Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine

[JapaneseKappa]

Proponents have never said it was effective in severe cases that require hospitalizing. Use it earlier in the disease cycle (with zinc) and prevent hospitalization. Study results lean positive in this application, though nothing profound.

From the article I posted right above that one:

WASHINGTON: The malaria drug promoted by US President Donald Trump as a treatment for COVID-19 was ineffective in preventing infection in people exposed to the coronavirus, according to a widely anticipated clinical trial released on Wednesday (Jun 3).

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

This trial isn’t that conclusive.

First, this was a test of the prophylactic effect of HCQ to prevent developing the symptoms. Not a test of the treatment effect of HCQ once the symptoms are developed. So the study concluded that as a prophylactic, it isn’t much good. But that said nothing about the treatment effect which is significant as I’ll explain below.

Second, there was a 17% reduction in the number people who developed Covid-19 symptoms as compared to the placebo, but that result was considered statistical noise with no further explanation. Further, there is no breakout by age or by comorbidities of either group. Only that many came from “high risk” households.

Third, only 20% of those who took HCQ also took zinc. It was claimed without numbers that the result was statistically indistinguishable. Again without further explanation. The protocol by every positive article on HCQ has included zinc; why do these trials appear to not attempt to replicate those studies’ treatment protocols?

Fourth, there is this paragraph from the CNA article:

In the University of Minnesota trial, 40 per cent of those who took hydroxychloroquine reported less serious side effects like nausea and abdominal discomfort versus 17 per cent in the placebo group.

I would suggest this is significant in that less severe symptoms should reduce the likelihood of ICU placement. After all the point is to keep patients out of the ICU, then their chances of survival are much higher.

I would like to have seen a breakdown of the test populations by comorbidities known to be associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. Very few die of Covid-19 with no comorbidities at all and that has been supported by data for months now. So why not a trial that specifically includes the comorbidities?

Conclusion: HCQ likely doesn’t have much prophylactic effect for people with no comorbidities. Healthy people are mostly going to beat this, HCQ or no. But further study should be looking specifically at people with comorbidities. Also most studies have been looking at treatment, not at prophylaxis as this one did. Need more trials to look at the problem areas.

 

[Cathoholic]

JapaneseKappa’s article . . .

. . there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with . . .

JapaneseKappa. I have already explained WHY patients such as these are poor candidates for HCQ (with the exception of those with a cytokine storm).

Would you mind explaining the physiology of WHY you would EXPECT little or no benefit with LATE disease corona virus patients?

I just want to make sure you have processed what I have already posted with references.

This changes nothing with regards to early intervention treatment, post-exposure prophylaxis, and certain other candidates all brought out on these forums before.

 

[Cathoholic]

Some people out in the real world are upset that hydroxychloroquine intervention has been so successful in certain selected patients.

This is a bad attitude and suggests politics over people.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I would suggest this is significant in that less severe symptoms should reduce the likelihood of ICU placement. After all the point is to keep patients out of the ICU, then their chances of survival are much higher.

That statement does say that the HCQ group had less serious coronavirus symptoms, but that they had a higher incidence of side effects from treatment, which were not serious. The article is poorly worded, but you can see the original paper says:

Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.