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.
Is there a source for this claim?
Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
161–170 of 379 posts
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#162Personally I'm witholding judgment until the results of the PATCH trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329923 ) arrive, as it'll finally give us some decent statistical power, and be a full, double-blind RCT. It also has multiple study arms (health-care worker prophylaxis, home-quarantined early stage, hospitalized later-stage), so if it turns out that HCQ is effective but that by the time patients are ho…
Yeah, the devil is really in the details about exactly when and how you administer it. Doctors are already saying that it's definitely no magic bullet, but they debate whether it is effective at a certain stage of illness. What I don't understand is why we're focusing so much on this specific drug when there are some great antivirals out thee that have a more effective theoretical mechanism of action. (eg Remdesivir)
They always were saying it wasn't magic bullet, but some people did not keep the context and started to spread only part of the story.
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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."
Biden "may work, then again, [...] may not work." - Is that an endorsement?
You're omitting the base rate.
The base rate probability for an arbitrary drug to treat a disease with no treatments is probably extremely low, By contrast, the base rate for a former Senator doing an okay job with the Presidency is probably in the range 20-80%. Suggesting that Biden would do as well as any other former Senator (may or may not) is not an endorsement, but suggesting he would do much better than the base rate is definitely an endorsement.
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#164> 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…
>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.
I’m worried that this has totally left the realm of science and is just pure politics... there is no evidence for a ‘magic window’ for HCQ in COVID-19 treatment, or any solid evidence of a positive role.
Secondly, having supplemental oxygen is not the same as being on a ventilator. I imagine most hospitalized COVID patients need oxygen (otherwise, they could be managed at home).
I hope we all avoid making comments (or even accepting comments) about medicine without either critical, independent study or background knowledge.
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#165Wow, several HCQ stories on the front page. Means it's probably going to be proven effective soon.
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then what happens next time? Why spend all the time and effort, only to have what you did nationalized? Incentivizing people to not do productive things like develop drugs seems like a really bad idea.
I used to agree with you. Then I realized that drug companies spend more on lawyers than scientists.
This isn’t even remotely close to true. 0.67% on legal[1] versus 17% on R&D[2].
[1] https://ccbjournal.com/articles/benchmark-metrics-pharma-com... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060115/how-much-dru...
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#167And 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.
Is there a source for this claim?
There were lots of newspaper articles a few weeks ago about lupus patients struggling to access HCQ. Eg: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/opinion/coronavirus-hydro... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/13/how-false...
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#168And 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)…
Then why are lupus patients struggling to get HCQ right now?
Sure in the long run it may be relatively easy to manufacture enough HCQ. But right now stocks are running extremely low because people are trying to use it for COVID without any scientific basis.
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump said positive things about it. The left wants Trump to be wrong about everything, so wants this it to fail. The right wants Trump to be right about everything, so wants it to work.
I seriously doubt anyone on the planet right now (short of being deranged) wants a treatment not to work. I understand wanting to chastise Trump for being exaggerated and reckless about an unproven treatment, but wanting it not to work? That can't be true.
A proven successful use of this drug would be very inconvenient for multiple media outlets who jumped at the (described as) unfounded claim. It would mean that either (a) the authorities had more information than they did, or that (b) the authorities bet successfully with the same amount of information, which doesn't align with their constant reporting of idiocy.
Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rest of the statistics: " In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21 events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.80). " And... " Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation. "
Wouldn’t ecg changes be plausibly the result of the virus itself? I haven’t read the paper so maybe they go into greater detail but it would be important to know whether such changes were seen in the control group as attrition/discontinuance is critically important to any study.
I imagine this question would be sorted out by looking at the control group.