Posted on 04/01/2020 10:36:11 PM PDT by rintintin
A study released today supports the use of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19.
The relatively small trial conducted in China included 62 patients positively identified with the COVID-19 disease. All of the 31 patients given HCQ experienced improvements in cough, fever and pneumonia as compared with the 31 patients that did not receive the drug.
“Despite our small number of cases, the potential of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 has been partially confirmed,” said the authors of the study, which was published on medRxiv, an online server for medical papers. “Considering there is no better option at present, it is a promising practice to apply HCQ to COVID-19 (patients) under reasonable management.”
The authors specified “partially confirmed” to allow for “large scale clinical and basic research” to confirm their findings.
The results of this study are “going to send a ripple of excitement out through the treating community,” Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, told the New York Times. “I think it will reinforce the inclination of many people across the country who are not in a position to enter their patients into clinical trials but have already begun using hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at physiciansnews.com ...
Paging Dr Fauci. Get your head out of your “anecdotal”
An now we all fren. You buy from me
This must really grate on people to infer something positive about this treatment. Amazing. Trump suggests something, and because, just simply “because” Trump was the one who uttered the words it (the treatment) must be ridiculed at all cost. There are no appropriate words in the English language to adequately explain this level of asinine stupidity.
The media has done everything and pulled every trick to make sure no one ever tries this treatment protocol. Likely several thousand deaths that could have been prevented had the media not pulled out all the stops to intimidate anyone who would dare use or promote its use.
Despicable. Media people have sullied the word “journalist” so that forever it will be a curse word.
OK but how many of the placebo group also improved?
Omitting a critically important data point.
Journalism sucks.
Good results against the control group. TTCR = Total Time to Clinical Recovery.
But for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were significantly shortened in the HCQ treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 32) compared with the control group (54.8%, 17 of 32). Notably, all 4 patients progressed to severe illness that occurred in the control group. However, there were 2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group. Significance: Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia.
Just to make it clear: 4 patients of the 62 patients in the study progressed to severe illness. All four were found in the control group that did not receive HCQ. That is not quite a significant difference (Fischer’s exact test, one sided = 0.056) but certainly an indication that HCQ may be protective against severe disease.
How about "IRREPARABLE DUMBA$$ES!"
There is no need for this. The Editors of the NEJM have fought their way professionally to those leadership positions and have received the nation’s trust in agreeing to occupy those offices. They have been the “stewards” of this nation’s profession of Medicine for over 200 years. Yes, or no. At this time they OWE this country’s doctors an answer. It’s called “leadership”.
Your confidence in the New England Journal of Medicine is as quaint as it is misplaced; sadly it is not the honest broker it once was.
Dr. Faucet won’t be convinced, because it isn’t a vaccine and it’s off-patent. Vaccines are where the money is.
Only 4 in the Control got worse? ANECDOTAL. Your Main Street economy starts only when we vaccinate everyone - maybe next summer. Go back to your houses.
- Elites
62 is NOT a small number. Remember, the largest percent increase in knowledge from testing comes when your sample size rises from zero to one.
I have been involved in testing and analyzing test data since my engineering career started 54 years ago at an automobile proving ground. Believe me, a sample size of 62 is NOT a small number. Many, if not most, important decisions are made from sample sizes much smaller than that.
I have a healthy regard for statisticians, but also have reservations. I once managed a department that included a group of statisticians. The only decisive statement I have ever heard from a statistician has been "we need more data".
Doctors have conflicting regard for statistics. They must make life-or-death decisions on a daily basis, and almost all of those decisions are based on a sample size of one - the patient. If they started second guessing themselves over these decisions, they would almost all go crazy after the first week of their careers. Yet these same doctors consider a sample size of 62 "too small" in a clinical trial. - Nonsense!
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.