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

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#71

Post by dev_tty01 »

blacksqr wrote: post #59
arcticbull wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/volume…

I keep reading this statistic about deaths in Italy, but how much of it is shaped by doctors desperately deciding to withhold care from the sickest in order to save others? i.e., would the age curve be different in an ideal situation where everyone was getting optimal care, and is the statistic thus misleadingly suggesting that younger people are less at risk?

Would the curve be different in an ideal situation where the hospitals weren't completely overrun and out of resources? Yes, of course. However, I would guess that if care was withheld, it was based on disease state and patient robustness. Age is part of that equation so it is hard to separate it out. In other words, a fit healthy, no comorbidity senior whose immune system is fighting hard is probably not having treatment withheld just because of age. I'm not there of course, but based on accounts I think this is right. At least I hope so.

As an aside, you were certainly not being judgmental about the clinicians in Italy and I applaud you for that. Those professionals are doing incredible work in unbelievably difficult and personally dangerous situations, so I hope we can all agree not to second guess their decisions from the cheap seats.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#72

Post by raphlinus »

karlshea wrote: post #26
raphlinus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm following a bunch of scientists on Twitter and have been watching from the sidelines with awe and admiration. The contrast to the seeming hordes of dumbfucks could hardly be more remarkable; sometimes it's hard to keep in mind the same platform is host to both sets of people.

Would you mind linking a couple here that are worth a follow?

Even better, I have a very carefully curated list: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1239639611694911489

Every single person on this list is brilliant at what they do and a good communicator, with excellent s/n in their tweets. I've also removed people (like Jeremy Konyndyk, who otherwise I would recommend highly) who have a lot of insight but also a high emotional tone or a tendency to lean into politics. I've also tried to represent a wide range of expertise, from immunology to sequencing-based virology to public health specialists to frontline ER doctors.

So it's as close to a golden source of information as I could make it. I hope it's useful to some people, though I know the reach of it is a tiny fraction as if I made some dumb clickbait that happened to go viral.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#73

Post by Fjolsvith »

Terretta wrote: post #68
dajohnson89 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Across the United States, 38 percent of those hospitalized were between the ages of 20 and 54. Nationally, 12 percent of the intensive care patients were between the ages of 20 and 44. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-...

> Across the United States, 38 percent of those hospitalized were between the ages of 20 and 54.

> Nationally, 12 percent of the intensive care patients were between the ages of 20 and 44.

Versus 26 percent of the ICU patients being aged 45 to 54, and 62 percent of the ICU patients being 55 or older.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#74

Post by raphlinus »

godzulu wrote: post #18
raphlinus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm following a bunch of scientists on Twitter and have been watching from the sidelines with awe and admiration. The contrast to the seeming hordes of dumbfucks could hardly be more remarkable; sometimes it's hard to keep in mind the same platform is host to both sets of people.

This Doctor in NY seems to have had great results so far https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/stunning-ny-doctor-... This Doctor, Health Commissioner of NYC, Oxiris Barbot, seemed to take a lot of joy in proclaiming: Today our city is celebrating the #LunarNewYear parade in Chinatown, a beautiful cultural tradition with a rich history in our city. I want to remind everyone to enjoy the parade and not change any p…

I don't really know what point you're trying to make here. Neither doctor would come anywhere near my list of experts. The real experts are highly critical of both those offering miracle cures and public health people who are slow to respond.

There are dumbfucks with MD after their name too, unfortunately.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#75

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

sfteus wrote: post #5
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?

No, that trial has some glaring flaws. Several threads go into them way better than I could. https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1241201751916568576 https://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/12414295448478638...

Thank you for the links! I didn’t know about those gremlins in the supplementary info. Hopefully the WHO trials recently announced will give us a better answer soon.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#76

Post by sfteus »

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?

30 patients would be statistically significant. Problem is that they were non randomized, open-label, and they seemingly discarded some of the bad results. They also measured viral load, not cure, and the measurement was not done correctly in all cases.

It's basically a "there could potentially be a causal link here; needs way more research" type of study.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#77

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

whatshisface wrote: post #62
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…

> It would be a panacea, a miracle drug. Not really, a panacea is a drug that cures everything. If chloroquine was found to be an effective antiviral, it would only be a drug that cured two things. That's common enough to not warrant excessive skepticism taken alone.

While that may be the precise definition of a panacea, the vernacular definition is a breakthrough or unexpected good thing.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#78

Post by known »

In late January 2020 during the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, Chinese medical researchers stated that exploratory research into chloroquine and two other medications, remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir, seemed to have "fairly good inhibitory effects" on the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is the virus that causes COVID-19. Requests to start clinical testing were submitted.[43] Chloroquine had been also proposed as a treatment for SARS, with in vitro tests inhibiting the SARS-CoV virus.[44][45] However, at least one case of self-medication with chloroquine for COVID-19 has caused a fatality, and the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control has stated that such self-medication "will cause harm and can lead to death."

Chloroquine has been recommended by Chinese, South Korean and Italian health authorities for the treatment of COVID-19.[47][48] These agencies noted contraindications for people with heart disease or diabetes.[49] Both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, but a further study concluded that hydroxychloroquine was more potent than chloroquine, with a more tolerable safety profile.[50] Preliminary results from a trial suggested that chloroquine is effective and safe in COVID-19 pneumonia, "improving lung imaging findings, promoting a virus-negative conversion, and shortening the disease course."[51] Self-medication with chloroquine has caused one known fatality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroquine#COVID-19

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#79

Post by AbrahamParangi »

hampelm wrote: post #69

Why are we amplifying someone posting a compressed jpeg to 3,000 followers who lists no name, has a photo of George Costanza, and claims to be a virologist?

The best early information was on 4chan while the authoritative sources were downplaying it. Pseudo anonymous social media has most of the chaff but all of the wheat.

Re: First hydroxychloroquine randomized controlled trial: results disappointing

#80

Post by jplayer01 »

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…

This study really isn’t sufficient proof for anything. Not even weak evidence. We need far better studies before deciding to give up on a drug.
Post reply on HN