Peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations with early treatment

[NightHawkeye]

From the "Don't expect critics to admit they were wrong about it" files: "Peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations among early treated outpatients

The anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has been the subject of intense public debate after President Donald Trump championed it as a potential "game changer" in March just after the onset of the pandemic.
...
Zelenko and his co-authors claim that their research differentiates itself from other studies that have shown mixed or negative results for hydroxychloroquine by focusing on outpatients treated at an early stage of the disease.
...
"What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on," Derwand said in a news release about the study.
...
"This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms," Scholz added. "The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc.​

 

[CitizenD]

From the "Don't expect critics to admit they were wrong about it" files: "Peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations among early treated outpatients

The anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has been the subject of intense public debate after President Donald Trump championed it as a potential "game changer" in March just after the onset of the pandemic.
...
Zelenko and his co-authors claim that their research differentiates itself from other studies that have shown mixed or negative results for hydroxychloroquine by focusing on outpatients treated at an early stage of the disease.
...
"What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on," Derwand said in a news release about the study.
...
"This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms," Scholz added. "The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc.​

Trump jumped on hydroxychloroquine early jn the pandemic because he was looking for a hail Mary and then it didn't pan out. It was shot down by medical researchers months ago.

Yet you still defend his nonsensical claims 6 months later.

Pathetic.

 

[Albion]

If President Trump had taken aspirin when he came down with the Covid 19 virus, hospital administrators across the nation would now be banning the use of aspirin instead of hydroxychloroquine.

 

[pescador]

I have doubts if Trump actually had COVID-19. It's hard to believe that a man in his 70's contracts the virus, goes to the hospital for two days, then comes out of it with no after-effects. He looked a little sweaty and coughed once or twice, as if he had just eaten a jajapeno.

I don't believe him or his unscientific remedies for the most deadly virus in 100 years.

 

[pescador]

It was shot down by those profiting from other things.
The foxes guarding the chickens/(THE MONEY)/
are not
going to be honest.

But Trump, who has zero medical knowledge and ridicules the best scientific findings, is honest about COVID-19? Do you really believe him and not scientists?

 

[CitizenD]

If President Trump had taken aspirin when he came down with the Covid 19 virus, hospital administrators across the nation would now be banning the use of aspirin instead of hydroxychloroquine.

He was taking aspirin.

 

[pescador]

You can pick your own scientists, to believe, right ? If they lie they lie.

Apparently you don't understand science. One must prove a hypothesis. It can't be just a guess or (worse) an outright lie. There is no proof that any of Trump's "cures" -- bleach(!), hydroxychloroquine, etc. -- have any value.

 

[pescador]

He was taking aspirin.

View attachment 289387

Many, many people in their 70's and younger take a daily aspirin. McEnany's comment has no scientific value as it relates to COVID-19.

 

[paul1149]

The way HCQ, a drug proven safe over many decades and on WHO's essential medicine list, was treated by the establishment is a case study on the corruption of the industry. At this point even the timing of this release can be called into question.

 

[CitizenD]

Many, many people in their 70's and younger take a daily aspirin. McEnany's comment has no scientific value as it relates to COVID-19.

I took aspirin for a headache I had for two days.

I knew Aspirin was an anti-coagulant going into it I have never bled so much from a paper cut in my life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have doubts if Trump actually had COVID-19. It's hard to believe that a man in his 70's contracts the virus, goes to the hospital for two days, then comes out of it with no after-effects. He looked a little sweaty and coughed once or twice, as if he had just eaten a jajapeno.

I don't believe him or his unscientific remedies for the most deadly virus in 100 years.

I don't. I'm fairly sure that not only did he have COVID, but *he* was the superspreader at those events taking place the weekend before the announcement of the diagnosis. On Friday he meets with the RNC chair and then she gets sick. On Saturday, he has a nomination party at the WH and a whole bunch of attendees get sick. On Sunday he does an even for Gold Star Families and a couple people get sick. Sometime before Tuesday he does "debate prep" and several participants get sick. On Tuesday he does the debate with no recent COVID test registered. On Wednesday one of his close aids get sick while on campaign travel and "isolates" on AF1. (Her positive test the next day starts the whole public phase of this.) On Thursday, he was actually tested and just after midnight the result was made public. On Friday he went to the hospital and was pumped full of drugs. His case wasn't super bad (just a little supplemental oxygen) and he return to the WH a few days later feeling good because he was on steroids allowing him to fortunately recover without any apparent lasting medical damage.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I found it fairly easy to read past the puck and know hydroxychloroquine was good stuff from the get go.

The medea just couldn't stand to see there was some headway being made with Trump at the helm so they did their worst to bash the drug. Fortunately some were able to think for themselves and people are now being helped.

The media and their leftwing followers, would have been quite happy to see the drug shoved completely off the back burner, never to help anyone, and all to advance their agenda....patients be darned.

 

[JohnDB]

Ok...
Looking at the peers for the peer review none of them are actually qualified to perform the peer review.

Then...on top of this there was only 141 cherry picked volunteers for this unblinded study...meaning that it's not real science.

So...fake peers, fake science and fake results.

I can do the same thing with cat feces and have similar results. This paper proves nothing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok...
Looking at the peers for the peer review none of them are actually qualified to perform the peer review.

And you know this how?

Most peer review is blind. (The authors do not know the names of the reviewers and neither do the readers.) A few journals have gone to "open peer review" where everyone knows the reviewers and the reviews. (The comments are posted with the article including the ID of the reviewer with their comments.)

I've not even seen a link to the peer reviewed article, only to some news site that I will not subject my browser security to.

Do you have a link to the reviewed paper from the journal?

 

[sesquiterpene]

Here's the actual study:COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study - ScienceDirect

This retrospective case series study analysed data from COVID-19 outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated in a community in New York State, USA, between 18 March 2020 and 14 May 2020. The outcome of patients treated with a specific triple therapy was compared with public reference data of patients in the same community who were not treated with this therapy

This is just a rehash of the same nonsense Zelenko has been peddling all along.

This whole thing thing would have turned out differently if Zelenko (or Didier Raoult before him) understood how to conduct proper clinical tials for their protocols. But they didn't, and properly designed clinical trials of HCQ have failed to show efficacy. Right now Zelenko et al have such poor credibility that it will take something far far better than this to convince people.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's the actual study:COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study - ScienceDirect
This is just a rehash of the same nonsense Zelenko has been peddling all along.

This whole thing thing would have turned out differently if Zelenko (or Didier Raoult before him) understood how to conduct proper clinical tials for their protocols. But they didn't, and properly designed clinical trials of HCQ have failed to show efficacy. Right now Zelenko et al have such poor credibility that it will take something far far better than this to convince people.

Thanks.

I was surprised a Springer journal allowed me to read it without logging in. That doesn't usually happen.

There is no statements about the peer review process or list of reviewers that would allow the assessment of their qualifications, unlike some claims upthread.

I'm not accustomed to reading clinical trial papers, so I don't know the red flags. A quick skim didn't reveal to me what the alternative treatment used was, though this line did give me pause:
"Patients were not treated with HCQ if they had known contraindications, including ..."
It makes me wonder if the better outcome was just selecting for patients without some conditions that may have increased COVID mortality rates.

I leave this to those who understand the studies and methodologies.

(I found the OP's news article oddly timed as I'd seen a tweet from a respected MD just a day or so ago about another study that indicated that HCQ was *not* effective.)

 

[sesquiterpene]

I'm not accustomed to reading clinical trial papers, so I don't know the red flags. A quick skim didn't reveal to me what the alternative treatment used was,

There wasn't a placebo here, it was a retrospective study of cherry-picked treated cases compared to cherry-picked non-treated cases (okay it doesn't say cherry-picked, but given Zelenko's reputation that's what everyone sees). There's a reason why prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded studies are the standard - that design eliminates a large array of possible biases. It would also help to be a multi-center study, so that one center's quirks don't bias the study.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There wasn't a placebo here, it was a retrospective study of cherry-picked treated cases compared to cherry-picked non-treated cases (okay it doesn't say cherry-picked, but given Zelenko's reputation that's what everyone sees). There's a reason why prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded studies are the standard - that design eliminates a large array of possible biases. It would also help to be a multi-center study, so that one center's quirks don't bias the study.

OK. I may have misread the intent of post #20. With all of the talk about fake peer review, I didn't connect the "cherry picking" to a criticism of the study.

 

[Sparagmos]

I have doubts if Trump actually had COVID-19. It's hard to believe that a man in his 70's contracts the virus, goes to the hospital for two days, then comes out of it with no after-effects. He looked a little sweaty and coughed once or twice, as if he had just eaten a jajapeno.

I don't believe him or his unscientific remedies for the most deadly virus in 100 years.

Interesting theory. Like that was his October surprise, beating COVID because he is superhuman. Sounds like a Trump idea.

 

[Goonie]

Interesting theory. Like that was his October surprise, beating COVID because he is superhuman. Sounds like a Trump idea.

A really bad one if true(I don't believe it). It succeeded in emphasising how badly he'd dealt with the Covid crisis, at a time mail in ballots were being dealt with.