@sh76 saidYes, the study was in hospitalised patients. But there's no evidence for it's efficacy as a prophylactic drug (as far as I know). A vaccine is the really big promise and there's some in the pipeline. An interesting result is that current smokers have a hazard ratio of 0.88 (see the wow thread in science for the confidence interval and reference). For former smokers the hazard ratio is 1.25, so in the direction one would expect for current ones. The interesting thing to me is that it implies a protective effect for nicotine, which is a cholinergic agonist, which is consistent with a lot of the comorbidities, both asthma and kidney failure are treated with anti-cholinergics and they're risk factors. So it's at least plausible that it's not so much the comorbidity (which is never going to help) as the medication taken to treat the risk factor in combination with covid-19 that's the problem.
There is moderate to high quality evidence that hydroxychloroquine causes increased mortality in covid-19 patients.
=== Would you agree that this can be changed to "hospitalized covid-19 patients"?
Given that antivirals (like Tamiflu) typically work best early in the course of the disease (I'm no doctor, but I've been told by doctors not to bother with Tamiflu if ...[text shortened]... ouldn't the study be beside the point if you're testing the drug as a potential antiviral treatment?
I should add, my relevant background's doing some medical editing, I don't understand the theory behind all this, it's just a matter of understanding what Hazard Ratios mean and knowing the criteria for whether a study is good, moderate or low quality evidence. Phase III RCTs are the best with say 500 per group, massive cohort studies, provided they check for homogeneity within groups and report that properly also count as high quality evidence, ideally with a large effect size. Phase II RCTs where the group size is less than 100 (for a number, this isn't hard and fast and depends on things like effect size) and cohort studies where the study isn't huge are moderate quality evidence. Expert opinion and smaller cohort studies with problems are low quality evidence. One's always more skeptical of good news than bad - so evidence of benefits needs justifying more than evidence of harms. I'd be a lot more skeptical of benefits of chloroquine, or any other treatment, than I am of the apparent evidence of harms.
I've no objection to hydrochloroquine for use in the contexts in which it's proven.
It's been around for about 75 years and has been used on about a billion people with practically no known serious risk. A democrat politician here in the US had doctors prescribe hydrochloroquin to her father who was dying of COVID-19. He immediately improved, got better, and has survived it. She thanked Trump publicly for mentioning the drug because it prompted her to get it prescribed to her father. Immediately, because she gave Trump a hat-tip, the democrat party ostricized her, insulted her, and removed and disavowed her as a democrat. Does that seem like a reasonable reaction to someone who has just gone through a horrific trauma?
@tom-wolsey saidYes, Tom. The dems, anyway.
I just realized, I asked the wrong crowd that question. I'm sure a good many of you think she should be tossed in prison. Better yet, put to death. Am I right?
The dems want more death and longer draconian lockdowns. *Anything* to enmiserate America. They call that a "strategy".
So naturally, the Nazis are all over this HXQ being bad bad bad. Don't want no sunshine in here!
Happy posting, bud.
https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/V5_Revised_advisory_on_the_use_of_HCQ_SARS_CoV2_infection.pdf
1.3 Studies on prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection
A retrospective case-control analysis at ICMR has found that there is a significant dose- response relationship between the number of prophylactic doses taken and frequency of
Page 1 of 4
2.
occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic healthcare workers who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Another investigation from 3 central government hospitals in New Delhi indicates that amongst healthcare workers involved in COVID-19 care, those on HCQ prophylaxis were less likely to develop SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were not on it. The benefit was less pronounced in healthcare workers caring for a general patient population.
An observational prospective study of 334 healthcare workers at AIIMS, out of which 248 took HCQ prophylaxis (median 6 weeks of follow up) in New Delhi also showed that those taking HCQ prophylaxis had lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than those not taking it.
@earl-of-trumps saidContrary to your ignorant accusation, Democrats do not want more people to die. They don't call it a strategy.
Yes, Tom. The dems, anyway.
The dems want more death and longer draconian lockdowns. *Anything* to enmiserate America. They call that a "strategy".
So naturally, the Nazis are all over this HXQ being bad bad bad. Don't want no sunshine in here!
Happy posting, bud.
@sonhouse saidYou do know that listening to you turned them into Trumpites right.
@sh76
Thanks for the analysis. Keyboard warriors, Good one🙂 I am agnostic on this, just want the truth.
But I'll say this: My sister and mother are both Trumpites.
And I called her the other day and asked her about HCQ and she said, I don't have so I won't take it. BUT She said ( I assume because Trump said to use it) that she WOULD use it if she got sick.
Considering her source of news is basically 100% Fox, then it is because of Trump she would consider it.
@handyandy saidI'm just telling you right now, HA, if Trump never said a word about hydroxycloroquine you'd never hear one word of complaint about it from the dems. Nudda.
Contrary to your ignorant accusation, Democrats do not want more people to die. They don't call it a strategy.
@earl-of-trumps saidNever mind the sideshow, Democrats do not want more innocent victims to die.
I'm just telling you right now, HA, if Trump never said a word about hydroxycloroquine you'd never hear one word of complaint about it from the dems. Nudda.
- Joined
- 09 Sep 18
- Moves
- 20590
@tom-wolsey saidhe got better/ no imperical proof that plaquinel (HCC) helped or cured , purely anecdotal.
It's been around for about 75 years and has been used on about a billion people with practically no known serious risk. A democrat politician here in the US had doctors prescribe hydrochloroquin to her father who was dying of COVID-19. He immediately improved, got better, and has survived it. She thanked Trump publicly for mentioning the drug because it prompted her to ...[text shortened]... . Does that seem like a reasonable reaction to someone who has just gone through a horrific trauma?