🔒 Latest hydroxychloroquine data

[codeDawg]

https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Summary:

• Not highly rigorous study. Small sample of 368, but did at least include a control group
• 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died
• 11% of those getting routine care alone
• 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival
• Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either

We still don't have conclusive evidence that this drug works or not, but this in combination with the Brazil study that was halted is why you don't go running out prescribing treatment widely without more study.

Hopefully the drug has benefits for patients that don't fit the profile of the ones studied here. I believe the Brazil trial had some early evidence that there was some benefit for those who started taking it early in their infection.

 

[patdog]

That's the case about 95% of the time a drug first "shows promise" in a small initial non-scientific study. It would have been like something out of the movies for it to be so simple. Real life usually isn't that simple.

 

[JungRebel]

But you gotta use it with zinc or something. Swear I heard someone say something like that.

 

[johnson86-1]

https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Summary:

• Not highly rigorous study. Small sample of 368, but did at least include a control group
• 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died
• 11% of those getting routine care alone
• 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival
• Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either

We still don't have conclusive evidence that this drug works or not, but this in combination with the Brazil study that was halted is why you don't go running out prescribing treatment widely without more study.

Hopefully the drug has benefits for patients that don't fit the profile of the ones studied here. I believe the Brazil trial had some early evidence that there was some benefit for those who started taking it early in their infection.

I don't think that would be uncommon for an anti viral treatment. Pretty sure all the flu antivirals need to be take no later than 48 hours after symptoms to help. Not sure it's the same mechanism since it's about outbreaks and not infections, but I think most cold sore medicines have to be taken immediately when an outbreak is felt in order to do much good.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Meh... it doesn’t say when or how sick they were when they were given the drug...sounds more like an agenda type article to me... You would think any type of antiviral you would need to start early after symptoms start showing...

 

[L4Dawg]

Meh... it doesn’t say when or how sick they were when they were given the drug...sounds more like an agenda type article to me... You would think any type of antiviral you would need to start early after symptoms start showing...

That drug is not, never has been, and never will be an anti-viral. It does have significant anti-inflammatory properties and that's why it was being tried with COVID, to try and treat the inflammation in the lungs and other organs that kills with this disease. As another poster pointed out, 95% of these "it shows promise in early limited trails" things never pan out.

 

[MrKotter]

That drug is not, never has been, and never will be an anti-viral. It does have significant anti-inflammatory properties and that's why it was being tried with COVID, to try and treat the inflammation in the lungs and other organs that kills with this disease. As another poster pointed out, 95% of these "it shows promise in early limited trails" things never pan out.

Umm, what? This is nowhere near accurate at all. Hydroxychloroquine is used to keep the virus from releasing its genes for copying.

 

[Shamoan]

Drug design is a fascinating subject. It’s incredible the molecular signatures that makes a drug effective or ineffective. Very beautiful, but complex

 

[tenureplan]

That drug is not, never has been, and never will be an anti-viral. It does have significant anti-inflammatory properties and that's why it was being tried with COVID, to try and treat the inflammation in the lungs and other organs that kills with this disease. As another poster pointed out, 95% of these "it shows promise in early limited trails" things never pan out.

That explains the effectiveness of nsaid's....

 

[Dawgcap]

But some will upvote for a small study yet downvoted a study that had positive results. Wonder why?

 

[Ozarkdawg]

Talked to a coworker today. His sister-in-law tested positive. She is african american, mid 40's, and otherwise healthy. She was sick for about a week. Finally got tested and had the be admitted. He said he didnt see her but heard her (assume on phone) and she sounded horrible. Had the typical symptoms and difficulty breathing
Was in hospital 2 days. Put on HCL and z-pack. Don't know about zinc, but can find out. Had major turnaround and doing much better today. I think it works but may not for everyone. Key being given before it's do or die time. Like stated above, early enough before your body is fighting so hard on multiple fronts.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

This is the perfect example of anecdotal evidence.

Without a large sample size with a control, there is no way to know if the drug and the outcome are related.

 

[00Dawg]

Not pushing for the medicine, but that sounds...

like there would be all sorts of reasons for that data to be bad. Only the article describes this as a "study", and I don't think it meets the standards to be considered one.

Scanning the report seems to back that up.
They picked all the COVID-19-positive vets, and then checked to see which ones had a medicine cleared for emergency use prescribed, and whether that was pre or post-ventilation. All sorts of things could factor into the decision on what to give and when exactly it was given.

Anyway, if we went with nothing but this report, pre-ventilation you would want Plaquenil and a Z-pack. The numbers are there to review.

Bottom line, the docs' summary is pretty in line with what everything says if you ignore the headlines and look for yourself: we don't know yet.

 

[codeDawg]

Without a large sample size with a control, there is no way to know if the drug and the outcome are related.

Exactly. May have helped, or may have been coincidence her body just recovered quickly. It may have also been that it helped, but someone with a similar profile could have heart complications and die unnecessarily. Until there are enough studies, these treatments are just reckless which is why the NIH has recommended treatments stop.

 

[Dawgzilla]

That drug is not, never has been, and never will be an anti-viral. It does have significant anti-inflammatory properties and that's why it was being tried with COVID, to try and treat the inflammation in the lungs and other organs that kills with this disease. As another poster pointed out, 95% of these "it shows promise in early limited trails" things never pan out.

I dont pretend to be a doctor, but chloroquine was found to have both prophylactic and therapeutic anti viral effects against SARS and MERS. That's why doctors were trying it against the current coronavirus.

 

[Dawgcap]

But yet we have results that say 17% more died with this mixture vs nothing at all. And some are up voting this up and not skeptical? Why would this be a possible treatment unless there is something to it? I saw multiple people downvote possibilities early for this cocktail for small sample size a few weeks ago but yet I bet these are the upvotes for this study.

 

[paindonthurt_]

Did taking the drugs hurt anyone? Did it for 100% sure make anyone worse?

 

[patdog]

Exactly. Our brains have evolved to put the facts that she took the drug and got better and conclude that the drug made her get better. What we don't consider is would she have gotten better anyway and the drug had nothing to do with it.

 

[Ozarkdawg]

Not trying to be an arse here, but if they might have heart complications and die unnecessarily, does that mean a lupus or RA patient taking the same drug might die too?

I would be concerned giving to the most sick because I would think they have the hardest time dealing with the "shock" of the med combined with their stressed status. But that is the way Manu agree to give it. Would agree that everyone shouldn't need it, but would think the optimal time might be if someone is sick enough to be admitted but before they are ICU sick and too sick to handle it.

 

[Dawgcap]

yep. Stick with normal care. So many many will be happy over this ridiculous study while downplaying studies of other similar sizes

 

[Hump4Hoops]

It could be possible for various reasons

But yet we have results that say 17% more died with this mixture vs nothing at all. And some are up voting this up and not skeptical? Why would this be a possible treatment unless there is something to it? I saw multiple people downvote possibilities early for this cocktail for small sample size a few weeks ago but yet I bet these are the upvotes for this study.

One is that it helps (or perhaps does nothing for) some people, but hurts more people than it helps. So you will have anecdotal evidence, including some from doctors, that it works. You will also have many patients die that would have lived, but it is impossible to say they wouldn't have died anyway, until you look at the numbers across a number of similar patients who were not given this treatment.

This is why some here were cautioning against the fanatical push for an unproved drug.

 

[Dawgcap]

One is that it helps (or perhaps does nothing for) some people, but hurts more people than it helps. So you will have anecdotal evidence, including some from doctors, that it works. You will also have many patients die that would have lived, but it is impossible to say they wouldn't have died anyway, until you look at the numbers across a number of similar patients who were not given this treatment.

This is why some here were cautioning against the fanatical push for an unproved drug.

Maybe. But my point is we had several upvote the initial findings. See I think we have the best fighting this and they are honing in on an answer but I don’t believe we have scientists killing people at a higher rate. If you believe that I’m sorry

 

[MrKotter]

It's not a coincidence that a lot of people start getting better once they take chloroquine and Azithromycin. To even suggest and try to push on people that a study with a sample size of 368 is more conclusive than the hundreds of doctors and thousands of patients who saw results using this combo is asinine. I personally know people who immediately started on the recovery path after receiving this treatment and family members who are doctors who have witnessed the same. This sounds like a Fauci press release so he can continue his "research " like he did with HIV and AIDS and accomplish absolutely nothing.

 

[codeDawg]

Not trying to be an arse here, but if they might have heart complications and die unnecessarily, does that mean a lupus or RA patient taking the same drug might die too?

I would be concerned giving to the most sick because I would think they have the hardest time dealing with the "shock" of the med combined with their stressed status. But that is the way Manu agree to give it. Would agree that everyone shouldn't need it, but would think the optimal time might be if someone is sick enough to be admitted but before they are ICU sick and too sick to handle it.

Yes. The heart complications for those conditions are well documented and monitored.

 

[codeDawg]

Did taking the drugs hurt anyone? Did it for 100% sure make anyone worse?

We don’t know for sure, but this study says twice as many people died on therapy than off. The Brazil study stopped because of similar results, and other data has led the NIH to recommend not continuing this course of therapy.

This does not mean this therapy does not have benefits, but it clearly also has negative effects and the difference isn’t known yet.

 

[codeDawg]

It's not a coincidence that a lot of people start getting better once they take chloroquine and Azithromycin. To even suggest and try to push on people that a study with a sample size of 368 is more conclusive than the hundreds of doctors and thousands of patients who saw results using this combo is asinine. I personally know people who immediately started on the recovery path after receiving this treatment and family members who are doctors who have witnessed the same. This sounds like a Fauci press release so he can continue his "research " like he did with HIV and AIDS and accomplish absolutely nothing.

I think what the data is suggesting is that some people may be helped, but some people may have drastically negative effects. We need more data to know the difference.

 

[Misfit]

Read it. A study done by the Veterans Administration. Obviously a liberal organization right? Not a scientific study, just like the ones your dear leader has been hyping weren't, but these guys were seeking attention, like the guy in France, they were hoping they could save people and the drug didn't do it. Haven't you wondered why Fox News and Trump have quit the hype the last couple of weeks. They knew.

 

[JungRebel]

I agree, 17 the scientific method.

Nevermind that this virus probably kills less than 1% of the people that it infects. Of course a **** ton of people got better and of course they have a story that says just as much.

 

[Ozarkdawg]

Read somewhere about a doc at nursing home that used a combo of HCL and doxycycline instead of z-pack. Since HCL and z have potential for heart issues, he didn't want to combine them in elderly patients. So he used doxy, HCL, and zinc.
Wondering why that hasn't received more attention since less likely to affect heart rythem and there is so much talk about HCL.

Also, there is a difference with Brazil study in that it used chloroquine and not HCL, so it was harder on the body to begin with. Also was at higher doses I believe than the 200 mg hcl doses I've read about in us.

 

[Bucky Dog]

And just yesterday it came out in a poll of some 60,000 physicians worldwide and Hydroxychloroquine was still considered the best option available today to treat COVID. But let’s not rain on Code’s parade of wanting to be right so bad. I mean **** dude, how many times do we have to so, NO ONE EVER SAID THIS WAS THE CURE, but, IT WAS HOPE AND HAD GOOD RESULTS, WHEN THERE WAS NO HOPE.

There are still positive results and Novartis just started its own controlled study under FDA guidance because the other trials have shown such promise.

But keep preaching brother, and searching CNN website for these one sided trail result of 92 year old veterans and nursing home patients with at least 3 comorbidities.

 

[Len2003]

It's not a coincidence that a lot of people start getting better once they take chloroquine and Azithromycin. To even suggest and try to push on people that a study with a sample size of 368 is more conclusive than the hundreds of doctors and thousands of patients who saw results using this combo is asinine. I personally know people who immediately started on the recovery path after receiving this treatment and family members who are doctors who have witnessed the same. This sounds like a Fauci press release so he can continue his "research " like he did with HIV and AIDS and accomplish absolutely nothing.

Most people recover with no treatment, so you have no way of knowing if the Hydroxycloroquine helped or if they would have recovered anyway.

 

[RockKickinSandPoundinSOB]

https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Summary:

• Not highly rigorous study. Small sample of 368, but did at least include a control group
• 28% who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died
• 11% of those getting routine care alone
• 22% of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival
• Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either

We still don't have conclusive evidence that this drug works or not, but this in combination with the Brazil study that was halted is why you don't go running out prescribing treatment widely without more study.

Hopefully the drug has benefits for patients that don't fit the profile of the ones studied here. I believe the Brazil trial had some early evidence that there was some benefit for those who started taking it early in their infection.

Lol It’s a ******** study.

 

[Dawgcap]

But we have so many that believe this. Funny thing is they want negativity

 

[Hubcitydog]

Zinc probably does more than the plaquenil lol. And all of these patients in this study were probably on zinc.

 

[Hubcitydog]

I’m guessing you were joking but just so everyone knows- you probably shouldn’t take nsaids if you have coronavirus, take tylenol

 

[Hubcitydog]

When 99% or more get better, you have to have studies to prove that the medicine assisted and she wasn’t going to get better whether she had the meds or not.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will see that plaquenil doesn’t do much.

 

[rebsgoingdown]

The funny thing to me is that all of these other stories get zero media attention (Zelenko got on Hannity) but by and large any good news about Hydroxychloroquine gets zero credibility from the press. The article mentioned above was already at the top of the now left leaning Drudgereport.
I'm not saying the drug is effective or not....but I guarantee you all of the mainstream press are ready to parrot the findings in this study which supposedly turned up negative results. Why is this? It is almost totally out of hatred for our president.

 

[MrKotter]

Most people recover with no treatment, so you have no way of knowing if the Hydroxycloroquine helped or if they would have recovered anyway.

So you have no idea if people are getting worse on hydroxychloroquine using your logic either. It's a BS study no matter how you look at it. There is a **** ton more evidence that the combo helps versus hurts but there is a certain group who is hellbent on pushing a vaccine is the only hope while down playing and contradicting every treatment method being used regardless of results. There should not be this struggle between treatment versus vaccine that we have.

 

[Jacknut1]

The funny thing to me is that all of these other stories get zero media attention (Zelenko got on Hannity) but by and large any good news about Hydroxychloroquine gets zero credibility from the press. The article mentioned above was already at the top of the now left leaning Drudgereport.
I'm not saying the drug is effective or not....but I guarantee you all of the mainstream press are ready to parrot the findings in this study which supposedly turned up negative results. Why is this? It is almost totally out of hatred for our president.

Yep, if Trump had come out against Hydroxychloroquine, the media would have been all over themselves to show how good of a treatment it was and that Trump was wrong, lol. So predictable.

 

[Hubcitydog]

Yes it’s a ******** study
i think it is unlikely to hurt (when dosed properly, there was one study where they dosed high and had arrhythmias)
I think it’s unlikely to help based on lots of studies (admittedly most are suspect)

A vaccine is a laughable option as a rescue. We aren’t waiting on it, it will probably be about as effective as the flu vax, a ton of young people won’t take it. If young people aren’t taking it, it’s effectiveness will be torpedoed. The herd immunity will never happen and silent carrier 20 year olds will be spreading it like crazy. Vaccines aren’t nearly as good at preventing disease on a case by case basis. You can’t force anyone to get the vaccine- as much as some people want this to be a communist state, it is still America.

I don’t know why people shifted to wait for the vaccine. When and why did that happen? What happened to flatten the curve? It’s flat, healthcare not overwhelmed- this is what we wanted right?