Hydroxychloroquine & azithromycin make no diff in in-hospital mortality

2,444 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Carnwellag2
Carolin_Gallego
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In one of the largest studies of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin,
Quote:

Key Points
Question Among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is there an association between use of hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, and in-hospital mortality?
Findings In a retrospective cohort study of 1438 patients hospitalized in metropolitan New York, compared with treatment with neither drug, the adjusted hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality for treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone was 1.08, for azithromycin alone was 0.56, and for combined hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was 1.35. None of these hazard ratios were statistically significant.
Meaning Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both was not associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality.
Abstract
Importance Hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, has been considered as a possible therapeutic agent for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are limited data on efficacy and associated adverse events.
Objective To describe the association between use of hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, and clinical outcomes among hospital inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19.
Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients from a random sample of all admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in 25 hospitals, representing 88.2% of patients with COVID-19 in the New York metropolitan region. Eligible patients were admitted for at least 24 hours between March 15 and 28, 2020. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures on admission, outcomes, and adverse events were abstracted from medical records. The date of final follow-up was April 24, 2020.
Exposures Receipt of both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, or neither.
Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiac arrest and abnormal electrocardiogram findings (arrhythmia or QT prolongation).
Results Among 1438 hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (858 [59.7%] male, median age, 63 years), those receiving hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both were more likely than those not receiving either drug to have diabetes, respiratory rate >22/min, abnormal chest imaging findings, O2 saturation lower than 90%, and aspartate aminotransferase greater than 40 U/L. Overall in-hospital mortality was 20.3% (95% CI, 18.2%-22.4%). The probability of death for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was 189/735 (25.7% [95% CI, 22.3%-28.9%]), hydroxychloroquine alone, 54/271 (19.9% [95% CI, 15.2%-24.7%]), azithromycin alone, 21/211 (10.0% [95% CI, 5.9%-14.0%]), and neither drug, 28/221 (12.7% [95% CI, 8.3%-17.1%]). In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, compared with patients receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.76-2.40]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.63-1.85]), or azithromycin alone (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.26-1.21]). In logistic models, compared with patients receiving neither drug cardiac arrest was significantly more likely in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (adjusted OR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.12-4.05]), but not hydroxychloroquine alone (adjusted OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 0.96-3.81]) or azithromycin alone (adjusted OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.27-1.56]), . In adjusted logistic regression models, there were no significant differences in the relative likelihood of abnormal electrocardiogram findings.
Conclusions and Relevance Among patients hospitalized in metropolitan New York with COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both, compared with neither treatment, was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality. However, the interpretation of these findings may be limited by the observational design.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766117

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this treatment in the early stages of this disease.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Tom Cardy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hasn't the consensus been that a lot of treatments are most effective if given early in the disease course? People already in the hospital are typically 7+ days into it, at which point the mechanism for HCQ/Zinc is less effective.
Carolin_Gallego
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think it's a bit premature to consider this treatment effective in the early stages of the disease course.

We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Tom Cardy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The anecdotal evidence from docs on this forum is that the combo has seemed to correlate with better outcomes when administered early. Since almost every clinical trial is in a hospital setting, none are hitting the same window in the disease course.

I'm not asserting that it's a proven treatment, but rather that the bounds of the study being discussed aren't in the ideal treatment scenario.
Carolin_Gallego
How long do you want to ignore this user?
terradactylexpress
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I saw a post on Reddit that I think the UK was doing a randomized test of patients that had symptoms for less than 14 days. Hopefully that test can shed some.light in a month or so
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Again, another retrospective study in which really sick people, many likely on day 7+ of symptoms, were given pretty much anything in a desperate attempt to save them.

We need good RCTs for prophylaxis and early intervention.
Mordred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Moxley said:

Again, another retrospective study in which really sick people, many likely on day 7+ of symptoms, were given pretty much anything in a desperate attempt to save them.

We need good RCTs for prophylaxis and early intervention.
Agree with this.
DTP02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is there a timetable for results from the HCW prophylactic study that was being run by I think the U of Minn?
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why doesn't this 1/2 inch box end wrench work on the 3/4 inch nut? Until we have verified, published research, 1/2 inch box end wrenches are worthless.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kick-R said:

The anecdotal evidence from docs on this forum is that the combo has seemed to correlate with better outcomes when administered early. Since almost every clinical trial is in a hospital setting, none are hitting the same window in the disease course.

I'm not asserting that it's a proven treatment, but rather that the bounds of the study being discussed aren't in the ideal treatment scenario.


You can write a million technical words, bit you can't substitute for expertise and know-how. If you give a monkey a bat, his batting average against Clayton Kershaw won't change one bit. If you give a bat to Christian Yelich, it will help quite a bit.
aggiegolfer03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:

I think it's a bit premature to consider this treatment effective in the early stages of the disease course.




And by the same token this study doesn't rule out the potential uses of it in the early stages of disease either.
Carnwellag2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kick-R said:

Hasn't the consensus been that a lot of treatments are most effective if given early in the disease course? People already in the hospital are typically 7+ days into it, at which point the mechanism for HCQ/Zinc is less effective.
Yes HCQ. Has been shown effective when given early as it blocks replication. Once hospitalized the virus in the patient has reached a critical mass. Remdisivir has shown better results at this stage


But OMB
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.