3 ms·

This trial wasn't randomized, but a quasi randomized trial for HCQ whose preprint was leaked is here:https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b2govfsa6n0xbq/NEJM_Clinical%20O

by wyxuan 7y ago

This trial wasn't randomized, but a quasi randomized trial for HCQ whose preprint was leaked is here:https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b2govfsa6n0xbq/NEJM_Clinical%20Outcomes%20of%20Hydroxychlorquine%20in%20Patients%20with%20COVID19.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b2govfsa6n0xbq/NEJM_Clinical%20Ou... Study indicates that one adverse effect of HCQ (on top of not improving patient outcomes) is increased ventilator times.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
From the paper: A total of 63 patients were included with 32 in the hydroxychloroquine arm. Hydroxychloroquine administration was associated with a need for escalation of respiratory support level compared to those that did not receive hydroxychloroquine at 5 days (p=0.013). The same findings were observed in a baseline-matched subgroup analysis. Absolute lymphocyte change in the hydroxychloroquine group was no different than supportive care alone (p=0.413). Hydroxychloroquine use trended towards worsening neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio compared to supportive care alone (+9.59 vs +1.58, p=0.51) as well as a higher risk for intubation (p=0.051).
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
  p=0.413 p=0.51 So, basically coin toss?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    You overlooked the major finding of the study: > Hydroxychloroquine administration was associated with a need for escalation of respiratory support level compared to those that did not receive hydroxychloroquine at 5 days (p=0.013). > p = 0.013
  - jeremysalwen 7y ago
    > was no different than supportive care alone (p=0.413). Yes, exactly, p=0.413 corresponds to a coin toss, or as the authors of the paper put it "no different". The p=0.51 figure seems to be a typo in the abstract. If you read the content of the paper, it says > The hydroxychloroquine group also had a strong but not statistically significant trend towards worsening NLR (p=0.051). So I believe they just accidentally moved the decimal place, and they are correctly avoiding calling the result statistically significant, but it is close.

by wyxuan 7y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

From the paper: A total of 63 patients were included with 32 in the hydroxychloroquine arm. Hydroxychloroquine administration was associated with a need for escalation of respiratory support level compared to those that did not receive hydroxychloroquine at 5 days (p=0.013). The same findings were observed in a baseline-matched subgroup analysis. Absolute lymphocyte change in the hydroxychloroquine group was no different than supportive care alone (p=0.413). Hydroxychloroquine use trended towards worsening neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio compared to supportive care alone (+9.59 vs +1.58, p=0.51) as well as a higher risk for intubation (p=0.051).

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
p=0.413 p=0.51 So, basically coin toss?
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  You overlooked the major finding of the study: > Hydroxychloroquine administration was associated with a need for escalation of respiratory support level compared to those that did not receive hydroxychloroquine at 5 days (p=0.013). > p = 0.013
- jeremysalwen 7y ago
  > was no different than supportive care alone (p=0.413). Yes, exactly, p=0.413 corresponds to a coin toss, or as the authors of the paper put it "no different". The p=0.51 figure seems to be a typo in the abstract. If you read the content of the paper, it says > The hydroxychloroquine group also had a strong but not statistically significant trend towards worsening NLR (p=0.051). So I believe they just accidentally moved the decimal place, and they are correctly avoiding calling the result statistically significant, but it is close.