4 ms·

What did the retracted study say about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine? Did it claim they were efficacious versus COVID-19, or that they weren't? Or was it

by elihu 6y ago

What did the retracted study say about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine? Did it claim they were efficacious versus COVID-19, or that they weren't? Or was it something else?

moultano 6y ago
It claimed that they significantly increased the chances of death.
- w_t_payne 6y ago
  Since I take it daily for my Rheumatoid Arthritis -- a source of more than a small amount of concern.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    You're probably not in intensive care with a life threatening viral infection, so even if there is an increase in mortality in that group you may not need to be concerned.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    IIRC the doses used as an antiviral are quite a big higher than those for an immunosuppressor. Everyone is piling on, but in fact the drug was known to have side effects from decades of use, and the hypothesis that it would hurt more than it helps was absolutely not unfounded. It was wrong (or at least, still unsupported), but it wasn't insane.
Sharlin 6y ago
The study claimed to have found evidence that hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine use is correlated with increased COVID-19 mortality.
djannzjkzxn 6y ago
This was the original report: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext?utm_source=AusSMC+mailing+list&utm_campaign=a5c0a299a0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_26_03_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_90d9431cd5-a5c0a299a0-126967137 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... They claimed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine both caused more deaths. The study claimed a huge effect size (~20% increase in death rate) and a giant sample (14888 treated, 81144 control across 671 hospitals). Despite not being a proper blinded trial, this still appeared to be strong evidence and sufficient to stop any reasonable doctor who heard of this study from giving these drugs to patients. If the evidence was fabricated, that’s a big deal.
tjenkinsqs 6y ago
If you want real scientific studies, have a look here: https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586?fbclid=IwAR1uM2zcTs_UpRT4hKcf2Vm4gHDHI8wWflHEArys-Dax4vRPcTYoZCgLi9Q https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje...
- Animats 6y ago
  That's a study of other studies, not clinical work in its own right. That's the academic equivalent of being a blogger. The title, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis", sounds like a political statement. The real argument there is "It appears that the FDA, NIH and cardiology society positions have been based upon theoretical calculations about potential adverse events and from measured physiologic changes rather than from current real-world mortality experience with these medications and that their positions should be revised." The author is arguing that while this drug combination does cause measurable heart damage, it's worth it because the overall near-term mortality decreases. That may or may not be justified, but it's a much weaker statement than the paper title would suggest. Some of the citations are a bit strange. One is to a letter on Google Drive.[1] [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjgHlqI-ZuKOziN3txQsN5zz62v3K043pR3DdhEmcos/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjgHlqI-ZuKOziN3txQsN5zz...
- benmaraschino 6y ago
  One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/06/hydroxychlorine-covid-19-study-did-not-meet-publishing-societys-expected-standard/ https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/06/hydroxychlorine-covid...

by elihu 6y ago

What did the retracted study say about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine? Did it claim they were efficacious versus COVID-19, or that they weren't? Or was it something else?

moultano 6y ago

It claimed that they significantly increased the chances of death.

w_t_payne 6y ago
Since I take it daily for my Rheumatoid Arthritis -- a source of more than a small amount of concern.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  You're probably not in intensive care with a life threatening viral infection, so even if there is an increase in mortality in that group you may not need to be concerned.
- newacct583 6y ago
  IIRC the doses used as an antiviral are quite a big higher than those for an immunosuppressor. Everyone is piling on, but in fact the drug was known to have side effects from decades of use, and the hypothesis that it would hurt more than it helps was absolutely not unfounded. It was wrong (or at least, still unsupported), but it wasn't insane.

Sharlin 6y ago

The study claimed to have found evidence that hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine use is correlated with increased COVID-19 mortality.

djannzjkzxn 6y ago

This was the original report: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext?utm_source=AusSMC+mailing+list&utm_campaign=a5c0a299a0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_26_03_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_90d9431cd5-a5c0a299a0-126967137 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... They claimed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine both caused more deaths. The study claimed a huge effect size (~20% increase in death rate) and a giant sample (14888 treated, 81144 control across 671 hospitals). Despite not being a proper blinded trial, this still appeared to be strong evidence and sufficient to stop any reasonable doctor who heard of this study from giving these drugs to patients. If the evidence was fabricated, that’s a big deal.

tjenkinsqs 6y ago

If you want real scientific studies, have a look here: https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586?fbclid=IwAR1uM2zcTs_UpRT4hKcf2Vm4gHDHI8wWflHEArys-Dax4vRPcTYoZCgLi9Q https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje...

Animats 6y ago
That's a study of other studies, not clinical work in its own right. That's the academic equivalent of being a blogger. The title, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis", sounds like a political statement. The real argument there is "It appears that the FDA, NIH and cardiology society positions have been based upon theoretical calculations about potential adverse events and from measured physiologic changes rather than from current real-world mortality experience with these medications and that their positions should be revised." The author is arguing that while this drug combination does cause measurable heart damage, it's worth it because the overall near-term mortality decreases. That may or may not be justified, but it's a much weaker statement than the paper title would suggest. Some of the citations are a bit strange. One is to a letter on Google Drive.[1] [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjgHlqI-ZuKOziN3txQsN5zz62v3K043pR3DdhEmcos/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pjgHlqI-ZuKOziN3txQsN5zz...
benmaraschino 6y ago
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/06/hydroxychlorine-covid-19-study-did-not-meet-publishing-societys-expected-standard/ https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/06/hydroxychlorine-covid...