Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-05-2020, 11:59 AM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180

Early hydroxychloroquine associated with survival


Publish today. There are no randomized double blind trials published yet. Until then this is what we have. With that, the evidence is mounting for hydroxychloroquine when administered "early* in the disease. I intentionally emphasized early.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0057/v1
  #2  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:15 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13,918
Using the traditional "quotsterisk" emphasis method, since the board doesn't have buttons for itallics, underlining, or bold...
  #3  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:43 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,027
So this confirms that HCQ is errr, not a game changer and not snake oil. No silver bullet, but a useful tool under certain parameters.
  #4  
Old 05-05-2020, 01:04 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
So this confirms that HCQ is errr, not a game changer and not snake oil. No silver bullet, but a useful tool under certain parameters.
"Confirms" is a strong word given the slim and conflicting evidence.
  #5  
Old 05-05-2020, 02:27 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Using the traditional "quotsterisk" emphasis method, since the board doesn't have buttons for itallics, underlining, or bold...
Says the gratuitous asshat who spells italics with 2 L's.
  #6  
Old 05-05-2020, 02:41 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Using the traditional "quotsterisk" emphasis method, since the board doesn't have buttons for itallics, underlining, or bold...
Moderator Warning

This appears to be pure snark, and unrelated to the subject of the OP. This is an official warning for being a jerk.

Colibri
QZ Moderator
  #7  
Old 05-05-2020, 02:42 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
Says the gratuitous asshat who spells italics with 2 L's.
Moderator Warning

This is an official warning for insults. If you have a problem with a post, report it rather than responding to it.

Colibri
QZ Moderator
  #8  
Old 05-05-2020, 04:15 PM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,028
I suspect that, if HCQ is helpful at all, it will be for those given it early after onset of symptoms.
Earlier the better.
There are hints in may also work for prophylaxis. Even better.

I hope we'll see a lot more studies in the next few weeks.
  #9  
Old 05-05-2020, 04:23 PM
Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,632
How much are they asking for the Brooklyn bridge nowadays?
  #10  
Old 05-05-2020, 04:35 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,044
For those who aren't clicking the OP's link, here's the first sentence:
"Background: There is no treatment proven effective against COVID-19. Several drugs with in vitro potential against SARS-CoV-2 virus have been proposed. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro anti-viral and immunomodulatory activity, but there is no current clinical evidence of its effectiveness changing the outcome of the disease."

I understand that everyone, their mother, and me want(s) an effective treatment and a vaccine for covid-19. I am big time suspicious and skeptical about why people keep pushing this particular one.
  #11  
Old 05-05-2020, 04:54 PM
dogbutler's Avatar
dogbutler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Raleigh N.C.
Posts: 14,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I understand that everyone, their mother, and me want(s) an effective treatment and a vaccine for covid-19. I am big time suspicious and skeptical about why people keep pushing this particular one.
Because the Federal Government bought 290 million doses at the direction of the President, and have to do something with it?
__________________
I used to be clueless, but I turned that around 360 degrees. -Ratbert
dogbutler-Not an ax murderer!
I hang out with the Cool kids
  #12  
Old 05-05-2020, 05:05 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,044
I've been bitten once discussing politics in the Q-Zone. (Actually, I wasn't discussing. I was vulgar ranting.)
  #13  
Old 05-05-2020, 05:17 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
I suspect that, if HCQ is helpful at all, it will be for those given it early after onset of symptoms.
Earlier the better.
There are hints in may also work for prophylaxis. Even better.

I hope we'll see a lot more studies in the next few weeks.

Hydroxychloroquine allows more zinc to enter infected cells which slows down RNA replication. That's the theory at least. It may create a time-bridge between the activation of your innate and acquired immune system. That is, the viral load isn't as high and there's less of a chance of a 'cytokine storm' occurring (where your own immune system attacks your body.) If this is how it works then it would be important to give it early has done here. Patients here we're given hydroxychloroquine within 7 Days of the first symptoms and on the day of being admitted to the hospital. So early yes. And before the onset of severe symptoms.
  #14  
Old 05-05-2020, 05:31 PM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,443
Something is... odd... about this study. Unless I am misreading it, they are reporting a mortality of 48 percent in the untreated group. By way of contrast, the mortality rate among hospitalized patients (with or without HCQ) in New York City is around 20%. What the hell are they doing at that hospital?
  #15  
Old 05-05-2020, 05:40 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squink View Post
How much are they asking for the Brooklyn bridge nowadays?
Moderator Note

Let's not threadshit. If you want to comment on the study itself, go ahead.

Colibri
QZ Moderator
  #16  
Old 05-05-2020, 06:19 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 675
I thought we already had the ďprobably not as effective as originally billedĒ answer. I assume theyíll continue to study it, but it sounds like remdesivir will now be the standard of care, even though it doesnít seem to be wildly effective either.
  #17  
Old 05-05-2020, 06:25 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogbutler View Post
Because the Federal Government bought 290 million doses at the direction of the President, and have to do something with it?
Moderator Note

Let's keep the political jabs out of this forum.

We should be able to impartially discuss scientific studies on treatments in this forum regardless whether they might be being promoted politically. Note that this study was conducted by a Spanish group in a Spanish hospital. Let's keep discussion in this thread to the actual merits of the study.

Colibri
QZ Moderator
  #18  
Old 05-05-2020, 06:46 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
For those who aren't clicking the OP's link, here's the first sentence:
"Background: There is no treatment proven effective against COVID-19. Several drugs with in vitro potential against SARS-CoV-2 virus have been proposed. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro anti-viral and immunomodulatory activity, but there is no current clinical evidence of its effectiveness changing the outcome of the disease."
That is the background. Before doing the study there was no clinical evidence of effectiveness. There were reasons to suspect that this might be effective in clinical testing. That is a pretty normal starting point for early testing. You get clinical evidence by doing testing where none existed. Testing is also ongoing for a number of other drugs and vaccines that had no current clinical evidence as treatments against a disease we did not even know existed 7 months ago.

The abstract also included a summary of what the testing showed.
Quote:
Results: We analysed first 220 medical records. 166 patients met the inclusion criteria. 48,8 % of patients not treated with HCQ died, 22% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine (p=0,002). According to clinical picture at admission, hydroxychloroquine increased the mean cumulative survival in all groups from 1,4 to 1,8 times. This difference was statistically significant in the mild group. Conclusions: in a cohort of 166 patients from 18 to 85 years hospitalised with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine treatment with 800mg added loading dose increased survival when patients were admitted in early stages of the disease. There was a non-statistically significant trend towards survival in all groups, which will have to be clarified in subsequent studies.
Those bolded parts show a real reason why people would want to continue testing. In this study, hydroxychloroquine use appears to have saved lives.
  #19  
Old 05-05-2020, 06:59 PM
Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 11,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogbutler View Post
Because the Federal Government bought 290 million doses at the direction of the President, and have to do something with it?
My (now late) stepmother was treated with the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin combo in the ICU at one of the top hospitals in the United States, BEFORE the President said a damn word about anything. At that point, lacking good options, I imagine the medical staff there thought a Hail Mary pass made sense. And she did improve enough to be released from the ICU to a rehab facility to be weaned from the ventilator.

As I imagine most of you know, most people who end up on a ventilator with COVID-19 do not survive. She was one of the unlucky ones. But until we have better data, we don't know whether things might have gone differently if she had been treated with a different protocol. She had multiple risk factors, including multiple decades of lupus. But I have full confidence that her treating physicians made an appropriate analysis given the limited information that they had and the lack of any other good alternatives.
  #20  
Old 05-05-2020, 07:08 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
I assume theyíll continue to study it, but it sounds like remdesivir will now be the standard of care, even though it doesnít seem to be wildly effective either.
The FDA emergency approval for Remdesivir "allows the drug to be given to patients with COVID-19 only if they are severely ill ó with blood oxygen levels at 94% or lower, or otherwise requiring supplemental oxygen." (Cite) Since this new test data shows statistically significant benefit where Remdesivir use is not approved, they might both end up being the standard of care. They would just be the standard for different stages in the progression of the disease.
  #21  
Old 05-05-2020, 08:45 PM
Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogbutler View Post
Because the Federal Government bought 290 million doses at the direction of the President, and have to do something with it?
My town's got plenty of potholes that need filling this spring.
  #22  
Old 05-05-2020, 08:55 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squink View Post
My town's got plenty of potholes that need filling this spring.
Moderator Warning

You've already received one mod note. Quoting a moderated post essentially means making the same comment again. This is a warning for political commentary in QZ.

Moderator Instructions

Confine your comments to the medical aspects of this study. Refrain from further political comments in this thread.


Colibri
QZ Moderator
  #23  
Old 05-05-2020, 09:14 PM
icon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 131
The general issue with the paper is that the analysis method used is not one that works well with small populations, as is the case in this study. All they are using is admission and discharge data, which is fine but does not address any other kind of treatment that the patients might have received. In fact, they acknowledge that several other treatments were used in conjunction with HCQ. So which was the great factor, the use of HCQ or something else? As understanding of the disease increased, did other treatment changes increase positive outcomes? We do not know that all patients were admitted around the same time even though they all came from the same hospital.

Additionally, if you look at the number of people treated (123) vs non-treated (43) you see that the control group is not that large meaning that a smaller number of people with a negative outcome affects the percentage of the non-treated group more significantly than in the people treated.

As the PDF file says it is not peer-reviewed and therefore needs to be taken with a heavy dose of salt, because although the authors seem to have done their due diligence, someone with a good understanding of the type of methodology used might find problems that are not readily apparent.

//i\\
  #24  
Old 05-05-2020, 10:11 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
The FDA emergency approval for Remdesivir "allows the drug to be given to patients with COVID-19 only if they are severely ill — with blood oxygen levels at 94% or lower, or otherwise requiring supplemental oxygen." (Cite) Since this new test data shows statistically significant benefit where Remdesivir use is not approved, they might both end up being the standard of care. They would just be the standard for different stages in the progression of the disease.
94%? Are you sure of that number? I see it in the cite. There are a lot of people who would do well to see that number on a good day.

One of the things they were doing in NYC was sending patients home with an oximeter so they could self monitor. I don't know what the trigger number was but they had excellent results getting people back in the hospital in time for treatment.

Last edited by Magiver; 05-05-2020 at 10:14 PM.
  #25  
Old 05-06-2020, 01:26 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
I would be really interested in seeing the pre-trial paperwork in this study, especially with regards to stated endpoints. You ALWAYS need to define what you are looking for prior to the study. Otherwise these researchers may be cherry-picking data.

It looks like they are only reporting improved outcomes in patients with mild diseases. How do they define mild and, more importantly, WHEN did they define mild. You aren’t allowed to define mild cases in a way that leads to the result you want to see. Some of the other data is so odd that I’m wondering if the language translation is correct. Was the death rate in the two groups really 48.8% and 22%? What’s with those misplaced commas?

The other thing that concerns me is the use of the 800mg initial loading dose. Proponents of this drug claim its safety has been well proven based on it use in other conditions. But the therapeutic dose for other conditions is much lower - based on body weight but usually around 400mg. I think it is very risky to use this drug en masse at higher dosages, even though research indicates that much higher doses are needed to achieve an antiviral effect.

I think this is the crux of the problems with HCQ. The preliminary research I have seen indicates that the dosage needed to achieve antiviral effect are much higher 4.5x to 17x - than the dosages used for autoimmune diseases.

My cite for this is towards the end of this article, 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/cov...xychloroquine/

This is common problem, perhaps the most common problem, in going from promising research to new medication. Quite frequently, you can’t reach an effective concentration inside the human body without risking the life of the patient. The Brazilian study that was discontinued for side effects was an attempt - the only one I’ve read about- to reach the dosages required for the observed in vitro antiviral effect.

Frankly, I think it’s misleading and somewhat disingenuous to be publishing all these preprint articles and I think the general public has been deeply misled about the potential of this drug. I recommend reading Dr. Bright’s whistleblower complaint in full, our politicians were really pushing for some really irresponsible actions

Please note I am not a doctor or medical professional and I welcome critiques from those that are. I do have a little bit of a layperson background in this, I became interested in clinical research while investigating treatments for my fiancťe’s pancreatic cancer several years ago. I learned first-hand about how deceptive the promotion of some of these treatments can be. I also got plenty first hand experience in the psychology of desperation. I know how easy it is for even smart people to get sucked down into these rabbit holes. Smart people are even more vulnerable because they are used to winning and beating long odds to achieve success.

After my fiancťe’s inevitable death, I stuck around the support groups and helped people realistically analyze prospective treatments, and that is were I taught myself to interpret medical claims and clinical studies - there were medical professionals in these groups that checked my work, as it were.

The other thing that everyone needs to remember is COVID is not cancer. It’s not a chronic disease. Even without pharmaceutical treatment, something like 95% of patients survive. I saw an indigent Twitter post yesterday claiming the drug was being suppressed even though it was 92% of the patients that took it were well 3 weeks later. That would be great stats for a cancer drug, but I just had to mention that it wasn’t impressive for a disease with a 95% survival rate,

Everyone was so busy LOLing at the idea of the bleach treatment, even people promoting HCQ, but the actual evidence for HCQ isn’t that much stronger than the evidence for drinking bleach. I found eight first hand testimonials from people that claimed Chlorine dioxide (industrial bleach) cured them of COVID. I found videos promoting it from doctors with medical degrees and each of those quacks has several acolytes that also have medical degrees. I found clinical trial paperwork and protocols for chlorine dioxide treatment against COVID. (They’re like lawsuits, anyone can type one up and file it and they’re often used to lend legitimacy to studies that don’t deserve it).
Anecdotal evidence really is worthless. Caveat Emptor.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 05-06-2020 at 01:28 PM.
  #26  
Old 05-06-2020, 01:52 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bye NYC hello Chicagoland
Posts: 19,669
Anyone else notice this statement at the top of the page in the OP's link?

“This version is not peer-reviewed”

It's a preprint, and hasn’t been peer reviewed. I’ll wait until it has.
  #27  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:26 PM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Colorado Coast
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
...

Some of the other data is so odd that Iím wondering if the language translation is correct. Was the death rate in the two groups really 48.8% and 22%? Whatís with those misplaced commas?
...
Just to address this small issue in this well-expressed summary plus critique:

Much of Europe uses a comma instead of a decimal point in numbers ("48,8%), and they use spaces as delimiters in large numbers ("1 000 000"). I believe that this is what you are referencing?

The commas look odd to me, but I like the spaces in the big numbers.

Excellent summary.
  #28  
Old 05-06-2020, 03:01 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
Anyone else notice this statement at the top of the page in the OP's link?

ďThis version is not peer-reviewedĒ

It's a preprint, and hasnít been peer reviewed. Iíll wait until it has.
It also hasn't been edited very well. It's clear that the first language of the authors isn't English. Despite a science background, I found it quite difficult to understand what they had done in places. This doesn't invalidate their findings, but it makes it harder to know what they mean.
  #29  
Old 05-06-2020, 04:59 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Just to address this small issue in this well-expressed summary plus critique:

Much of Europe uses a comma instead of a decimal point in numbers ("48,8%), and they use spaces as delimiters in large numbers ("1 000 000"). I believe that this is what you are referencing?

The commas look odd to me, but I like the spaces in the big numbers.

Excellent summary.
Thanks!

I probably wouldíve been less confused about the comma for decimal point thing if the underlying numbers made any sense, but.....an almost 50% death rate in the non HQC group? Thatís so totally whacked I thought the comma might mean something else.

Somethingís really off with that. They really shouldnít release these preprints to the public.
  #30  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:02 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180
It appears that the University of Minnesota data is in. This was a randomized double-blind trial. The Doctor who's is heading that study tweeted this - some good answers on hydroxychloroquine should be forthcoming soon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/boulware_...84132447117313
  #31  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:06 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
It appears that the University of Minnesota data is in. This was a randomized double-blind trial. The Doctor who's is heading that study tweeted this - some good answers on hydroxychloroquine should be forthcoming soon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/boulware_...84132447117313
And this


https://mobile.twitter.com/boulware_...84140789628928
  #32  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:28 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,044
Tell me what it says without me having to click a link. Summarize, even. Quote a thing or two. Jaysus.

Last edited by bobot; 05-06-2020 at 06:29 PM.
  #33  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:32 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,044
Here's this thing some guy said.
https://sports.yahoo.com/michael-jor...013452415.html


Can you see why that's a less than helpful way to post?
  #34  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:35 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 38,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Tell me what it says without me having to click a link. Summarize, even. Quote a thing or two. Jaysus.
It says nothing.
The tweets in question.
Quote:
May 6 and we are to perform an interim analysis of 2 of our 3 #COVID clinical trials this afternoon. It is a double blind trial, so I have not seen any results by the two groups (#hydroxychloroquine vs. Placebo) as yet.

I am aware of the pooled results. Safety has been good.
Quote:
What am I going to post later today? Likely nothing. The #COVID #research interim analysis will most likely be kept confidential for now, working on further analyses and writing up the results in detail versus releasing something half-baked.
  #35  
Old 05-06-2020, 06:55 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,044
Holy fucking shit. It says nothing, indeed. Thanks, Coach.
  #36  
Old 05-06-2020, 07:06 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
It appears that the University of Minnesota data is in. This was a randomized double-blind trial. The Doctor who's is heading that study tweeted this - some good answers on hydroxychloroquine should be forthcoming soon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/boulware_...84132447117313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
Moderator Instructions

I'm going to instruct you to at least summarize the links you post. I agree those links say virtually nothing. You're now edging into promoting unproven treatments rather than simply providing information on studies.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Last edited by Colibri; 05-06-2020 at 07:12 PM.
  #37  
Old 05-06-2020, 09:32 PM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180
Regarding the tweets above --

An independent review board is going to do an interim review of the University of Minnesota hydroxychloroquine study. At that time a decision may be made to stop the study and publish the results. This can be done if a decision is made that would be unethical to continue giving the control arm of the study placebo. So we may results of the study soon. The remdesivir study was stopped early this way.
  #38  
Old 05-07-2020, 01:26 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,081
Twitter is the best place to look for peer reviewed scientific papers.

CMC fnord!
  #39  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:47 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,312
FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.

Threads like this are potentially dangerous.
  #40  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:36 AM
Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 11,086
One would hope that doctors would not prescribe it in situations where its use is unwarranted or dangerous.
  #41  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:03 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eva Luna View Post
One would hope that doctors would not prescribe it in situations where its use is unwarranted or dangerous.
Doctors are regular people, too. That is, some are prone to dumb and/or panicky behavior.

Recall that some of the HCQ shortages were due to some doctors prescribing it for themselves and family, despite no real evidence it was effective at the time. And other doctors, despite knowing it wasn't likely a game-changer or ineffective, still prescribed to people who merely asked for it.

It's not like getting a medical degree magically makes a person any wiser or circumspect. The degree and training requirements simply weed out some of the worst. The person who graduates last in class in medical school is still a doctor and it's not like we're asking for test scores or rankings when we visit.
  #42  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:18 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,467
Iíll leave this to the medical people here. This is what Iíve heard from various sources and combined them in my brain. Tell me where Iím wrong.

HCQ is an immunosuppressive. Itís greatly needed in autoimmune diseases such as lupus and arthritis (and malaria that acts like an autoimmune disease).

It can have severe side effects and should not be taken lightly.

HCQ was looked into as a treatment for the cytokine storms caused by SARS.

There is some indication that Covid-19 causes cytokine storms in some patients and HCQ might effective in those cases.

The effectiveness in other cases are by no means proven.

What did I get wrong and is some of this just speculation?

And yes the podiatrists and ophthalmologists that wrote prescriptions for HCQ just in case piss me off. My sister has lupus and actually needs the drug.
  #43  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:28 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 675
New study in an article on the CNN COVID 19 updates page and just posted a few minutes ago shows no benefit from HCQ.

Quote:
"From that analysis, there appeared to be no association at all," Schluger added. "In a sense, we can't see any association between getting the drug and anything happening to anyone."
It was an observational study of 1376 hospitalized patients in NYC.

Of course this study was not for “early” use I don’t think but still interesting.

Last edited by Skypist; 05-07-2020 at 02:31 PM.
  #44  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:43 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Moderating

You mean, so people can post counter-evidence to the OP?

I think we can trust users of this site (well, most of them) to evaluate the evidence. I don't think discussion of scientific studies needs be shut off just because of the political aspects of this.

Colibri
QZ Moderator
  #45  
Old 05-07-2020, 03:07 PM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post

HCQ was looked into as a treatment for the cytokine storms caused by SARS.

There is some indication that Covid-19 causes cytokine storms in some patients and HCQ might effective in those cases.

.
Possible antiviral activity hydroxychloroquine was assessed in vitro (in test tube, more or less) on the aftermath of the SARS epidemic. HCQ was found to have antiviral activity against the coronavirus that caused SARS.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...361-9/fulltext

The hypothesis is that HCQ interferes with a part of the viral replication process, glycosolation.

<my opinion>
IMHO as someone who is not a doctor but who did, MANY years ago and very briefly, work on vaccine development is that glycosolation interference as a mechanism of action would reasonably account for differing efficacy according to when in the infection cycle it is administered.

A drug that substantially reduces viral replication might allow the body more time to produce an effective antibody before being overwhelmed by infection. But giving the same drug late in the infection cycle might not prove as effective as by then a cytokine storm may have already taken hold so that limiting the number of viral particles might not be so important to the clinical course.
</my opinion>

Last edited by Iggy; 05-07-2020 at 03:07 PM.
  #46  
Old 05-07-2020, 03:20 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Moderating

You mean, so people can post counter-evidence to the OP?

I think we can trust users of this site (well, most of them) to evaluate the evidence. I don't think discussion of scientific studies needs be shut off just because of the political aspects of this.

Colibri
QZ Moderator
I do think blatantly wrong/misleading thread titles are dangerous. We know of problems these reports about hydroxychloroquine have caused. The title comes up in Google searches, etc.

It isn't political, it is dangerous to people that this this was a legit science.

ETA: Sorry, should this reply be in another thread?

Last edited by What Exit?; 05-07-2020 at 03:24 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-07-2020, 03:37 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
I do think blatantly wrong/misleading thread titles are dangerous. We know of problems these reports about hydroxychloroquine have caused. The title comes up in Google searches, etc.

It isn't political, it is dangerous to people that this this was a legit science.

ETA: Sorry, should this reply be in another thread?
If you have a dispute about a moderator decision, you should take it to ATMB.

While the study cited in the OP gives preliminary results, it appears to me to be legit science.

I doubt anybody on this board is going to decide to use this treatment based simply on the thread title. And if they read the thread, they will see the counter evidence.

I fully realize that this treatment has become a political acid test. But just because it has been pushed inappropriately for political reasons, doesn't mean discussion of scientific studies about it should be off limits.

Last edited by Colibri; 05-07-2020 at 03:42 PM.
  #48  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:56 PM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Iíll leave this to the medical people here. This is what Iíve heard from various sources and combined them in my brain. Tell me where Iím wrong.

HCQ is an immunosuppressive. Itís greatly needed in autoimmune diseases such as lupus and arthritis (and malaria that acts like an autoimmune disease).

It can have severe side effects and should not be taken lightly.

HCQ was looked into as a treatment for the cytokine storms caused by SARS.

There is some indication that Covid-19 causes cytokine storms in some patients and HCQ might effective in those cases.

The effectiveness in other cases are by no means proven.

What did I get wrong and is some of this just speculation?

And yes the podiatrists and ophthalmologists that wrote prescriptions for HCQ just in case piss me off. My sister has lupus and actually needs the drug.
Just one correction: HCQ is not an immunosuppressant. It modulates the immune system without suppressing it. I was on it for lupus for years, and one reason I liked it was that, unlike the other lupus meds I'd been on, it didn't suppress my immune system. That meant that when I got a mild infection while on HCQ, it didn't blow up into a major one, as it had on immunosuppressants.
  #49  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:05 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Possible antiviral activity hydroxychloroquine was assessed in vitro (in test tube, more or less) on the aftermath of the SARS epidemic. HCQ was found to have antiviral activity against the coronavirus that caused SARS.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...361-9/fulltext

The hypothesis is that HCQ interferes with a part of the viral replication process, glycosolation.

<my opinion>
IMHO as someone who is not a doctor but who did, MANY years ago and very briefly, work on vaccine development is that glycosolation interference as a mechanism of action would reasonably account for differing efficacy according to when in the infection cycle it is administered.

A drug that substantially reduces viral replication might allow the body more time to produce an effective antibody before being overwhelmed by infection. But giving the same drug late in the infection cycle might not prove as effective as by then a cytokine storm may have already taken hold so that limiting the number of viral particles might not be so important to the clinical course.
</my opinion>


Yes, HCQ does have an an anti-viral effect in vitro. But itís a very weak one, and a patient would have to take a lot of the drug in order to achieve the serum concentrations required to replicate the anti-viral effect. I posted a link to an article upthread that estimated needing a dosage 5x to 17x the dosages used for autoimmune disease in order to be effective as an anti-viral. Only one study that Iíve heard of, the Brazilian one, used dosages that barely touched the low end of that range and it was discontinued for side effects.

I think the danger in all this poorly informed interest in this drug isnít the risk to any one patient, or group of patients - although Iíve got to admit I find the ďWhat have you got to lose?Ē mentality a little astounding when used in reference to a disease with a 95% survival rate with best supportive care only.

The real danger is not the risk to any one patient, itís the collective desperation of society as a whole. It will be interesting to find out if the drug has any minor benefit, but I think itís pretty clear already that itís not going to be a miracle cure.

The danger is that the wholesale misinformation is going to give people an excuse to stop the hard painful stuff ( and the easy painless stuff, too) that we need to be doing for now to keep safe. The danger is that people will stop avoiding large gatherings and taking basic precautions because they think a pill will make them immune really soon.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 05-07-2020 at 08:06 PM.
  #50  
Old 05-08-2020, 10:41 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
New study in an article on the CNN COVID 19 updates page and just posted a few minutes ago shows no benefit from HCQ.



It was an observational study of 1376 hospitalized patients in NYC.

Of course this study was not for “early” use I don’t think but still interesting.
Here’s the article on this study, from the New England Journal of Medicine. I urge everyone that’s following this discussion to look at this, and not just for the results. It’s an excellent example of what a properly conducted study looks like.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056...icleTools=true

I’d like to point out a couple of things. The study’s CONCLUSION is that HCQ had no effect. But if you look at the raw data, it shows a fatality rate among HCQ patients that’s over double the fatality rate of untreated patients.

But the researchers acknowledged that the treated group was, in general, way sicker than the untreated group. And they performed an elaborate set of adjustments based on the age, condition, medication history and insurance of the patients. These adjustments the reduced degree of negative outcome.

I wanted to flag this because of the weeks of breathless hyping of positive results derived from poorly conducted studies by people that don’t know what they are talking about.
Using the same metrics that they did, I could EASILY look at the results of this study and conclude, loudly and publicly, that this drug is doubling the fatality rate and killing people. I’m sorely tempted to make that argument under the guise of fighting bad science with more bad science but I’m not going to do that.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 05-08-2020 at 10:42 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017