[davem4616]

when I was diagnosed with a form or cancer that had no treatment other than surgical removal and had maybe an 11% chance I would have agreed to anything that was out there that could possibly help and give me hope...that was 30 years ago

If I come down with covid-19, I could care less about whether some preliminary French research study was right or wrong.....gimme the HCQ and help me fight this thing

[toeser]

I have read of multiple doctors (From France and the U.S.) claiming success with their treatment using hydroxychloroquine, but always in combination with other drugs. Zinc has been mentioned more than once as a combination treatment.

[Gramjan]

Originally Posted by Gramjan

Finally, the voice of reason......T.Y.

Finally, the Voice of Reason. T.Y., Momoh

[Nanny32162]

Originally Posted by blueash

I am not saying that HCQ with or without other therapeutics is of benefit or not. I am just reporting every study I can find.

This is from France. They looked back at the records from 4 hospitals of all patients who were ill enough to be admitted and required oxygen help, but not ICU ill at the time of admission. Then they analyzed the hospital course comparing those who did vs did not get HCQ. The patients were not randomized but the authors used the records to check whether the treated vs the untreated patients differed on admission in several ways.

Interestingly "All comorbidities were less frequent in the HCQ group." This would mean that the likelihood of progressing to severe illness would theoretically be higher in the NOT treated group as they had more comorbidities. The differences were trends, not significantly different.

84 patients received HCQ, 97 did not receive HCQ.


None of these are significant differences. See the article for full statistical analysis.

This study showed no benefit on any of the measures examined. This is limited to patients admitted with an oxygen requirement but not ICU ill on admission.

You can read the details HERE. Note this is pre-publication and not yet peer reviewed.

This is from The Hill
"The CIA advised employees that taking an anti-malarial drug that has been touted by President Trump and others as a potential treatment for coronavirus could have potentially dangerous side effects, including death, The Washington Post reported.

The warning was reportedly published on a website for CIA staff with questions related to the coronavirus pandemic late last month.

“At this point, the drug is not recommended to be used by patients except by medical professionals prescribing it as part of ongoing investigational studies. There are potentially significant side effects, including sudden cardiac death, associated with hydroxychloroquine and its individual use in patients need to be carefully selected and monitored by a health care professional,” read a response to an employee who asked whether they should take the drug without a prescription, according to the Post."

[croughwell]

Did you ready the actual studies or someone's interpretation?

[Byte1]

So, let me get this straight. If you are afflicted with a life threatening illness and someone offers you something that may or may not cure you, you will refuse it because it has not been certified as being 100% effective? Okkkkkk???

[Twiganne]

Here are my thoughts. If I am really sick with the virus, and before I crash and burn, I am asking my doctor for a prescription. I watched an interesting YouTube video yesterday by a pharmacist who explained the reason Zinc is given with the drug. The ions of both drugs are both charged and have positive and negative charges. The zinc was added added to open up the cells and allow the antiviral to actually enter the lung cells to be effective.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by skyking

So 47 is a "small study" but 181 is a statistically valid study. I knew my statistics professor was misinformed. Or is it if the findings agree with your position which make it relevant?

I don't actually understand the point you are making. Of course with a larger sample size it is easier to detect statistically significant differences. It is also easier to detect that sample groups do not differ significantly. Yes, 181 is greater than 47. Thus a study with 181 data points if looking at the same conditions, for the same outcomes, with the same variables... Will be a stronger study.

I do not have a position on whether or not HCQ works. I have made that clear over and over and over. I do have a position on whether it has been shown to beneficial in well conducted studies. It has not. Will it be shown to be beneficial in studies now ongoing. I don't know. I believe in the scientific method, not making judgement about efficacy by gut feeling.

So this particular retrospective chart review had enough numbers that its findings should be considered a possible refutation of extreme benefit of HCQ for Rx of Covid in the patient type studied. I did point out in my initial post that this is not peer reviewed nor published yet, as I have in I believe every study I have mentioned from the medrxiv.

I will continue to read the literature daily. I will continue to post updates to TOTV on both positive and negative outcomes. I will continue to point out what I believe are cautions to be considered in study design, patient selection, randomization, etc.

Some proponents of HCQ have claimed, as linked on TOTV, that they see nearly 100% recoveries with the drug given alone . Sometimes they claim it only works if given with azithromycin. Those two claims cannot both be true. Others claim that it doesn't work unless you give it with zinc. So that's three separate protocols each claiming a high rate of benefit, but 2 of the 3 saying the other two would fail. The "need zinc" guy says HCQ fails if taken alone or taken only with Zith. The "you need zith" guy says if you only add zinc to HCQ you have missed the needed booster.

This thread is about treating or not treating moderately ill hospitalized Covid patients with HCQ and seeing if it helped.

Interpretation
These results do not support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARS CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia.

If you want to discuss statistics I refer you back to the actual paper HERE in which the authors inform you of the statistical tools used in great detail.

"Statistical analysis
An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to “emulate” randomisation and balance the differences in baseline variables between treatment groups.10,11 A non-parsimonious multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to estimate each patient’s probability of receiving HCQ given their baseline covariates (i.e., the propensity score). Variables of the propensity score (PS) model were planned and prespecified before outcome analyses and included …." and it goes on for nearly an entire page.

The results section lists both relative risk [RR] AKA odds ratio and the confidence interval [CI] for each outcome measured. Please look at those statistics and let me know if the sample size in this study was large enough to produce useful numbers.

My statistics professor did a good job too. I don't think mine was misinformed.

Thanks for the info. They say it isn’t significant, meaning statistically significant. So it is possible the difference is margin of error or something else. But given they see it in all three measures, it would seem to indicate some benefit. I would imagine that those who did improve, or survived, consider it quite significant. BTW, they are also finding that some critical patients are actually having a sort of anti-body/cytokine storm in response to the virus that is causing critical issues. Treating with an immune damping drug has helped in those patients once they are identified. Hopefully this is another key factor they can look for and treat successfully. Emergency room doctor, near death with coronavirus, saved after experimental treatment

[GoodLife]

I will continue to post updates to TOTV on both positive and negative outcomes.

Sure you will. Your two threads on hydroxychloroquine

New study on Hydroxychloroquine for Covid: No benefit in non-critical hospitalized

New study on Hydroxychloroquine with Azithromycin, failure

I see a trend here.

[DonnaNi4os]

I am a lupus patient and have been on hydroxychloroquine for 18+ years. I have heard that the propensity to acquire COVID-19 is very low for patients who have been on it for a length of time. Other reports say I would still be at risk so I am taking the recommended precautions.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by toeser

I have read of multiple doctors (From France and the U.S.) claiming success with their treatment using hydroxychloroquine, but always in combination with other drugs. Zinc has been mentioned more than once as a combination treatment.

There have been claims that HCQ by itself is a miracle cure and thus does not need any other drug to work. There are those that say it is useless without zinc including a doctor whose proof of necessity was posted on TOTV

Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.

"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution." He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc.

This is completely contrary to what other users claim is needed. This is the kind of claim made for snake oil, not medicines. If he said that zinc may help in some cases, ok. But to say that HCQ with zinc has made very very ill patients symptom free in 12 hours is so contrary to your common sense that such snake oil salesmen shouldn't be on the news or be spouting uncorrected nonsense. You don't need a background in medicine to know what he said cannot be true or we wouldn't have any more very very ill patients as every doctor would be doing this alleged miracle treatment.

And interestingly the link provided in Goodlife's posting to the eyewitness news story does not have the 8 to 12 hour claim nor the only works with zinc claim and is full of advisories about how he has only given it to 5 patients in his practice and the other 90 all got better without treatment. Also that it should only be used on hospital level illness and is anecdotal and "first do no harm." There is no indication the article was edited on the website.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by DonnaNi4os

I am a lupus patient and have been on hydroxychloroquine for 18+ years. I have heard that the propensity to acquire COVID-19 is very low for patients who have been on it for a length of time. Other reports say I would still be at risk so I am taking the recommended precautions.

First, best wishes in managing your lupus. HCQ is an excellent well studied medication for lupus. As you certainly are aware it does not cure lupus rather it lowers disease severity. SLE makes you higher risk. Please follow the recommendations you have heard about hand washing, social distancing etc. Be safe. Do not assume your HCQ will protect you.

There have been some attempts to determine whether people on HCQ for lupus or other reasons have a decreased risk of illness from COVID. There is an online registry of patients with rheumatological diseases and COVID entering their own data, thus not a reliable resource. As of April 10 there are 234 patients. 29% of the COVID patients were on HCQ when they became ill.

April 4 2020 “They should look at the lupus thing. I don’t know what it says, but there’s a rumor out there that because it takes care of lupus very effectively as I understand it, and it’s a, you know, a drug that’s used for lupus,” ... said during the briefing. “So there’s a study out there that says people that have lupus haven’t been catching this virus. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not.”

This is an example of someone telling you he does not know what "it says" then spreads a "rumor" Then says there is "a study" then says maybe or maybe not. This not useful information and I understand why you have had a hard time figuring out what the person understands or is trying to say. In summary this is a rumor of the non-results of a non-existent study being stated as a non-fact by an imprecise barker. Argle bargle

There is no study out there I can find. Fact checkers have asked for evidence of the study from the above person, and not been provided with evidence.

[rrb48310]

Originally Posted by JP

Tom Hanks and his wife took it. Hmmm......

Did you see Tom Hanks wife, Rita, telling what she experienced? Nauseous and couldn’t walk. Did it help??? Point being let the studies play out, it’s been such a short time and the best of the best, and all the rest, worldwide are working on it.

[EVH234591]

I'm thinking you are probably right.