The revenge of hydroxychloroquine

[suncowiam]

The proponents of hydroxychloroquine have consistently proposed that it be used in combination as a treatment. That doesn’t negate its part in the effects of such treatment. Other studies have attempted to test the other components alone without it and got inferior results.

This study is an indicator that hydroxychloroquine has benefits when used as proposed. That is science.

Also, the only proponents of hydroxychloroquine should be scientists that understands hydroxychloroquine, malaria, and covid related issues to even possibly suggest continuing research.

If, we have regular citizens with no medical background being proponents then I will argue that their basis is completely false.

 

[suncowiam]

I could care less if President Trump or any other person thinks their person gives imprimatur to something. I didn’t vote for him and I try to follow the science. On the other hand I equally reject ignoring a potentially efficacious treatment for a deadly disease simply because some dislike that President Trump had some connection to it. Lives are at stake. I hate politics putting lives at risk. Period.

I never suggested to ignore hydroxychloroquine. I only suggest to be neutral until more data suggests otherwise.

But most that argue for hydroxychloroquine without a medical background are repeating political talking points.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

hydroxychloroquine has benefits when used as proposed

It's proposed use is for malaria.
Come back when the studies show hydroxychloroquine actually works, because we have a legion of studies that say it doesn't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Folks should actually read the report and make an honest attempt to understand what it says and what can be reasonably inferred from it.

 

[Yerda]

Any news on whether we should start injecting bleach?

 

[metis]

Wow, those side effects sounds way worse than the possible effects of Covid-19 which include death. [/sarcasm off]

There are more effective remedies that are at least somewhat safer, such as steroids, which has proven to be quite effective. On top of that, what you posted in your OP isn't effective by itself according to some studies.

Thus, maybe it's best to get off the sarcasm and maybe actually spend some time on researching multiple sources.

 

[ChristineM]

A new peer reviewed study shows hydroxychloroquine reduces Covid-19 hospitalizations by 84%.

Study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations for patients treated with controversial drug hydroxychloroquine

Wasn't that the stuff trump was taking to ward off the virus. Didn't do him much good when he got infected

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From the study ...

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. This was a retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. A total of 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the year 2020 were included. The main outcome measures were risk-stratified treatment decision and rates of hospitalisation and all-cause death. A median of 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3–6 days; available for n = 66/141 patients] after the onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40–67 years; 73.0% male) received a prescription for triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients in the same community were used as untreated controls. Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations. ...

4.1. Potential implications for clinicians and policy-makers
Clinical experience from severely ill inpatients with pneumonia who were treated with high-dose HCQ is not readily transferable to the outpatient setting with upper respiratory tract disease only. For outpatients with a median of only 4 days after onset of symptoms, COVID-19 represents a totally different disease and needs to be managed and treated differently [63]. A simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification, as shown here, allows for rapid treatment decisions and treatment with the triple therapy of zinc, low-dose HCQ and azithromycin and may prevent a large number of hospitalisations and probably deaths during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This might also help to avoid overwhelming of healthcare systems.

[emphasis added = JS]​

If I'm reading this correctly, the study provides evidence for the efficacy of low-dose hydroxychloroquine treatment in of "outpatients with a median of only 4 days after onset of symptoms" in which "COVID-19 represents a totally different disease and needs to be managed and treated differently." If true. this is very good news in the abstract. It is also very strong evidence for the critical importance of widespread, early, and persistent testing and rapid intervention, both of which were maximally crippled by the Trump Administration whose response was one of compulsive dishonesty and malignant neglect - all made possible by the complicit.

 

[metis]

From the study ...

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. This was a retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. A total of 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the year 2020 were included. The main outcome measures were risk-stratified treatment decision and rates of hospitalisation and all-cause death. A median of 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3–6 days; available for n = 66/141 patients] after the onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40–67 years; 73.0% male) received a prescription for triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients in the same community were used as untreated controls. Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations. ...

4.1. Potential implications for clinicians and policy-makers
Clinical experience from severely ill inpatients with pneumonia who were treated with high-dose HCQ is not readily transferable to the outpatient setting with upper respiratory tract disease only. For outpatients with a median of only 4 days after onset of symptoms, COVID-19 represents a totally different disease and needs to be managed and treated differently [63]. A simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification, as shown here, allows for rapid treatment decisions and treatment with the triple therapy of zinc, low-dose HCQ and azithromycin and may prevent a large number of hospitalisations and probably deaths during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This might also help to avoid overwhelming of healthcare systems.

[emphasis added = JS]​

If I'm reading this correctly, the study provides evidence for the efficacy of low-dose hydroxychloroquine treatment in of "outpatients with a median of only 4 days after onset of symptoms" in which "COVID-19 represents a totally different disease and needs to be managed and treated differently." If true. this is very good news in the abstract. It is also very strong evidence for the critical importance of widespread, early, and persistent testing and rapid intervention, both of which were maximally crippled by the Trump Administration whose response was one of compulsive dishonesty and malignant neglect - all made possible by the complicit.

You're being very nasty, JS, as Trump and his staunch supporters don't want science-- just rancid partisan politics. Shame on you!

 

[Shaul]

It's proposed use is for malaria.
Come back when the studies show hydroxychloroquine actually works, because we have a legion of studies that say it doesn't.

It isn’t proposed for treating malaria, it is established for use treating malaria. The study I cited shows it also works as a treatment for Covid-19.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It isn’t proposed for treating malaria, it is established for use treating malaria. The study I cited shows it also works as a treatment for Covid-19.

No, you gave a study that mentioned multiple things and it did not once say specifically that hydroxychloroquine works. And, again, we have a mountain range of studies that show it doesn't.

 

[Shaul]

From the study ...

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. This was a retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. A total of 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the year 2020 were included. The main outcome measures were risk-stratified treatment decision and rates of hospitalisation and all-cause death. A median of 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3–6 days; available for n = 66/141 patients] after the onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40–67 years; 73.0% male) received a prescription for triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients in the same community were used as untreated controls. Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations. ...

4.1. Potential implications for clinicians and policy-makers
Clinical experience from severely ill inpatients with pneumonia who were treated with high-dose HCQ is not readily transferable to the outpatient setting with upper respiratory tract disease only. For outpatients with a median of only 4 days after onset of symptoms, COVID-19 represents a totally different disease and needs to be managed and treated differently [63]. A simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification, as shown here, allows for rapid treatment decisions and treatment with the triple therapy of zinc, low-dose HCQ and azithromycin and may prevent a large number of hospitalisations and probably deaths during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This might also help to avoid overwhelming of healthcare systems.

[emphasis added = JS]​

If I'm reading this correctly, the study provides evidence for the efficacy of low-dose hydroxychloroquine treatment in of "outpatients with a median of only 4 days after onset of symptoms" in which "COVID-19 represents a totally different disease and needs to be managed and treated differently." If true. this is very good news in the abstract. It is also very strong evidence for the critical importance of widespread, early, and persistent testing and rapid intervention, both of which were maximally crippled by the Trump Administration whose response was one of compulsive dishonesty and malignant neglect - all made possible by the complicit.

The proponents of using hydroxychloroquine as a therapy for Covid-19 have consistently stated it was for use in the early stages. The Trump administration is most responsible for the rapid increase in testing availability. The opposite of crippling it.

 

[Shaul]

No, you gave a study that mentioned multiple things and it did not once say specifically that hydroxychloroquine works. And, again, we have a mountain range of studies that show it doesn't.

Quoting from the highlights of the study it reads, “
•

First COVID-19 outpatient study based on risk stratification and early antiviral treatment at the beginning of the disease.

•
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.
”

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Trump administration is most responsible for the rapid increase in testing availability.

Absolute lie.

 

[metis]

The Trump administration is most responsible for the rapid increase in testing availability. The opposite of crippling it.

Absolute lie.

Indeed, as the Trump administration pushed the vast majority of the testing off to the individual states, who then had to compete against each other for materials while themselves being strapped for funds.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

combined with zinc and azithromycin

That means it's not a miracle redemption for hydroxychloroquin and makes it inaccurate to say hydroxychloroquin works.
We still have a mountain of studies that say it doesn't work. This study says that in a low dose combined with other things appears to work. But one study doesn't change or negate the many others saying it doesn't work.