4 ms·

Will you share your sources re: "recent studies giving [HCQ and ivermectin] credit"? I haven't seen anything positive about those drugs in COVID-19 in human pa

Will you share your sources re: "recent studies giving [HCQ and ivermectin] credit"? I haven't seen anything positive about those drugs in COVID-19 in human patients. For example, the RECOVERY trial showed no benefit (and non-significant numerical harm) for HCQ: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

swader999 5y ago
Here's a pre print from today. Credible authors so I do expect it to go the distance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v... This expose on the suppression of ivermectin is telling: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/T... Lots of studies referenced in it.
- carbocation 5y ago
  Thank you for sharing the link. I do note that this is an observational study of 255 people. It contradicts a randomized trial with 1,561 people in the HCQ-arm alone vs 3,155 receiving usual care (RECOVERY).
  - swader999 5y ago
    When they are studied as a prophylactic or at early stage, they really prove out. I think that trial you referenced was in late stage severe cases, almost feels like they gamed that design to fail.
    - carbocation 5y ago
      The study you have cited was entirely confined to 255 patients, all of whom required mechanical ventilation, 70% of whom died by day 90. That's severe COVID, not "prophylaxis."
      - swader999 5y ago
        Yeah I know, and I didn't expect that. It's even better the earlier it's applied though.
cameldrv 5y ago
There are a lot of studies of varying quality, some of which show benefit for IVM and HCQ. One place to find some of these compiled is https://hcqmeta.com https://hcqmeta.com. Beware that they don't say what their study inclusion criteria is, so one has to be more skeptical of studies that have a small N and/or high P value. The RECOVERY results for HCQ were definitely negative. Personally I'm neutral on its effectiveness, but HCQ proponents would probably say that HCQ's postulated antiviral mechanism is not effective on already hospitalized patients, since most of them would have already cleared the virus by the time they showed up to the hospital.
- carbocation 5y ago
  It's interesting to look at the forest plots on that page and only focus on RCTs, which are labeled. I cannot understand why someone would try to meta-analyze RCTs with observational studies when dozens of each exist. But this really hammers home (despite their misleading summary statistics at the top) that the evidence does not support an effect of HCQ on COVID-19.
iptpus 5y ago
Regarding ivermectin, this twitter thread does a good job summarizing other studies and links to them all. https://twitter.com/AbdenurFlavio/status/1398717229366235141 https://twitter.com/AbdenurFlavio/status/1398717229366235141

swader999 5y ago

Here's a pre print from today. Credible authors so I do expect it to go the distance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v... This expose on the suppression of ivermectin is telling: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/T... Lots of studies referenced in it.

carbocation 5y ago
Thank you for sharing the link. I do note that this is an observational study of 255 people. It contradicts a randomized trial with 1,561 people in the HCQ-arm alone vs 3,155 receiving usual care (RECOVERY).
- swader999 5y ago
  When they are studied as a prophylactic or at early stage, they really prove out. I think that trial you referenced was in late stage severe cases, almost feels like they gamed that design to fail.
  - carbocation 5y ago
    The study you have cited was entirely confined to 255 patients, all of whom required mechanical ventilation, 70% of whom died by day 90. That's severe COVID, not "prophylaxis."
    - swader999 5y ago
      Yeah I know, and I didn't expect that. It's even better the earlier it's applied though.

cameldrv 5y ago

There are a lot of studies of varying quality, some of which show benefit for IVM and HCQ. One place to find some of these compiled is https://hcqmeta.com https://hcqmeta.com. Beware that they don't say what their study inclusion criteria is, so one has to be more skeptical of studies that have a small N and/or high P value. The RECOVERY results for HCQ were definitely negative. Personally I'm neutral on its effectiveness, but HCQ proponents would probably say that HCQ's postulated antiviral mechanism is not effective on already hospitalized patients, since most of them would have already cleared the virus by the time they showed up to the hospital.

carbocation 5y ago
It's interesting to look at the forest plots on that page and only focus on RCTs, which are labeled. I cannot understand why someone would try to meta-analyze RCTs with observational studies when dozens of each exist. But this really hammers home (despite their misleading summary statistics at the top) that the evidence does not support an effect of HCQ on COVID-19.

iptpus 5y ago

Regarding ivermectin, this twitter thread does a good job summarizing other studies and links to them all. https://twitter.com/AbdenurFlavio/status/1398717229366235141 https://twitter.com/AbdenurFlavio/status/1398717229366235141