I hate that news agencies are reporting on studies with little understanding of how to properly evaluate them. Ignoring that this is a retrospective observational study which cannot determine efficacy given its nature, there are obvious and statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients in the HCQ alone group vs usual care group (UC). Average age was 71 for UC, 53 for HCQ. mSOFA score >5 on admission (meaning exceptionally sick at presentation) was 36% for UC, 25% for HCQ. Ever given steroids (drugs that have demonstrated mortality benefit for this dease), 35% for UC vs 79% for HCQ.McInnis said:
New study shows that it's very effective when taken early.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study
The conclusion states "In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality." (emphasis mine).Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:I hate that news agencies are reporting on studies with little understanding of how to properly evaluate them. Ignoring that this is a retrospective observational study which cannot determine efficacy given its nature, there are obvious and statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients in the HCQ alone group vs usual care group (UC). Average age was 71 for UC, 53 for HCQ. mSOFA score >5 on admission (meaning exceptionally sick at presentation) was 36% for UC, 25% for HCQ. Ever given steroids (drugs that have demonstrated mortality benefit for this dease), 35% for UC vs 79% for HCQ.McInnis said:
New study shows that it's very effective when taken early.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study
So the patients in the usual care group were older, sicker, and did not receive the only med that has proven mortality benefit. Of course their outcomes were worse.
Its not a false claim. Based on their propensity score matching and regression modeling, they found a difference; however, anyone that is familiar with literature appraisal understands that it is extremely difficult to control for confounding variables in a restrospective analysis when the baseline characteristics of patients is so different between groups being studied. There are numerous nuanced confounders that won't be picked up on propensity matching.McInnis said:The conclusion states "In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality." (emphasis mine).Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:I hate that news agencies are reporting on studies with little understanding of how to properly evaluate them. Ignoring that this is a retrospective observational study which cannot determine efficacy given its nature, there are obvious and statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients in the HCQ alone group vs usual care group (UC). Average age was 71 for UC, 53 for HCQ. mSOFA score >5 on admission (meaning exceptionally sick at presentation) was 36% for UC, 25% for HCQ. Ever given steroids (drugs that have demonstrated mortality benefit for this dease), 35% for UC vs 79% for HCQ.McInnis said:
New study shows that it's very effective when taken early.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study
So the patients in the usual care group were older, sicker, and did not receive the only med that has proven mortality benefit. Of course their outcomes were worse.
Do you have reason to believe that the report's conclusion makes a false claim?
My motives are good science appraisal. My job requires me to appropriately evaluate medical literature and disseminate this knowledge to my patients. I have no dog in this fight other than to provide the best care to my patients. Clearly you have a significant dog in this fight, however.DadHammer said:
Starting to question your motives.
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:My motives are good science appraisal. My job requires me to appropriately evaluate medical literature and disseminate this knowledge to my patients. I have no dog in this fight other than to provide the best care to my patients. Clearly you have a significant dog in this fight, however.DadHammer said:
Starting to question your motives.
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:Its not a false claim. Based on their propensity score matching and regression modeling, they found a difference; however, anyone that is familiar with literature appraisal understands that it is extremely difficult to control for confounding variables in a restrospective analysis when the baseline characteristics of patients is so different between groups being studied. There are numerous nuanced confounders that won't be picked up on propensity matching.McInnis said:The conclusion states "In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality." (emphasis mine).Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:I hate that news agencies are reporting on studies with little understanding of how to properly evaluate them. Ignoring that this is a retrospective observational study which cannot determine efficacy given its nature, there are obvious and statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients in the HCQ alone group vs usual care group (UC). Average age was 71 for UC, 53 for HCQ. mSOFA score >5 on admission (meaning exceptionally sick at presentation) was 36% for UC, 25% for HCQ. Ever given steroids (drugs that have demonstrated mortality benefit for this dease), 35% for UC vs 79% for HCQ.McInnis said:
New study shows that it's very effective when taken early.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-coronavirus-study
So the patients in the usual care group were older, sicker, and did not receive the only med that has proven mortality benefit. Of course their outcomes were worse.
Do you have reason to believe that the report's conclusion makes a false claim?
Quote:
If not, why? Why is this not being tested?
Infection_Ag11 said:Quote:
If not, why? Why is this not being tested?
Because there's no biochemically sound mechanism by which this combination would be expected to be effective. Few people are going to want to invest the time, energy and resources (financial or otherwise) to conduct a study which they have no good reason to believe will yield worthwhile results. They aren't going to conduct the study just to show it doesn't work, that's not how scientific research works.
It goes back to the idea that that which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Skillet Shot said:Infection_Ag11 said:Quote:
If not, why? Why is this not being tested?
Because there's no biochemically sound mechanism by which this combination would be expected to be effective. Few people are going to want to invest the time, energy and resources (financial or otherwise) to conduct a study which they have no good reason to believe will yield worthwhile results. They aren't going to conduct the study just to show it doesn't work, that's not how scientific research works.
It goes back to the idea that that which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If there was no biochemically sound mechanism, HCQ would never have been tried as a treatment. HCQ is being used in many other countries around the world. The falsified Lancet study was used as evidence to shut down other HCQ trials. The recovery trial used high doses to critically ill patients, failed study design.
Now I mainly hear "the science is settled" argument without seeing actual evidence. For a community based on science, it shouldn't be difficult to show data to support these claims.
Skillet Shot said:
Positive early results -> need double blind peer reviewed trials
bogus Lancet study -> HCQ is deadly
RECOVERY trial with failed design -> HCQ ineffective
Still no trial testing HCQ in early stage -> no evidence to support why it would work
Ok, then give "Big Pharma" the middle finger and load up on green tea and Quercitin.... also zinc ionophores.Red Fishing Ag93 said:
Weak theoretical claims?
Zinc been used for decades to slow virus replication. This doesn't come from lay men posting. HQ helps the cells absorb it.
Maybe big pharma has infested the board.
Red Fishing Ag93 said:
Weak theoretical claims?
Zinc been used for decades to slow virus replication.
Quote:
HQ helps the cells absorb
I did, and posted them above! You look at the results (data) LOL and compare that to the conclusions of the scientists.BBQ4Me said:
Look at the results in the publication - the treatment group did not perform statistically significantly better than the control group.
Admittedly it isn't a huge statistical difference. But when numbers are pretty clearly fudged, it leads to all kinds of conspiracy nonsense. Just call it 1.8% vs about 3.8% and leave it be.BBQ4Me said:
Look at the results in the publication - the treatment group did not perform statistically significantly better than the control group.
BBQ4Me said:
None of the contrasts were an alpha of .05. Well actually there was one. The treatment group had significantly greater rate of adverse effects.
I suggest focusing on the text in the actual article and less on that rambling person on Twitter who is misinterpreting it.
Quote:
The incidence of hospitalization or death was 3.2% (15 of 465) among participants with known vital status. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations and 1 nonhospitalized death occurred (n = 5 events). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations and 1 hospitalized death occurred (n = 10 events); of these hospitalizations, 2 were not COVID-19related (nonstudy medicine overdose and syncope). The incidence of hospitalization or death did not differ between groups (P = 0.29).
