Hydroxychloroquine Works, According to New Study

[hanger4]

*The anti-malaria drug that President Trump touted as a possible treatment for coronavirus, hydroxychloroquine, successfully lowered the death rate among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the most recent study of the drug.*

All the numbers at the link.

[hanger4]

https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ding-new-study

[JakeStarkey]

hogwash news is more like it

[stjames1_53]

hogwash news is more like it

can you dispute the facts?

[hanger4]

hogwash news is more like it

*The large-scale analysis, conducted by Henry Ford Health System, was published Thursday in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Infectious Diseases.*

More likely you didn't read the link or have reading comprehension problems.

[jet57]

*The anti-malaria drug that President Trump touted as a possible treatment for coronavirus, hydroxychloroquine, successfully lowered the death rate among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the most recent study of the drug.*

All the numbers at the link.

Face Palm.jpg

[CenterField]

Well, I read it. Not just the article, but the study itself.

Here is the study:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S...534-8/fulltext

Here is its pre-print PDF:

https://www.ijidonline.com/action/sh...712(20)30534-8

Three things jump to my eyes:

1) This is an observational, retrospective study. This is not a prospective RCT (randomized controlled trial). This is NOT proof that it works. Like the study's authors say, "prospective trials are needed to examine this impact." The methodology is not great. They have ONE end-point (a.k.a. outcome measure): in-hospital mortality. This can be influenced by a number of factors (a.k.a. intervening factors, including the most obvious one, ventilator use, which they acknowledge, was a factor). When you have a retrospective observational study that is not a prospective RCT, you don't benefit from the paired randomization, that is, the way to eliminate intervening factors by pairing two very similar patients with two very similar clinical presentations, and randomly assigning one to the active group, and the other one to the control group, which is the ONLY way to verify if a drug actually works, or if the effect seen is due to spurious intervening factors (that is in common parlance, a fluke).

2) In the disclosure section, the authors disclose several links to pharmaceutical companies

3) As the study itself acknowledges (which I very well knew already since I've been reading literally hundreds of them) there are many other studies with different results. Including, there are true prospective RCTs with different results (that is, that HCQ does NOT work).

----------

I understand that a lay person (such as the lay journalist who authored the article you've linked to) will be all excited by ONE study suggesting what that journalistic source, with their particular ideology, bias, and agenda, wants to hear.

A scientist, on the other hand, will first look at the type of study (an observational, retrospective one, which unlike an RCT, delivers no proof; observational studies are good to generate hypothesis asking for further confirmation - which is what the authors are saying at the end - but by their very nature, they can't confirm anything); second, the scientist will look at the methodology and end-points; third, at the possibility of bias according to disclosures; and FOURTH AND MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, will consider the FULL SET OF EVIDENCE delivered by hundreds of other studies.

It is VERY common, actually the rule rather than the exception, that in ANY scientific topic, you will find contradictory studies; in this case, whether or not a drug works, you'll find studies suggesting that it does, and studies suggesting that it doesn't.

So, it matters to look at the whole field and ask yourself, for example: "do we have here five studies suggesting that it works, while we also have a hundred studies suggesting that it doesn't? If so, then it looks more likely that it doesn't work" (hypothetical numbers).

To know it, then you may want to run a meta-analysis (you will pull together all the available studies, adjust the stats for comparison, and sum them all up).

Sure, congratulations, you found ONE study suggesting that it works... a kind that delivers no proof, with weak methodology, and done by people who may have a bias... but when you pull together everything that has been done, the picture is completely different (and no, it's not just what the journalist is saying that other studies looked at more advanced cases; there's been studies showing no efficacy for early cases too, and even more impressive, NO EFFICACY AS PROPHYLAXIS, that is, the ultimate early treatment - hard to imagine that if the drug can't even stop the first few copies of the virus someone inhales from causing disease, that it will be helpful in any subsequent phase of the disease.

Now, don't read me wrong. I'd LOVE to see HCQ + AZ working. ANYTHING that can defeat this virus is great news! Fingers crossed!

But unfortunately, there is much more evidence that it doesn't work, than the opposite, to the point that this very praised protocol done by one of our Medical Schools, the EVMS protocol, has retired HCQ from its recommendations and has added wording saying that it should NOT be used:

https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_publ...9_Protocol.pdf

This protocol is updated frequently, based on the latest science. Sure, maybe thanks to this study and if there is confirmation by prospective studies, the protocol will include HCQ again. As of now, they haven't. Frankly, I doubt that this ONE observational retrospective study will change the protocol. We'll see.

Given the sum of all evidence (most importantly, RCTs on prophylactic use that have failed to show efficacy), my current take on HCQ is that it doesn't work for COVID-19, not to forget that it is particularly cardiotoxic in this population, given that in itself it is already a drug that prolongs QTc; AZ often used in association with it also prolongs the QTc, and QTc prolongations, while relatively harmless for patients with lupus, RA, or malaria (the original indications for HCQ), seem to be much more dangerous for COVID-19 patients, because the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a propensity to attack the heart and cause myocarditis, which makes the heart much more susceptible to running into trouble if you give to the patient a QTc-prolonging drug.

As of now, the consensus in protocols and recommendations by various reputable groups is to avoid HCQ for COVID-19 patients. When and more importantly, if this changes, I'll change my mind, too.

Of course, people will make of this a political point - "a drug touted by Trump" etc.

Meanwhile, a drug that Trump also touted (although not as frequently), Remdesivir, unlike HCQ, has actually collected positive results in true prospective RCTs, which delivered PROOF that it works. So, what did the Trump Administration do? It secured for the use of Americans, almost the entire worldwide stock of Remdesivir! Great move, Mr. President! Thank you!

It's been estimated, by medical professionals, that one of the reasons for the drop in death toll we've been seeing despite more cases, is attributable to our hospitals now having larger stocks of Remdesivir, thanks to Trump Administration's actions. It's not being attributed to HCQ...

So, what did I do? I praised him for it. I suffer from no TDS. I praise the president when he gets it right, and in the case of Remdesivir, he did.

As for HCQ... the current scientific evidence doesn't support it, regardless of what this ONE study is suggesting. We'll see if this will change in the future. Frankly, I doubt it.

[hanger4]

Attachment 30138

Do you have a problem with the Henry Ford Health System ??

Do you have a problem the peer-review of the International Journal of Infectious Diseases ??

[MMC]

Global Hydroxychloroquine Study To Resume After Positive Trial Results....
Tue, 06/30/2020 – 17:05


UK regulators have approved the resumption of a global trial aimed at determining whether hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are effective in preventing COVID-19 infections in healthcare settings, according to Reuters.
The trial, known as COPCOV, was paused after another British study found the drugs to be ineffective in treating the virus, however the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has now allowed the research to resume following positive COPCOV trial results.


According to Reuters, COPCOV is a “randomised, placebo-controlled trial that is aiming to enrol 40,000 healthcare workers and other at-risk staff around the world,” conducted by Oxford University’s Bangkok-based Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU).


The study is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Unsurprisingly, their website makes no mention of the inclusion of zinc – largely credited by pro-HCQ physicians as the key ingredient to the treatment.


“Hydroxychloroquine could still prevent infections, and this needs to be determined in a randomised controlled trial,” said Oxford’s White, adding “The question whether (it) can prevent COVID-19 or not remains as pertinent as ever.”.....snip~


https://latest-today-news.com/2020/0...trial-results/


Looks like the 140 Scientist and doctors couldn't get HydroxyChloroquine tanked like they thought they could.

[carolina73]

*The anti-malaria drug that President Trump touted as a possible treatment for coronavirus, hydroxychloroquine, successfully lowered the death rate among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the most recent study of the drug.*

All the numbers at the link.

That's half the people being saved. Remdesivir is 35% effective.

I think many of us knew this was all political.