Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#41

Post by antonvs »

roenxi wrote: post #30

This is evidence; it isn't great but it also isn't conclusive. We'll need to wait longer for something a little more decisive. A twitter link is also unhelpful because we only get a blurry abstract to go off. The happy dream is maybe hydroxychloroquine has prophylactic tendencies since it is something people can take long term to be at a substantially lower risk vs catching COVID. The abstract doesn't really show muc…

> The happy dream is maybe hydroxychloroquine has prophylactic tendencies since it is something people can take long term to be at a substantially lower risk vs catching COVID.

It's an immune system inhibitor, so this seems like a bad plan.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#42

Post by arcticbull »

rurban wrote: post #22
mirimir wrote: post #13

Wait. I thought that hydroxychloroquine was hypothesized to protect against wet lung, as an anti-inflammatory, and not as an antiviral. Did I just make that up?

No, HCQ is the Antiviral. Anti-inflammatories are also in the plan, but not Iboprofen.

Not exactly. HCQ has anti-inflammatory action as well as immune moderating action [1] the latter of which may help protect against cytokine storm which occurs in some serious COVID-19 infections. It also has antiviral action in some situations but it's not clear that that's actually relevant to COVID-19 yet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#43

Post by Reelin »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #38
throwaway5466 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean "not worse". If almost everyone got cured there's hardly any leeway to be even better.

The difference is not statistically significant is what I mean.

There's a really important distinction to be made here though. "No better than placebo, and half the control group died" would mean it probably doesn't work. "No better than placebo, but no one needed to be hospitalized" presumably means that no medical care was required in the first place. If no medical care was required, then it will be impossible to demonstrate a positive drug effect by definition.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#44

Post by dajohnson89 »

arcticbull wrote: post #35
cycrutchfield wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disappointing because it's no better than placebo.

In this case (as with many others) placebo is pretty effective, but also, these folks didn't get sick enough to need it, as with the overwhelming majority of young and healthy people. Another, broader study is required. I'm sure we'll find out more soon -- this reads like a mulligan though.

any data on what percentage of “young healthy” people die/get hospitalized? also, what’s the definition of young and healthy?

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#45

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

Khelavaster wrote: post #16
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #3

> That was a first run trial without the Zpak. The following trial with both showed 100% efficacy after 5-6 days. Is that twitter reply accurate?

Both trials have glaring flaws: they're tiny.

What's wrong with the size of the 30 patient experiment?

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#46

Post by arcticbull »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #44
arcticbull wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case (as with many others) placebo is pretty effective, but also, these folks didn't get sick enough to need it, as with the overwhelming majority of young and healthy people. Another, broader study is required. I'm sure we'll find out more soon -- this reads like a mulligan though.

any data on what percentage of “young healthy” people die/get hospitalized? also, what’s the definition of young and healthy?

I mean, I’ve been saying this for a while and I don’t want to tire y’all out but, young being defined as under 40 and healthy being defined as without comorbid conditions.

The median age of the dead in Italy is 80.5 and 99.2% of them were sick, averaging 3 comorbid conditions [3]. So basically the opposite of that.

[1] https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1241741127205572609?s...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

[3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti...

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#47

Post by newsbinator »

rurban wrote: post #19
HarryHirsch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to read Chinese, the abstract is on page 2. Conclusion: at current trial size no better than placebo. More study is needed to tease out an effect, if there is any.

It does help if you read the translation. By now everybody should know that the successful dosis is 2x500mg per day for 10 days. Not 1x 400mg per day, which is the old dosis for Malaria prevention. This dosis needs at least 2-3 weeks to be effective (saturate the cell membranes with zinc), and by then the infection is already over. And the Chinese treatment plan contained much more. A study with zero value.

What's the source of this?

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#48

Post by cycrutchfield »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #45
Khelavaster wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both trials have glaring flaws: they're tiny.

What's wrong with the size of the 30 patient experiment?

The French study? Aside from the fact that it wasn't a randomized study and 6 patients dropped out from the treatment group (1 died, 3 went to ICU)?

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#50

Post by neuronic »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #37

Thank goodness that we are actually getting some RCT results. There has been a huge confirmation bias towards any positive results for chloroquine, no matter how specious or flawed the underlying science was. Everybody wants this to work because the drug is well-tested on humans, cheap, and broadly available. It would be a panacea, a miracle drug. My concern is that the desire for this drug to be effective has cloude…

Don't forget the time pressure. It's a real balance act. The ideal panacea would be an already approved drug that is easy to manufacture, scale and distribute.

If fighting covid means we need new drugs then we look at a long development time that will likely stretch the availability of a therapeutic behind the availability of a vaccine.

Obviously everyone knows that these things are needed NOW, all bureaucratic road blocks are removed save the really important and necessary ones. You cannot just hand out a drug to millions of people or inject them with vaccines without thoroughly testing their safety first.

Imagine if the "cure" to covid was long term harmful in a broad population, e.g. it affects 5% of the people negatively. The health, societal and economic impact could wipe the floor with covid.

Post reply on HN