It’s the same information you heard more than a year ago

And there were plenty of studies where patients who used it didn't show improvement.

It's a new disease and therefore the treatments would take study to determine the effect. You have people with varying progressions of the disease and varying levels of seriousness of the disease, and you have patients of all different ages and physical conditions, and with different other conditions...all of which may effect the efficacy of the drug. Finally, you have varying levels of dosage, in quantity, timing and duration, as well as combinations (such as HCQ with zinc) that would have to be studied.

My theory...and I passed AP Bio...is that SOME combination of HCQ and zinc, administered in a certain dosage and at the right timing based on the progression of the disease would have a positive effect on some patients. Perhaps that would end up being useful and perhaps not. But that wasn't what we got fed by the Anti-Trumpers and the media. It was laughable at best and criminally deadly at worst that this orange idiot thought HCQ would let you live forever, or some such.

CharlestonTiger15®

All-In [31500]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 10207

Joined: 1/28/15

I tried to ignore this, I really did.

Jun 12, 2021, 7:41 AM

The fact is, this was, and remains the single dumbest thing I can ever remember being turned into a DEMS VS PUBS Twitter Hot-Take War.

It is fortunate that doctors caring for people with COVID don’t take their instruction from Don Lemon (Trump and HCQ are killing people!) or Sean Hannity (This is the greatest medical discovery of all time, and the liberals want to hide it!).

You see, in medicine, we use clinical research, sometimes acquired over decades, constantly challenging paradigms, constantly comparing new treatments to gold standards, to try to figure out the best ways to treat people. Papers like the one you posted have been around since the spring of last year. I remember reading something very similar in fact. There have been dozens of papers from around the world, most from China, India, and Brazil interestingly, that have had some promising results for HCQ protocols for subclinical infection, early disease, late disease. They have looked at numerous endpoints- mortality, adverse events, hospitalization, symptoms, viral clearance, etc. There is a bevy if information you can find all at your fingertips, all for free in a database like PubMed.

The problem is, there have been just as many, if not more, that have not shown efficacy. The issue when you have a spattering of moderate quality data (small samples, low power, retrospective, non-randomized, etc) is that you will fail to see a CONSENSUS. When there is no convincing data, the game hasn’t been changed. Some people will use it! And that’s great! Some people won’t use it! And that’s fine too!

There are several very high quality prospective trials being done now in the US, for which no data is yet available. They may likely being powered well enough and reliable and high-quality for a consensus to develop. And if the consensus is that it helps and more people would benefit from it? I don’t see that as political points for anyone, just like if we decide it doesn’t help, that won’t validate irrational critics.

This whole issue is SO silly. You have two groups of uninformed people making twitter takes on something that is decidedly more complex and not black and white good or bad.

I’ve included a few meta-analyses that I read through this morning. They’re pretty good and not impossible to read. I’d encourage anyone who is genuinely interested in this to consider a more nuanced stance and read the unfiltered information.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol:
https://osf.io/QESV4/

). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is url=https://www.nature.com/articles/ 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with increased mortality, and there was no benefit from chloroquine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7665543/

Efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.We searched ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8184930/

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, ...

As always, I caution people against cherry-picking one paper and ignoring contradictory data. This is more difficult for a lay-person who doesn’t understand evidence quality, journal impact ratings, and the experience critically analyzing clinical research.

I guess the TLDR is, leave the medicine to doctors, not politicians and pundits.

***HUGE DISCLAIMER*** This is not a statement of support or critique of any treatment for covid. I have only sporadically provided surgical care to COVID patients, and I am not the best source for what treatment algorithms are currently being employed to treat COVID. I would strongly consider the word of the innumerable great doctors in reputable hospitals treating these patients over mine.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

HCQ and Zinc

Re: HCQ and Zinc

Yes, of all the coordinated deceit directed at us to make

Excellent news***

Yep, it's been a scam all along. All to sell gene therapy.

lulz***

If it worked so great, why did Trump get Covid?

The study is not about its ability to prevent COVID

The French must be in on the conspiracy against Trump, too

Different studies done different ways

it doesnt keep you from getting it

That's not really germaine to the point.

That's because Covid was all a scam, and Trump knew it.

He needed supplemental oxygen twice

who said it prevented covid?????***

I think you need more question marks***

??????????? here's a few more***

He wasn't taking it.***

He lied?***

can't get nothing by him***

Re: HCQ and Zinc

and.......your point?

Re: and.......your point?

Hey, I got a great idea

no, more like exposing the BS media and their lies***

did you even read the article?

Re: did you even read the article?

Re: Hey, I got a great idea

“Who cares about what lies and distortions

Re: HCQ and Zinc

This seems sort of obvious, but...

Don’t lie

Re: Don’t lie

Re: Don’t lie

It wasn't just thinking out loud though...

Re: It wasn't just thinking out loud though...

Re: Don’t lie

What does that prove?

Re: What does that prove?

There were plenty of studies that showed it helped.

I don't know why you feel the need to overembellish the

Re: HCQ and Zinc

Re: HCQ and Zinc

DJT wasn't outright wrong about many things.

I tried to ignore this, I really did.

You must be bored.***

Must be.***

*bewm****

I will absolutely read this, just as soon as I get through

Re: I will absolutely read this, just as soon as I get through

Well look who also passed AP Bio.***

TigerBoard POTD