What now? So Hydroxychloroquine does help fight CV

[Mountainmanbob]

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

 

[A_Thinker]

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

That's one ...

It takes a consensus of studies to recommend a drug ...

 

[disciple Clint]

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

You know how the msm will play this if they cover it at all.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

You know how the msm will play this if they cover it at all.

They sure won't say that Trump was right
now will they.
M

 

[dqhall]

That's one ...

It takes a consensus of studies to recommend a drug ...

[deleted]

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Everybody knows by now
not recommend for ones with heart issues.

So for the general public who come down with CV
looks to be helpful.
M

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's one ...

It takes a consensus of studies to recommend a drug ...

No it doesn't. That is not how Evidence-Based Medicine works. Multiple studies are placed in relation to one another, and usually via a meta-analysis and statistical modelling, it is decided which to give more weight to.

So one excellent study with high confidence intervals would trump multiple studies with ambigious results say, or multiple ambigious studies which taken together gives more definite statistical results might trump one other study. Evidence class of the type of study needs to be taken into account, the population tested, the drug dosing, etc. All of this will impact what evidence is deemed stronger and what weaker. One strong study would be sufficient to recommend use, provided it is sound.

Consensus was the old model, where recommendations were made via consensus conferences, which EBM has abandoned. EBM is not big on repeatability as a requirement for validity, as it is the nature of medical studies and their ethical requirements, that repetition is often neither warranted nor ethical to do. It would be unethical to subject people to a harmful substance or conversely to neglect a possible treatment, simply in order to achieve consensus.


Looking at this study, it is retrospective - so not the highest quality type - but it has good numbers and fair confidence intervals. A lot of the previous hydroxychloroquine studies were done using Surgisphere data firm, whose numbers were fraudulent and subsequently were retracted. They mostly showed a lack of benefit and high risk, but I doubt sufficient analysis has been done on this question.

I'd wait on a meta-analysis of what remains before passing judgement, as there is too much politics obscuring the actual benefit or lack thereof. All these Covid 19 studies are hopelessly rushed, and it just leaves us with bad or misrepresented evidence.

 

[-57]

You know how the msm will play this if they cover it at all.

It depends upon where the MSM handlers need the numbers to go too.

 

[Bobber]

What now? Well the mainstream media are going to apologize to the President of course for criticizing his optimism of the drug. Their date for doing so though is probably 2120.

 

[dqhall]

Everybody knows by now
not recommend for ones with heart issues.

So for the general public who come down with CV
looks to be helpful.
M

The World Health Organization is dropping its studies of two HIV drugs and hydroxychloroquine.
WHO halts trial of HIV drugs as possible treatment for patients hospitalized with coronavirus

 

[hedrick]

Two things:

1) Trump was criticized for promoting a drug that wasn't known to be effective. It may in the end prove helpful. That won't make Trump right for promoting it before it was properly studied.

2) The article you point to doesn't note some issues with the study. First, the patients were often given hydroxychloroquine together with another drug that has shown signs of being useful on its own. Second, they reported data while patients were still in the hospital. Patients who die tend to be hospitalized for a long time first, so they may have missed some of those who are going to die.

Here's an article that includes the caveats: Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better - CNN

One study is interesting, but not a final answer.

 

[Tom 1]

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Come on Bob, that's a private organisation carrying out privately funded research. You might retain a little skepticism (see, I even used the US spelling) when researching this issue. I can't find the study on the ISID journal site, do you have a link to it there?

Edit - found it - I don't understand all of it but they did find a difference in mortality rates of around 6-12%, so I suppose that is promising, particularly if it can be used alongside remdesivir and the other the widely available steroid I can't remember the name of.

 

[hedrick]

Come on Bob, that's a private organisation carrying out privately funded research. You might retain a little skepticism (see, I even used the US spelling) when researching this issue. I can't find the study on the ISID journal site, do you have a link to it there?

A lot of research is privately funded. That's not particularly suspicious. However the article in the OP was from the organization doing the research. It's a press release. Typically press releases don't include analysis from third parties indicating the limitations of the study, the way proper news reports do.

 

[Tom 1]

What now? Well the mainstream media are going to apologize to the President of course for criticizing his optimism of the drug. Their date for doing so though is probably 2120.

Apologise for what? Encouraging the use of a drug with dangerous side effects, the benefits of which are still not understood - why would anyone apologise to the president for pointing out it's not a good idea for anyone in a position of power to do that?

 

[Tom 1]

They sure won't say that Trump was right
now will they.
M

What is it that you think he was right about? The drug has dangerous, potentially fatal side effects. The study you quoted shows a possible reduction in mortality rates, ranging from 6-12% depending on whether the drug was used alone or in conjunction with other drugs. As the study you quoted itself says, further study is needed to clarify the possible benefits. What is it about this that would make what Trump said back in March right?