The high-throughput screening of approved molecules capable to dock to the key protein domains of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis or related to the immune-dysregulation has the potential to identify thousands of possible compounds, from in silico models..
Therefore, we identified possible candidate drugs, providing rational for use and ongoing studies.
Drug #repurposing does NOT mean explore tiny signals of effects from uncontrolled clinical trials, and emphasize biased data from retrospective series highly manipulated and subgrouppally subgrouped.
What original sin? Perhaps, the extensive off-label use of some medicines (CAVE #hydroxychloroquine !!), outside a clinical trial or a registry for accountability & measurement is the primordial error and the enhancer of confusions..
... generated by the disconnect between the anecdotal clinical perception of benefits and the objective data collected.
Treatment options in settings of high medical unmet need can be improved only in controlled clinical trials:
- offering the most innovative therapeutic approaches
- prompting the dis-engagement from established clinical interventions with narrow value
The emphasis is put on the need to assure high-quality, safety and efficacy for medicinal products developed for COVID-19.
This has been widely recalled by @EMA_News , scientific societies like @myESMO and @ASCO and the national regulatory agencies like @Aifa_ufficiale
What do we hope to learn from these #pandemic times?
We wrote black on white, clear and transparent: @curijoey
Time for wasteful duplications based on competitive conflicts should be over!
The COVID-19 will enlighten the #solidarity in #science, sublimating narcissism for the ultimate goals of serving people, especially when facing the hardest moments of their lives, for deadly diseases.
While I can feel some discomfort in reviewing reviewers' comments, and I would get upset as a reviewer - feeling a threat to the independency of judgement..
The scientific peer- reviewing process is not a childish joke, to vomit the revenge sedimented there from years.
1/n
My take from an interesting dialogue with a high-level editorial board this afternoon can be summarised as:
> 80% of High-impact editors would "alter" the revision proof if a reviewer uses offensive language or makes inappropriate personal comments about the authors..