Posted on 05/08/2020 10:27:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Clinicians from two hospitals in Boston report that the majority of even the sickest patients with COVID-19—those who require ventilators in intensive care units—get better when they receive existing guideline-supported treatment for respiratory failure. The clinicians, who are from Massachusetts General Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, published their findings in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals around the world have shared anecdotal experiences to help inform the care of affected patients, but such anecdotes do not always reveal the best treatment strategies, and they can even lead to harm. To provide more reliable information, a team led by C. Corey Hardin, MD, PhD, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, carefully examined the records of 66 critically ill patients with COVID-19 who experienced respiratory failure and were put on ventilators, making note of their responses to the care they received.
The investigators found that the most severe cases of COVID-19 result in a syndrome called Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition that can be caused by a wide range of pathogens. “The good news is we have been studying ARDS for over 50 years and we have a number of effective evidenced-based therapies with which to treat it,” said Dr. Hardin. “We applied these treatments—such as prone ventilation where patients are turned onto their stomachs—to patients in our study and they responded to them as we would expect patients with ARDS to respond.”
Importantly, the death rate among critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated this way—16.7%—was not nearly as high as has been reported by other hospitals. Also, over a median follow-up of 34 days, 75.8% of patients who were on ventilators were discharged from the intensive care unit. “Based on this, we recommend that clinicians provide evidence-based ARDS treatments to patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and await standardized clinical trials before contemplating novel therapies,” said co–lead author Jehan Alladina, MD, an Instructor in Medicine at Mass General.
Paper cited: Ziehr DR, Alladina J, Petri CR, et al. Respiratory Pathophysiology of Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19: A Cohort Study [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 29]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;10.1164/rccm.202004-1163LE. doi:10.1164/rccm.202004-1163LE
About Massachusetts General Hospital
Massachusetts General Hospital, founded in 1811, is the original and largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. The Mass General Research Institute conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the nation, with annual research operations of more than $1 billion and comprises more than 9,500 researchers working across more than 30 institutes, centers and departments. In August 2019, Mass General was named #2 in the U.S. News & World Report list of "America’s Best Hospitals."
Standard treatment = Anything but HCQ
Looks like a good article /in before the Plandemikers...
So let me re-state the three essentials: : PREVENTION, PREVENTION, PREVENTION.
“Based on this, we recommend that clinicians provide evidence-based ARDS treatments to patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and await standardized clinical trials before contemplating novel therapies,” said co–lead author Jehan Alladina, MD, an Instructor in Medicine at Mass General.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words do not employ Hydroxy Chloroquine, Azithromycin along with Zinc vitamin, a treatment that the American Board of Surgeons have indicated is 97% successful.
Jehan Alladina is a public health asshole. Period.What he is saying is inhumane.
This is no time now for the unethical organization of clinical trials which give infected patients placebos instead of the successful therapy.
Doctors who violate there Hippocratic oath are not doctors.
According to the CDC 1.3 million people worldwide have recovered from Covid-19, almost 200,000 of those in the U.S. alone. How many received HCQ and how many did not?
RE: So let me re-state the three essentials: : PREVENTION, PREVENTION, PREVENTION.
And where can we find Doctors who are willing to prescribe these off label and outside of a hospital setting with the FDA and the CDC discouraging it, and the media attacking it as ineffective no end?
RE: According to the CDC 1.3 million people worldwide have recovered from Covid-19
And how many have been infected and how many cases are still active?
RE: According to the CDC 1.3 million people worldwide have recovered from Covid-19
Also, how many are infected BUT asymptomatic? I know of two in their forties here in NY who are asymptomatic but infected their mothers.
Study finds that most people (5 out of 6) who play Russian Roulette survive.
My question to the doc who says we should try older methods first- why can’t BOTH be tried at the same time? Unless it would interfere with the older methods? If it wouldn’t- then throw the kitchen sink at the problem- use whatever weapons we have for best possible outcomes- you go to war with the weapons you have- not with weapons that are promised or are way out on the horizon
[[How many received HCQ and how many did not?]]
That’s a very important question and IF Fox News were a real news station- they would investigate this question and be giving the results on the news nightly-
But they have likely been told to shut up about HCQ success-
liability issues:
ReveilleIn reply to OldArmy71 • 10:06a, 5/3/20AG
OldArmy71 said:
Dr. Coates, something I have wanted to ask since the newest FDA directive came out about the hydroxy.
Can physicians still prescribe it to people in their private practice, people not in the hospital or enrolled in a study?
Thank you for all you are doing for your patients and for us!
I met with a group of doctors last Friday night in a zoom call. We all decided that we are getting good results and will continue. So I had a medical lawyer draw me up a consent to use.
Absent far more extensive testing than we're doing now we will never know the answer to that.
I mean, they can do both. I have no doubt we have better treatment than China and some european countries.
But it is also helpful to get people out of hospitals quicker, and so if a medication can do that, or if it can prevent people from getting to the point where they need a ventilator, why not?
I am beginning to think that HCQ is not particularly effective when given to people already in critical care. But that a lot of these people get better with treatment, so giving then HCQ, and then focusing on their treatment, makes it look like HCQ might be helping, when it is just the extra care and treatment they are getting, that China didn’t give and other countries didn’t give.
And that doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t own stock in HCQ, Trump never said “HCQ is my cure”, so it is not an attack on Trump if it turns out HCQ is less helpful than it looked.
What is sad is how many people seem happy when we find a treatment isn’t as good as we hoped, and seem to hate when people try to find hope at all.
I’ve been listening the last few days and haven’t heard them mentioning it anymore- But I’m not listening to the night shows- so perhaps they are- But all I’m hearing on fox now is how wonderful Remsidiver is- and how much promise it is showing despite only hastening the recovery 33% faster compared to HCQ which hastens recovery 66% fast
And of course now they are on the flynn thing, and Tara reed thing- so maybe that has to do with lack of HCQ during day mentions-
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.