3 ms·

Given the study's small sample size, it seems the only way it would have produced a conclusive result is if the effect size was huge (i.e. miracle cure). The st

Given the study's small sample size, it seems the only way it would have produced a conclusive result is if the effect size was huge (i.e. miracle cure). The study found some evidence of efficacy, but it was not significant given the sample size. A better headline would say something like: "study finds that HCQ is not a miracle cure for already-hospitalized covid-19 patients".

mcguire 6y ago
How much are you willing to pay for "not a miracle cure" on the basis of "eh, it can't hurt"?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Whether it works or not, HCQ is not a costly drug by any means.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  Your point doesn't really make sense, because the purpose of a study like this is not for making treatment decisions; it's for making research decisions. I don't see anything in the study that discredits HCQ as a potential treatment, and therefore it makes sense to keep researching.
projektfu 6y ago
What effect size would be a “game changer”?
randcraw 6y ago
No. This study found no evidence of effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 in patients who need it. A sample size of 20 is sufficient to satisfy a .05 statistical significance threshold that hydrochloroquine had even the slightest positive effect. In this population, it did not. All therapeutic drugs are developed using in vitro and pre-clinical (non human animal) treatment groups no bigger than 20. When a well controlled and randomized study comparng two groups that are each four times larger than 20, we have a VERY strong indication that this drug delivers not only too little effect to be a useful treatment for COVID-19, but it very likely delivered absolutely NO EFFECT AT ALL in hospitalized patients. Don't expect any reputable physician or scientist to dismiss this evidence. This is very bad news for the prospect for treating patients who need it using this drug -- those people who are likeliest to die or endure lasting harm. The other 80% of positive patients don't need any therapy except time.

mcguire 6y ago

How much are you willing to pay for "not a miracle cure" on the basis of "eh, it can't hurt"?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jaywalk 6y ago
Whether it works or not, HCQ is not a costly drug by any means.
jeffdavis 6y ago
Your point doesn't really make sense, because the purpose of a study like this is not for making treatment decisions; it's for making research decisions. I don't see anything in the study that discredits HCQ as a potential treatment, and therefore it makes sense to keep researching.

projektfu 6y ago

What effect size would be a “game changer”?

randcraw 6y ago

No. This study found no evidence of effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 in patients who need it. A sample size of 20 is sufficient to satisfy a .05 statistical significance threshold that hydrochloroquine had even the slightest positive effect. In this population, it did not. All therapeutic drugs are developed using in vitro and pre-clinical (non human animal) treatment groups no bigger than 20. When a well controlled and randomized study comparng two groups that are each four times larger than 20, we have a VERY strong indication that this drug delivers not only too little effect to be a useful treatment for COVID-19, but it very likely delivered absolutely NO EFFECT AT ALL in hospitalized patients. Don't expect any reputable physician or scientist to dismiss this evidence. This is very bad news for the prospect for treating patients who need it using this drug -- those people who are likeliest to die or endure lasting harm. The other 80% of positive patients don't need any therapy except time.