Posted on 05/01/2020 3:43:23 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy
Introduction
We are currently facing a pandemic involving a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) which putting our societies to the test in many ways. Despite controversy, only two drugs, namely hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ), have been used by physicians on a large-scale basis as treatment forCOVID-19 [1]. According to the Sermo Real Time Covid-19 Barometer (https://www.sermo.com/, consulted 20 April), for over 20,000 physicians across 30 countries, chloroquine derivatives are the first medication used to treat COVID-19 patients in ICUs (67%), the second medication in other hospital settings (66%),and the third in outpatient settings (40%). While many countries recommend it for treating COVID-19, certain Western countries do not (https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/coronavirus-pays-ou-lhydroxychloroquine-est-recommandee/). It is therefore urgent to evaluate the efficacy of these medications against clinical, biological, radiological and virological outcomes of the disease.
A large number of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) aimed at challenging the antiviral action of the two drugs against a placebo or other potentially active drugs are ongoing. Some of these studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals or released as pre-prints on various websites [2-5]. In this paper, we present the conclusions of a preliminary meta-analysis addressing this issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediterranee-infection.comhttps: ...
Figure 1:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Capture-d%E2%80%99e%CC%81cran-2020-04-30-a%CC%80-14.28.32.png
Figure 2:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Capture-d%E2%80%99e%CC%81cran-2020-04-30-a%CC%80-14.28.14.png
Supplementary dataset:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/the-efficacy-of-chloroquine-derivatives-in-covid-19-a-meta-analysis-based-on-the-first-available-reports/
When considering all ten included studies (Figure 1, Table S2), chloroquine derivatives were associated with a lower need for hospitalisation (n = 1, Odds ratio (OR) 0.35, p = .024), shorter duration of cough (n = 1, OR 0.13, p = .001), shorter duration of fever (n = 1, OR 0.14, p = .001), decreased C-reactive protein level (n = 1, OR 0.55, p = .045), and increased hospital discharge (n = 1, 67OR 0.05, p =.050).
CQ derivatives were associated with a beneficial effect (OR < 1) for 11 of the 12 outcomes analysed (Figure 1). Of the comparisons made, 19 were favourable (Table S1).
Accordingly, the two-sided sign-test p-value was 0.015. The fatality rate was analysed in two studies with an opposite direction of effect. The study reporting an increased fatality rate was suspected of scientific misconduct (patientsweresignificantly more severe in the treated group [7]). No significant negative effect was observed.
Outlawed in 1/3 of US States, unless used in Hospital as a last resort, in which case, it does nothing. The most important thing here is orange man bad
I take zinc suplements. The derivatives I use to get the zinc into my cells are coffee, green tea, and quinine (via tonic water).
I’m not only not the least bit worried about dying or becoming seriously ill from this virus, but I suspect I’m less likely to get the “regular” flu too. I’m 66.
Where’s the zinc and Vit C?
I take zinc suplements. The derivatives I use to get the zinc into my cells are coffee, green tea, and quinine (via tonic water).
I’m not only not the least bit worried about dying or becoming seriously ill from this virus, but I suspect I’m less likely to get the “regular” flu too. I’m 66.
This predates the virus outbreak: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181102083430.htm
>> certain Western countries do not
Comcast behind that agenda
It has been suggested that ventilators have done more harm than good, at least in some cases. Did the medical bureaucracy ever suggest doing a controlled study on their use for CV?
gloBULL warming writer, Charis Chang of news.com.au, naturally doesn’t like hydroxy...
brings up the ridiculous VA study:
VIDEO: 30 Apr: Weekly Times: Why Australia’s stockpile of hydroxychloroquine may not be useful in fighting COVID-19
by Charis Chang, news.com.au
Australia has a huge stockpile of a new “game changer” drug that may help treat COVID-19 patients — thanks to mining magnate Clive Palmer — but unfortunately it’s not the drug that appears the most promising in research so far.
Mr Palmer bought 32.9 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to treat Australians for free after the drug was spruiked as a “game changer” in treating COVID-19 by US President Donald Trump.
According to The Guardian, the Australia’s Federal Government confirmed Mr Palmer had a “written arrangement” to buy the drug for the national medical stockpile.
“I’ve done this for Australians – it’s my money, I took the risk,” Mr Palmer told Sunrise.
That risk doesn’t seem to be paying off so far with a study released last week in the United States casting doubt on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine after finding that patients who were given the drug were at a higher risk of death than those who didn’t get it.
This is in contrast to preliminary research about a different drug called remdesivir, used to treat ebola, which does appear to be successful in treating COVID-19 and shortening the time to recovery.
America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci said on Wednesday that the results on remdesivir were so promising there was an “ethical obligation to immediately let the placebo group know so they can have access”.
Unfortunately studies in Australia are focusing on hydroxychloroquine as a potential cure instead of remdesivir.
About 2500 Australian and New Zealand patients are expected to be given hydroxychloroquine as part of the Australasian COVID-19 Trial (ASCOT) study, which is being led by the Doherty Institute in Melbourne.
The trial will test the effectiveness of using hydroxychloroquine alone, as well as in combination with HIV drugs lopinavir/ritonavir in treating the coronavirus.
More than 70 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand were expected to participate in the ASCOT trial.
Frontline health care workers will also be given hydroxychloroquine as part of a separate study to assess whether it helps prevent COVID-19, and critically ill patients in the Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital will be given the drug as part of their standard treatment to look at how much of the medicine is needed to make it effective...
https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/why-australias-stockpile-of-hydroxychloroquine-may-not-be-useful-in-fighting-covid19/news-story/4b35587772b1494b8aa295ffa88b0036
I have been and always will be skeptical of “meta-analysis” of studies - especially medical ones.
That said this is interesting.
From the article: “That risk doesn’t seem to be paying off so far with a study released last week in the United States casting doubt on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine after finding that patients who were given the drug were at a higher risk of death than those who didn’t get it.”
Very poorly written. Does that mean that only those patients given the drug were at a higher risk of death? Or, does it mean that those patients given the drug died at a higher rate because of the drug?
That US study was not a real study at all. And, yes, the HCQ patients were much sicker and given the HCQ as a last resort.
(Sorry, I don’t have time to find the relevant links.)
I agree that one must be very careful with meta-studies, but the fact that the results point in one direction only indicates that HCQ is effective, at least if given early enough.
That’s my take away also. Early is the key.
Glad I saw your post. Exactly what I was going to ask. Damned “statistics”...
The patients in that study were all men, age over 65, they got very high doses of the drug ( far more than seen on other published treatment plans) and did not get zinc.
Almost as if the study was set up to fail.
The vets who died were sacrificed for an agenda that demands vaccine, not treatment
Just released Italian study on 65,000 people using hydroxy long term for lupus and arthritis.
20 cases of virus, no icu, no deaths.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/media-lied-people-died-italian-study-finds-incredible-prophylaxis-results-patients-hydroxychloroquine/
But the other-than-last-resort patients mostly recover without treatment.
So, for an HCQ study to show an effect on survival, in a group with a high pre-therapy survival probability, you would need to test thousands of people in an HCQ arm and thousands more in either a placebo arm or alternate Rx arm.
Saying people treated early with HCQ do well is saying, basically, nothing. The original HCQ claim from Marseille was clinical improvement in 79/80 patients with one death. That’s a mortality of 1.25%, which is probably close to the mortality of 80 untreated, not too sick people.
Enthusiasm for HCQ is declining everywhere it has been widely used in hospitalized patients. And, as I said, saying it confers 98.75% survival on groups of minimally ill outpatients is probably saying it’s the same as chicken soup.
The ambiguity of the efficacity of the drug was intentional. “Damning with faint praise” is a recognized means of dismissing certain points of contention, and the objective is to get the relatively cheap treatment off the table, to make way for the more expensive and even more uncertain outcome, so as to prolong the crisis even longer, not “flattening” the curve, but extending it out to the horizon.
Command-and-control mindsets NEVER want the problem to be solved. They would much rather have the issue than the resolution, and this is why Donald Trump represents such a threat to them. He cuts right to the chase and eliminates the problem, sometimes in an ingenious and highly satisfactory manner.
But the mortality in the second French study (1061 patients) was 0.47%, and presently the IHU-Mediterrannee Infection is reporting 15 fatalities in 3181 patients treated for more than 3 days with HCQ/AZ, which is still a mortality rate of 0.47%.
Patients not treated with HCQ in other hospitals in the Mareille area: 128 deaths in 4763 cases.
Given the same proportion of fatalities as in the non-HCQ cohort one would have expected more than 85 deaths in the HCQ treated patients.
This is a highly significant difference, p < 0.0002.
Sorry, it should be “the third French study”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.