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

Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 379 posts

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#131

Post by wbl »

munk-a wrote: post #52
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this drug can be cheaply manufactured out of patent. Let's say Remdesivir is the only drug that works, it's basically an admission that Gilead is going to have us over a barrel.

Only if we chose to let them bend us over said barrel? The US government could simply seize the patent if Gilead acted in a manner against the public good.

So the reward for spending millions on neglected tropical diseases is nothing. That's a great motivator for the company that cured HIV and Hep C to keep working.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#132

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #111

And to put this interpretation into perspective, people that need this drug for diseases that it has proven to have a large effect on are losing access to it because it may or may not help with COVID-19.

HCQ is an off-patent drug that is produced in every major country in the world. In fact, many countries have stockpiles of it because of its efficacy at preventing malaria.

If there’s a risk of a supply run, it would definitely not last very long. For many people there’s alternatives for treating arthritis and lupus.

If it’s shown even to improve the patient’s outcome by even just 10% or more (as this study suggests), every country should be ramping up production of it right now instead of letting it be politicized.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#133

Post by AlexandrB »

_y5hn wrote: post #40
AlexandrB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because HCQ’s efficacy was briefly endorsed by a controversial political figure I fear that there’s no evidence in either direction will convince the true believers. This is now a political issue, like global warming. Hopefully someone is ramping up production so availability improves for those that actually need it.

The science providing data is apolitical. It just takes its due time.

The science may be apolitical, but the choice to accept or reject the science can depend on your politics. I think the anti-vaccination movement has shown that no amount of evidence is sufficient if someone is strongly attached to a belief for ideological reasons.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#134

Post by esyir »

ajross wrote: post #85
capnrefsmmat wrote: post #49

It's important to interpret these results carefully: "no evidence of efficacy" does not imply evidence of no efficacy, and in fact the uncertainty in this study is quite large. The sample size is small enough that it would be very hard for this study to detect the effect of hydroxychloroquine unless that effect is very, very large. From the abstract: > In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6%…

This is absolutely true. But the reason that a bland non-result is newsworthy is precisely because various public entities decided to treat the previous result as much more significant than it was. And it absolutely does serve as a refutation of that rhetoric.

And this we now have the opposite problem, where a potential option is treated like it has the legitimacy of crystal healing, depending on the political side you sit on.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#135

Post by t-writescode »

_y5hn wrote: post #40
AlexandrB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because HCQ’s efficacy was briefly endorsed by a controversial political figure I fear that there’s no evidence in either direction will convince the true believers. This is now a political issue, like global warming. Hopefully someone is ramping up production so availability improves for those that actually need it.

The science providing data is apolitical. It just takes its due time.

The amount of time it takes is where concerns are. It can take years or decades or centuries for science's evidence to have political impact.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#136

Post by hartator »

> documented SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring oxygen ≥ 2 L/min to emulate a target trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness of HCQ at 600 mg/day

Well hydroxychoroquine is only useful before ventilators are needed (it attacks the full lungs) and is actually detrimental - we know that - after by its nature.

What kind of bad science is this study where you actually push patients through a known dangerous path to try to prove the non efficiency of a potential treatment.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#137

Post by watwut »

muglug wrote: post #47
bretpiatt wrote: post #27

Lots of conflicting research happening[1], until we get multiple controlled trials we won't really know. Here's one that shows improvements. [1] French ~50 patient study that tried Control, Hydroxychloroquine, and Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin combo: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/hydroxychloroquine-an...

That study has been widely condemned as lacking any sort of rigour – the journal that published it has since issued a statement of concern around the methods. For example, their "control" group were just arbitrarily-chosen patients treated at different hospitals, not people treated in the same hospital as where the study was conducted.

If I recall right, they removed people who got worst and needed ICU from study. (Study was based on taking samples and since it was impossible to take samples, people did not counted.)

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#138

Post by wigl »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #102
capnrefsmmat wrote: post #49

It's important to interpret these results carefully: "no evidence of efficacy" does not imply evidence of no efficacy, and in fact the uncertainty in this study is quite large. The sample size is small enough that it would be very hard for this study to detect the effect of hydroxychloroquine unless that effect is very, very large. From the abstract: > In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6%…

> "no evidence of efficacy" does not imply evidence of no efficacy That's incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's just not proof of absence. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of...

The parent states:

> "no evidence of efficacy" does not imply evidence of no efficacy, and in fact the uncertainty in this study is quite large. The sample size is small enough that it would be very hard for this study to detect the effect of hydroxychloroquine unless that effect is very, very large.

What you're saying might be correct but misses the point of the parent (and perhaps statistics) completely.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#139

Post by mcguire »

While we're here,

"Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Treatment of Patients Infected with 2019-New Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2): A Review and Perspective" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7098036/)

Hey, it can't hurt and it might help. China has had one of the best recoveries from the pandemic.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#140

Post by vernie »

_ea1k wrote: post #71
AlexandrB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because HCQ’s efficacy was briefly endorsed by a controversial political figure I fear that there’s no evidence in either direction will convince the true believers. This is now a political issue, like global warming. Hopefully someone is ramping up production so availability improves for those that actually need it.

Imagine if Obama had "endorsed" Biden using the same language. Would you have considered it an endorsement? I find the interpretation of what he said to be very peculiar.

"But I think people should — if it were me — in fact, I might do it anyway. I may take it. Okay? I may take it."
Post reply on HN