I'm glad to hear we're starting large studies on treatments in earlier stages of the disease.Moxley said:
A large clinical trial is kicking off studying the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis. They are looking for 15,000 healthcare workers across the country. They have also developed a registry for healthcare workers as they are going to be doing continuous research.
https://today.duke.edu/2020/04/health-care-workers-encouraged-join-covid-19-clinical-trial-registry
Quote:
Hydroxychloroquine and Other Autoimmune Drugs Don't Fully Protect Against Coronavirus, Early Data Suggest
Data compiled by rheumatology researchers show dozens of patients who were taking Plaquenil and other drugs became infected
Dozens of people taking hydroxychloroquine and other treatments for chronic rheumatologic diseases have become infected with Covid-19, according to an analysis of emerging data that is a sign the drugs may not protect people from the new coronavirus.
More than five dozen people with chronic ailments like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis were taking medications such as hydroxychloroquine before being diagnosed with the coronavirus, according to data compiled by the Global Rheumatology Alliance, a coalition of rheumatologists, researchers and patients, and published in a medical journal Thursday.
Meanwhile, about 190 patients with the chronic diseases who were taking hydroxychloroquine reported in surveys to the alliance that they contracted Covid-19. Doctors also say they have treated individuals with coronavirus who were lupus patients taking hydroxychloroquine.
Researchers say the published data and surveys may be small but already show that hydroxychloroquine doesn't fully protect people from contracting the new virus.
AggieFrog said:Quote:
Hydroxychloroquine and Other Autoimmune Drugs Don't Fully Protect Against Coronavirus, Early Data Suggest
Data compiled by rheumatology researchers show dozens of patients who were taking Plaquenil and other drugs became infected
Dozens of people taking hydroxychloroquine and other treatments for chronic rheumatologic diseases have become infected with Covid-19, according to an analysis of emerging data that is a sign the drugs may not protect people from the new coronavirus.
More than five dozen people with chronic ailments like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis were taking medications such as hydroxychloroquine before being diagnosed with the coronavirus, according to data compiled by the Global Rheumatology Alliance, a coalition of rheumatologists, researchers and patients, and published in a medical journal Thursday.
Meanwhile, about 190 patients with the chronic diseases who were taking hydroxychloroquine reported in surveys to the alliance that they contracted Covid-19. Doctors also say they have treated individuals with coronavirus who were lupus patients taking hydroxychloroquine.
Researchers say the published data and surveys may be small but already show that hydroxychloroquine doesn't fully protect people from contracting the new virus.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydroxychloroquine-and-other-autoimmune-drugs-dont-fully-protect-against-coronavirus-early-data-suggest-11587222001
Bondag said:
Or were they on ventilators which we now believe could actually make things worse?
I'm an ag major....... so barely.k2aggie07 said:
It's not saying that HC or HC+AZ contributed to death. It's just saying they found a statistical correlation between HC only and death, but really no other statistical correlctions between HC, HC+AZ for death or ventilation or death after going on a ventilator.
But it is a non-randomized, retrospective analysis. So, not as iron-clad as a trial done in one hospital, with a single control.
This is absence of evidence that HC or HC+AZ helps, not necessarily evidence it hurts - if that makes sense.
Half true. Since the comparative group is "none" (I assume none means no intervention and only standard of care), if the intervention resulted in better outcomes, then your hazard ratio (and 95% confidence intervals if statistically significant) would be less than 1 meaning the intervention resulted in less "hazard" than the comparative group (or standard of care in this case).k2aggie07 said:
This is absence of evidence that HC or HC+AZ helps, not necessarily evidence it hurts - if that makes sense.
barnyard1996 said:
Taking HCQ and survive = Anecdotal
Taking HCQ and die = HCQ cause of death.
k2aggie07 said:
It's not saying that HC or HC+AZ contributed to death. It's just saying they found a statistical correlation between HC only and death, but really no other statistical correlctions between HC, HC+AZ for death or ventilation or death after going on a ventilator.
But it is a non-randomized, retrospective analysis. So, not as iron-clad as a trial done in one hospital, with a single control.
This is absence of evidence that HC or HC+AZ helps, not necessarily evidence it hurts - if that makes sense.
DadHammer said:
Don't believe that.
Thanks. Dr FIngle Dingles comments come of as otherwise.Infection_Ag11 said:barnyard1996 said:
Taking HCQ and survive = Anecdotal
Taking HCQ and die = HCQ cause of death.
That's not what it's saying. At all.
Like a lot of these studies, far along enough to be hospitalized which is pretty serious. The University of Minnesota prophylaxis study in progress should be very telling. If it shows no effect, I'll be ready to throw in the towel on HCQ.Player To Be Named Later said:
The big question is, were these patients given the drugs early in the disease process or after it had progressed to being serious?
barnyard1996 said:
Taking HCQ and survive = Anecdotal
Taking HCQ and die = HCQ cause of death.
