France, Italy, Belgium stop hydroxychloroquine use for Covid-19 on safety fears

Post by dehrmann » Wed, May 27, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

acallaghan wrote: post #20

lbeltrame wrote: post #2

A shame, since the Lancet paper has problems[1][2] in particular related to the baseline of the HCQ-treated vs non-HCQ treated patients. And by admission of the authors themselves, it is not a substitute of a RCT. And this before the results of the Minnesota trial are out. At this point I hope those are negative, so that it does not show that countries are overreacting. [1] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020…

If it had any effect on covid-19, it'd be very obvious by now. There isn't some massive conspiracy here, it just doesn't work. The reason trials have stopped is because France, Italy, Belgium & the UK have seen worse outcomes generally, directly because of it. I don't get the 'it needs to be taken before symptoms!' argument - like we can possibly give a immunosuppressant with non-negligible side-effects (e.g. arrythm…

Post by vharuck » Wed, May 27, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #50

frenchyatwork wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting we should give drugs to people regardless of the fact that the randomized controlled trials say that the drug doesn't provide any significant benefit. Giving widespread ASA to a population that wouldn't benefit from it would be a bad idea.

Well I am personally in favour of doing randomized control trials, not to cancel them based on what appear to be a weak statistical analysis. There was an argument to not wait at the peak of the epidemic rather than not treating (and some of these trials are only starting, which baffles me). But these trials should have been done from the outset. Doctors in the heat of the moment cannot wait for a randomized trial. T…

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #34

lbeltrame wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not before symptoms, but after exposure, or early on during the course of the disease, like other antivirals. I reinstate, before people think I'm some sort of HCQ defender: I am not. The effect size is probably very small. It may be as well that it doesn't work, and I would be happy even if it doesn't. I just want to see a proper RCT done and sealed.

You're not unique in wanting an RCT, but the decisions can't wait. On currently-available evidence , the balance of risks is to not prescribe this drug for treatment of C19.

Post by lbeltrame » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

Yoric wrote: post #57

lbeltrame wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, there is hope that a definitive answer will come out (at this point, given how politicized the discourse is, any answer in either direction willl be fine). FTR, the U of Minnesota trials used normal dosages and (according to its PI) did not report any cardiotoxicity so far.

Did they report any improvement?

Post by cm2187 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #63

cm2187 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I am personally in favour of doing randomized control trials, not to cancel them based on what appear to be a weak statistical analysis. There was an argument to not wait at the peak of the epidemic rather than not treating (and some of these trials are only starting, which baffles me). But these trials should have been done from the outset. Doctors in the heat of the moment cannot wait for a randomized trial. T…

According to most of the countries mentioned in the article, trials of HCQ are still going on. The WHO put its trial on pause. Other countries are just stopping the use of HCQ outside of approved trials.