Posted on 04/16/2020 8:03:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A just-reported Chinese study compares the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine with those of patients receiving standard of care. The results, alas, are disappointing.
I summarized that study in my roundup yesterday of COVID-19 therapeutic research, pointing out that this randomized controlled trial of 150 patients "found no difference in the rate of viral load reduction or symptom alleviation between the group treated with hydroxychloroquine and the one that had not been." Now the University of Vermont pulmonologist Josh Farkas has published his own analysis of the results, delving more deeply into the data.
The patients in both arms of the study were well-matched demographically and clinically, Farkas notes. Most suffered relatively mild cases of the disease, and treatment was initiated fairly late—about 16 to 17 days after disease onset. Twenty-eight days into the trial, the researchers found essentially no difference between the two cohorts with respect to the percent of patients in which the virus was undetectable.
Farkas adds:
This endpoint most directly addresses the question: does hydroxychloroquine exert anti-viral activity in vivo? The answer seems to be: nope. Even if the drug were administered too late to affect the clinical course of the infection, if it exerted any anti-viral activity then we might expect to see that effect here. If anything, there might be a trend towards delayed viral clearance in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The study also found that fever and respiratory symptoms did not abate any faster in patients who had been treated with hydroxychloroquine.
Farkas acknowledges the study's limits, including its small size and that the researchers were not blinded—that is, they knew which patients were being given the treatment. "Nonetheless," he says, "this study currently represents the highest available quality of evidence regarding hydroxychloroquine."
"For now, the best available evidence does not support the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19," Farkas concludes. "It seems prudent to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine to randomized controlled studies for the time being." He does acknowledge that future studies in which COVID-19 patients are treated earlier in the course of their infections may yet find that hydroxychloroquine offers some therapeutic benefits. Fingers crossed.
(2) Start treatment late.
(3) No azithromycin.
(4) No zinc.
Yes, that should give the MSM the headline they are looking for.
This is our absolute guarantee that the treatment is premium grade number 1 1st order of success!!!
China and the democrats are birds of a feather.
They are both liars to the very core will do anything to advance the despotic power of their own party. Both are the party of death neither of them will admit it.
This is not a critique on the original poster. He is just the messenger.
Ok, digging into the study, even taking into account the weaknesses described by other posters, it did show a difference in alleviating symptoms in the hcq group which did not receive other antivirals.
Also showed reductions in inflammatory markers (crp).
Also- given that only 1% of the study participants had what was considered a serious case of the illness, neither group had any deaths(at least I couldn’t find a report of any in the outcomes), so we can’t compare mortality rates.
I could design and perform better studies as an undergrad- and could certainly draw more accurate conclusions. Pretty weak tea.
"Abstract:
"Abstract Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus standard-of-care (SOC) compared with SOC alone in adult patients with COVID-19."
Standard of care definition from Medicine net:
"In legal terms, the level at which the average, prudent provider in a given community would practice. It is how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed the patient's care under the same or similar circumstances. The medical malpractice plaintiff must establish the appropriate standard of care and demonstrate that the standard of care has been breached."
Comment from site by "Stef Verlinden":
"Please study the paper thorougly before jumping to conclusions. Standard of care means that (most of the) patients were also treated with lopinavir-ritonavir, arbidol, oseltamivir, virazole, entecavir, ganciclovir and/or interferon-alpha.
"The authors also did a post-hoc subanalyses with patients who did not get other medications other than HCQ in the treatment group or nothing in the SOC group. And, for what it is worth, here they found ‘a significant efficacy of HCQ on alleviating symptoms’.
"What also could be of interest is that patients treated with HCQ showed a significantly higher reduction of CRP. One of the proposed MOA for HCQ is an anti-inflammatory one.
"All in all a very weak study from which not much can be concluded"
Did they include zinc, or did they just use HCQ?
That said, this is why you run trials. You’d think if the effect was truly dramatic that you’d not be seeing the late-cycle surges in deaths to such an extent.
Still more testing to go.
1% of the study participants
Reason + Chinese Study = FAKE NEWS, FAKE STUDY
No mention of Zinc...how dumb is the author? Plus an antibiotic like doxy must be used. Maybe it was just the dumb Chinese. My opinion of their national IQ has plummeted. The bio lab the virus escaped from was not run up to standards.
Then the Chicom scum said to Wuhan citizens-— You want out for a while? Then fly out of your international airport because you are under quarantine. You cannot travel in China.
Zinc kills the virus not HCQ they didn't give them any. The study was looking to see if HCQ killed the virus. My brain hurts trying to understand what they where trying to accomplish with this study
It looks like Chinese disinformation. The article did not mention HCQ being administered with complementary drugs like zinc. HCQ alone does not seem to do much.
Why would they just use HCQ alone when it is already known that it is much less effective?
Yep - and a Chinese study that claims there’s a “standard of care” that’s better...
Zinc may be inhibiting the iron from damaged hemoglobin packets from competing with regular blood cells for oxygen much in the same way that zinc inhibits iron from rusting due to the galvanizing process.
They initially assessed 191 patients- so 2 people.
It looks like Chinese disinformation. The article did not mention HCQ being administered with complementary drugs like zinc. HCQ alone does not seem to do much.
Why would they just use HCQ alone when it is already known that it is much less effective?
Thanks for your explanation regarding BCG and HCQ as it applies to this study.
Just curious, who is Adam Danischewski?
Thanks for the correction.
Still so small it renders the results pretty meaningless other than not showing a strong sign of making things worse. Not sure why they bothered.
Adam Danischewski was a poster in the thread. He made a very good point which I thought I would state where I read it.
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.