Perhaps the contaminated blood scandal still casts a shadow in France, and there is a great deal of anxiety over the fact that we are already in a crisis, and we do not want a second one. I can understand that.

However, just a week ago, access to this drug (and others with market approval that have been on the market for several years) was blocked in hospital central pharmacies, while we are the medical specialists with the authorization! It was unacceptable.

It was sorted out 48 hours ago: hydroxychloroquine is now available in the hospital, and to my knowledge, we no longer have a problem obtaining it.

It took time to alleviate doubts over the major health risks with this drug. [Officials] seemed almost like amateurs in their hesitation; I think they lacked foresight. We have forgotten that the treatment advocated by Prof. Didier Raoult is not chloroquine but rather hydroxychloroquine, and we know that the adverse effects are less [with hydroxychloroquine] than with chloroquine.
 

You yourself have treated patients with chloroquine, despite the risk for toxicity highlighted by some.

Initially, when we first started treating patients, we thought of chloroquine because we did not have data on hydroxychloroquine, only Chinese data with chloroquine. We therefore prescribed chloroquine several days before prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

The question of the toxicity of chloroquine was not unjustified, but I think we took far too much time to decide on the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine. Is [the latter] political? I don’t know. It was widely publicized, which amazes me for a drug that is already available.

On the other hand, everyone was talking at the same time about the toxicity of NSAIDs. ... One has the impression it was to create a diversion. I think there were double standards at play and a scapegoat was needed to gain some time and ask questions.

What is sure is that it is probably not for financial reasons, as hydroxychloroquine costs nothing. That’s to say there were probably pharmaceutical issues at stake for possible competitors of hydroxychloroquine; I do not want to get into this debate, and it doesn’t matter, as long as we have an answer.

Today, the only thing we have advanced on is the “safety” of hydroxychloroquine, the low risk to the general population. ... On the other hand, we have still not made any progress on the evidence of efficacy, compared with other treatments.

Personally, I really believe in hydroxychloroquine. It would nevertheless be a shame to think we had found the fountain of youth and realize, in 4 weeks, that we have the same number of deaths. That is the problem. I hope that we will soon have solid data so we do not waste time focusing solely on hydroxychloroquine.
 

What are the other avenues of research that grab your attention?

The Discovery trial will probably give an answer on remdesivir [GS-5734, Gilead], which is a direct antiviral and could be interesting. But there are other studies being conducted currently in China.

There is also favipiravir [T-705, Avigan, Toyama Chemical], which is an anti-influenza drug used in Japan, which could explain, in part, the control of the epidemic in that country. There are effects in vitro on coronavirus. But it is not at all studied in France at the moment. Therefore, we should not focus exclusively on hydroxychloroquine; we must keep a close eye on other molecules, in particular the “old” drugs, like this antiviral.

The study was supported by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée Infection, the National Research Agency, under the Investissements d’avenir program, Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, and European funding FEDER PRIMI. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.