Quote:In The Lancet, Mandeep Mehra and colleagues5 report the largest observational study published to date on the effects of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, with or without a macrolide, in 96,032 hospitalised patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Verified data from an international registry comprising 671 hospitals in six continents were used to compare patients with COVID-19 who received chloroquine (n=1868), hydroxychloroquine (n=3016), chloroquine with a macrolide (n=3783), or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n=6221) within 48 h of COVID-19 diagnosis, with 81,144 controls who did not receive these drugs. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was also analysed. A Cox proportional hazard model accounting for many confounding variables, including age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, other medications, and COVID-19 severity, showed a significant increase in the risk of in-hospital mortality with the four treatment regimens compared with the control group (hazard ratios [HRs] of 1·335 [95% CI 1·223–1·457] to 1·447 [1·368–1·531]). Analyses using propensity score matching by treatment group supported this result. The increased risk of in-hospital mortality was similar in men (1·293 [1·178–1·420] to 1·408 [1·309–1·513]) and women (1·338 [1·169–1·531] to 1·494 [1·334–1·672]). The incidence of repetitive ventricular arrhythmias ranged from 4·3% to 8·1% in patients treated with a 4-aminoquinoline, compared with 0·3% in the control group (p<0·0001).
Despite limitations inherent to the observational nature of this study, Mehra and colleagues should be commended for providing results from a well designed and controlled study of the effects of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, with or without a macrolide, in a very large sample of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Their results indicate an absence of benefit of 4-aminoquinoline-based treatments in this population and suggest that they could even be harmful.
Quote:In The Lancet, Mandeep Mehra and colleagues5 report the largest observational study published to date on the effects of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, with or without a macrolide, in 96,032 hospitalised patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Verified data from an international registry comprising 671 hospitals in six continents were used to compare patients with COVID-19 who received chloroquine (n=1868), hydroxychloroquine (n=3016), chloroquine with a macrolide (n=3783), or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (n=6221) within 48 h of COVID-19 diagnosis, with 81,144 controls who did not receive these drugs. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was also analysed. A Cox proportional hazard model accounting for many confounding variables, including age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, other medications, and COVID-19 severity, showed a significant increase in the risk of in-hospital mortality with the four treatment regimens compared with the control group (hazard ratios [HRs] of 1·335 [95% CI 1·223–1·457] to 1·447 [1·368–1·531]). Analyses using propensity score matching by treatment group supported this result. The increased risk of in-hospital mortality was similar in men (1·293 [1·178–1·420] to 1·408 [1·309–1·513]) and women (1·338 [1·169–1·531] to 1·494 [1·334–1·672]). The incidence of repetitive ventricular arrhythmias ranged from 4·3% to 8·1% in patients treated with a 4-aminoquinoline, compared with 0·3% in the control group (p<0·0001).
Despite limitations inherent to the observational nature of this study, Mehra and colleagues should be commended for providing results from a well designed and controlled study of the effects of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, with or without a macrolide, in a very large sample of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Their results indicate an absence of benefit of 4-aminoquinoline-based treatments in this population and suggest that they could even be harmful.
So what’s new here? It has been clear all along that patients presenting in severe distress don’t generally survive. Period. HQC or not. Another hit piece to give guys like you something to post all over the internet proving OMB.
If you were diagnosed tomorrow with Covid would you request this treatment?
I don’t expect an honest answer....
Dude, the whole thing all along is that this is an early, not late stage, treatment. This study looked at the wrong thing as to derive a desired conclusion.
Quote:Another hypothesis to explain the increased risk of death with 4-aminoquinolines is that their antiviral and immunomodulatory properties could worsen COVID-19 severity in some patients. Nevertheless, the increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias is intriguing. Chloroquine,8 hydroxychloroquine,9 and azithromycin10 have sodium channel blocking properties that might contribute to proarrhythmia11 and heart failure in the context of myocardial injury and hypoxia present in COVID-19.12 This hypothesis remains to be tested.
In other words the malady and not the treatment could be, and most likely is causing these heart conditions similar as the Flu.
So, let's hold off giving hydroxychloriquine to people who need it until it's too late and they are just about to die, then lets give it to them and show the world how it doesnt work.
(05-22-2020 01:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Dr Trump, who is so clinically nimble the docs actually wonder where he went to med school, says there is nothing to lose... “take it”.
*sigh* under Dr.s orders and supervision.
How did a prescription drug suddenly become political? Who decided to do something as bizarre as that? What party is Tylenol for or against? Does Ibuprofen agree with Ty, or are these one Red, one Blue?
And yes, there are other studies out there that do show efficacy in certain people under certain dosages and proper regimen. Sooooooo.
(05-22-2020 01:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Dr Trump, who is so clinically nimble the docs actually wonder where he went to med school, says there is nothing to lose... “take it”.
*sigh* under Dr.s orders and supervision.
How did a prescription drug suddenly become political? Who decided to do something as bizarre as that? What party is Tylenol for or against? Does Ibuprofen agree with Ty, or are these one Red, one Blue?
And yes, there are other studies out there that do show efficacy in certain people under certain dosages and proper regimen. Sooooooo.
What President defies the FDA, NIH & CDC and encourages the citizens of his country to take an unproven drug with known side effects?
(05-22-2020 01:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Dr Trump, who is so clinically nimble the docs actually wonder where he went to med school, says there is nothing to lose... “take it”.
*sigh* under Dr.s orders and supervision.
How did a prescription drug suddenly become political? Who decided to do something as bizarre as that? What party is Tylenol for or against? Does Ibuprofen agree with Ty, or are these one Red, one Blue?
And yes, there are other studies out there that do show efficacy in certain people under certain dosages and proper regimen. Sooooooo.
What President defies the FDA, NIH & CDC and encourages the citizens of his country to take an unproven drug with known side effects?
You really need to do a little research and stop parroting CNN.
(05-22-2020 01:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Dr Trump, who is so clinically nimble the docs actually wonder where he went to med school, says there is nothing to lose... “take it”.
*sigh* under Dr.s orders and supervision.
How did a prescription drug suddenly become political? Who decided to do something as bizarre as that? What party is Tylenol for or against? Does Ibuprofen agree with Ty, or are these one Red, one Blue?
And yes, there are other studies out there that do show efficacy in certain people under certain dosages and proper regimen. Sooooooo.
What President defies the FDA, NIH & CDC and encourages the citizens of his country to take an unproven drug with known side effects?
You really need to do a little research and stop parroting CNN.
(05-22-2020 01:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Dr Trump, who is so clinically nimble the docs actually wonder where he went to med school, says there is nothing to lose... “take it”.
*sigh* under Dr.s orders and supervision.
How did a prescription drug suddenly become political? Who decided to do something as bizarre as that? What party is Tylenol for or against? Does Ibuprofen agree with Ty, or are these one Red, one Blue?
And yes, there are other studies out there that do show efficacy in certain people under certain dosages and proper regimen. Sooooooo.
The media hadn't heard of this drug 2 months ago and now they are all Physicians and experts regarding it. I have yet to hear a Physician who ACTUALLY PRESCRIBES IT say anything negative about it. Especially this cat. America's most renowned Lupus Rheumatologist regarding HQ
Quote:On 4.7.20, Dr. Daniel J. Wallace was asked about the possible preventive (prophylactic) use of hydroxychloroquine (i.e., Plaquenil) in his Lupus patients.
Dr. Wallace said that he has had 800 Lupus patients (unique visits) since Sept. 1, 2019 who are taking hydroxychloroquine (a.k.a., HQ). He has not had a single one of these patients who has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
In the Cedars Sinai Hospital where he also works, there has only been one person with Lupus who has been hospitalized; but that patient was taking HQ only intermittently —
and
Quote:In a recent conversation that Dr. Oz had with Dr. Daniel Wallace, the lupus specialist mentioned that in his 46 years of treating thousands of lupus patients with HQ, he has never seen any serious side effects.
I have read where doctors that prescribe HQ say Aspirin and Acetamenophen are more dangerous if you take them the way HQ is prescribed.
(05-22-2020 04:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]What President defies the FDA, NIH & CDC and encourages the citizens of his country to take an unproven drug with known side effects?
A link please - where did he defy the FDA? The drug is permitted to be used for 'off label' use by the FDA. The possible cardiac side effects for a small but known population is well known - the drug has been in use for decades!! Try actual facts next time and not those that you made up or read on some unhinged leftwing site that is allergic to actual facts.
The NIH and the CDC have shown us how useless they are by botching most everything during the covid business. Why ANYBODY with two brain cells that has been paying attention would believe anything they say now is incomprehensible.
Your love for Big Government is taking a beating lately. Even dumb people are waking up to the fact that our government can not solve problems, especially in a 'crisis.' As it has been for generations, they often make things worse.
(05-22-2020 01:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Dr Trump, who is so clinically nimble the docs actually wonder where he went to med school, says there is nothing to lose... “take it”.
*sigh* under Dr.s orders and supervision.
How did a prescription drug suddenly become political? Who decided to do something as bizarre as that? What party is Tylenol for or against? Does Ibuprofen agree with Ty, or are these one Red, one Blue?
And yes, there are other studies out there that do show efficacy in certain people under certain dosages and proper regimen. Sooooooo.
What President defies the FDA, NIH & CDC and encourages the citizens of his country to take an unproven drug with known side effects?
He’s not “encouraging” anyone to do schit. Why the need to just make schit up?
Under Drs orders and supervision. What part of that do you not understand?
It’s on the FDA site as ok to use. And has been used in the millions over 4+ decades. No mass problem.
Go read a study or two. One is from France the other from LI N.Y., a number of others out there too.
Why would VA order tens of thousands of doses of it doesn’t work? Why are they currently running a large scale, double blind, peer reviewed study if it shows no potential?
Turn off the VFNN or put down the Hee-Haw news and go read the ACTUAL studies, not someone else’s interpretation of the studies.
I have. It works very well for some.
Every drug has possible side effects, listen to any commercial for one. Freaking baby aspirin can have side effects.
