- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:54 pm to cwil177
quote:
Treatment was initiated late, an average of 16-17 days after disease onset:
the brazil study found that starting it before 7 days of symptoms was better than after 7 days, which is was most clinicians have been saying.
Start it early or dont start it at all.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:54 pm to Sao
quote:
Sooooo... why can't Louisiana do it? Anyone?
It's a non randomized, non placebo-controlled study on patients who may not even have COVID. Essentially it gives us no data on how the medicine affects COVID patients.
The placebo effect is a real thing, hence using no placebo pill in your "control" group vs only actual medicine in the treatment arm lends itself to a bias towards your treatment arm looking better than it actually is. Does that make sense?
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:55 pm to OKtiger
Brazil is as trustworthy as China when it comes to CV19. Bolsonaro is a trashbag dictator.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:56 pm to cwil177
this study is fricking terrible to extrapolate to the united states
no wonder they saw those side effects
the brazil study did the exact dose the US uses except for 2 days longer
I dont think youre actually in healthcare or make decisions off medical literature if you think a study that started therapy 17 days after symptoms at a highly toxic dose is the "best weve got"
quote:
The dose of hydroxychloroquine used was 1,200 mg daily for three days, followed by 800 mg daily for 2-3 weeks. This is a huge dose of hydroxychloroquine (in comparison, the most commonly used regimen in the United States currently seems to be 800 mg on the first day followed by 400 mg daily for four days).
no wonder they saw those side effects
the brazil study did the exact dose the US uses except for 2 days longer
I dont think youre actually in healthcare or make decisions off medical literature if you think a study that started therapy 17 days after symptoms at a highly toxic dose is the "best weve got"
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:56 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Start it early or dont start it at all.
I agree with this. I'm honestly surprised we still don't have a good blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial where patients were started on HCQ early in their disease course or hospitalization. I bet those results end up being positive, especially with the addition of zinc (HCQ helps zinc enter the cell, where it inhibits viral replication).
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:57 pm to cwil177
Much more interested in the Galedisivir trial ongoing in Brazil.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:57 pm to cwil177
quote:
It's a non randomized, non placebo-controlled study on patients who may not even have COVID. Essentially it gives us no data on how the medicine affects COVID patients.
Ahh. So a "nothingburder"
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:58 pm to Harry Pitts
Only as it pertains to "clinical trials in Brazil".
HCQ will get it's day in court with a placebo controlled, double blind study at some point.
HCQ will get it's day in court with a placebo controlled, double blind study at some point.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 3:59 pm to cwil177
quote:
It's a non randomized, non placebo-controlled study on patients who may not even have COVID.
in the limitations section of your "best we've got" study
quote:
Lack of blinding or placebo control.
get the frick out of here
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:00 pm to Tiguar
quote:
I dont think youre actually in healthcare or make decisions off medical literature if you think a study that started therapy 17 days after symptoms at a highly toxic dose is the "best weve got"
wew lad now tell me what do you think about OP posting BS article after BS article shilling for hydroxychloroquine
Also, the article (which you clearly didn't read) and the part you quoted was written by one of the brightest minds in critical care medicine. So I guess you think he's a dumbass, too. Good thing you're here to enlighten the world on healthcare literature, Tiguar! Feel free to put your credentials up here (oilfield baw, electrician, McDonald's manager) so we can compare them to Dr. Farkas'.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:03 pm to OKtiger
quote:
Results This study included 181 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; 84 received HCQ within 48 hours of admission (HCQ group) and 97 did not (no-HCQ group). Initial severity was well balanced between the groups. In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21 events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47–1.80). In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6% in the no-HCQ group (3 vs 4 events, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13–2.89), and 27.4% and 24.1%, respectively, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (24 vs 23 events, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65–2.00). Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation.
Interpretation These results do not support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARS- CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia.
Medrxiv.org
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:05 pm to Tiguar
quote:
It's a non randomized, non placebo-controlled study on patients who may not even have COVID.
quote:
in the limitations section of your "best we've got" study
It's literally a randomized controlled trial. Can you even read?
The study also shows pretty clearly that HCQ by itself, at least later in the disease course, has no in vivo antiviral effect. It also had no effect on survival or many of the lab values we track on these patients.
Compare that to OP's study which tells us nothing because it wasn't even studying COVID confirmed patients.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:15 pm to OKtiger
But but but...trump indirectly owns 100 bucks in a mutual fund that includes a pharmaceutical company that, in addition to all the other drugs they make, makes one type of off patent hydroxychloroquine!
He stands to make dozens of dollars in profit if hxdroxychloroquine turns out to be effective! It’s obvious that he is just promoting the drug to make money. He probably plucked it out of thin air once he heard about this obscure company a mutual fund he owned invested in made it! CNN and dem governors say it doesn’t do anything and is in fact killing people because they are eating fish cleaner because Blonald Flumpf told them to!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
He stands to make dozens of dollars in profit if hxdroxychloroquine turns out to be effective! It’s obvious that he is just promoting the drug to make money. He probably plucked it out of thin air once he heard about this obscure company a mutual fund he owned invested in made it! CNN and dem governors say it doesn’t do anything and is in fact killing people because they are eating fish cleaner because Blonald Flumpf told them to!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:20 pm to cwil177
quote:
The placebo effect is a real thing, hence using no placebo pill in your "control" group vs only actual medicine in the treatment arm lends itself to a bias towards your treatment arm looking better than it actually is. Does that make sense?
It depends. If a trial endpoint is a subjective symptom, for example, pain, then the placebo effect can be quite significant. If the endpoint is hospitalization and the criteria for admission are objective, like hypoxemia, tachypnea, CXR/CT findings, etc., then the placebo effect may be much smaller or non-existent.
This post was edited on 4/17/20 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:22 pm to OKtiger
These patients were overdosed.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:27 pm to GumboPot
quote:
These patients were overdosed.
800mg day 1 (400mg BID x 1 day) then 400mg daily x4 days is the standard "accepted" dose to treat COVID 19 right now in the US. the first dose is above the daily max dose but it's necessary to get to the inhibitory levels seen in vitro.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:27 pm to Harry Pitts
quote:
Much more interested in the Galedisivir trial ongoing in Brazil.
Yeah. Sadly remdesivir also looks bunk.
LINK
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:36 pm to cwil177
Are you effing serious. Looks like the report comes out of China. You can sit home and wait on Bill Gates vaccine ( hope it doesn't mutate). If I get sick give me the Trump cure.
Posted on 4/17/20 at 4:37 pm to LeClerc
I'm not sure what was the point of adding that study to this thread. The study noted in the OP was using HCQ as an early treatment in patients with no current criteria for hospitalization. The study you linked, presumably to make a statement that offset the OP study, was in hospitalized patients. It's quite common for some drugs to work at one stage of a disease but not work as well or at all in a later stage. So, both could be meaningful results and it would still be very good news.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News