
Hydroxychloroquine Covid-19: a multinational registry analysis [pdf] - ghastmaster
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931180-6
======
ghastmaster
UPDATE:

[https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246](https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246)

> Today, three of the authors of the paper, "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine
> with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational
> registry analysis", have retracted their study. They were unable to complete
> an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis. As a result,
> they have concluded that they "can no longer vouch for the veracity of the
> primary data sources."

------
mhandley
From the paper: "Interpretation: We were unable to confirm a benefit of
hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-
hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated
with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular
arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19."

~~~
huy-nguyen
I guess that's the end of the road for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine as a
treatment for COVID-19.

~~~
danans
Yes it's probably the end medically, but it's not the end of its use as a
political wedge.

To people who believe the current political rhetoric promoting
hydroxychloroquine, a study in a medical journal doesn't change anything, as
their interest in it was never based its medical efficacy, but rather as a
symbol used to rally around their leader and their movement. Just look at the
anti-vaccination movement, which continues despite being debunked for years.

And we shouldn't so quickly dismiss this phenomenon. We underestimate the
power of that kind of fictional narrative group-think to our peril. The only
way to fight falsehood based narrative is truth based narrative. The dry
statistical or scientifically derived truth that eggheads like most of us wish
would prevail is largely powerless. Stories are what ultimately wins.

~~~
puranjay
It's been absurd that I have people on my Twitter feed attributing the low
death rate in India to India's "widespread daily use of HCQ".

31 years in India and I've never even heard of it!

~~~
rsynnott
I suspect this was people thinking “chloroquine is a malaria drug and India
has malaria, therefore it’s used in India”. Which sounds vaguely convincing at
first glance, but malaria in India has been immune for decades.

~~~
puranjay
Don't even get me started on the people hoarding tonic water because it has
quinine in it

------
maaand
Wasnt Zinc supposed to be part of the equation along with Hydroxychloroquine?
Most anecdotal evidence from practitioners includes Zinc along with
Hydroxychloroquine.

~~~
matthewtoast
Yes, and the practitioners boosting the drug combo have also said that in
order to be effective, it should be administered early, similar to Tamiflu.

~~~
marvin
Was this done in the study linked?

All doctors I’ve seen promote hydroxychloroquine have been adamant that it
must be administered early in the disease’s progression in order to have any
effect.

But most of the studies being performed that I’ve heard of, have explicitly
been on late-stage patients. This includes the central EU study.

It would be tragic if the drug works when administered early, but all the
studies have happened at a late stage, incorrectly disqualifying a treatment
that can save many lives.

~~~
rsynnott
As mentioned in the paper they only include people where the drug was given
within 48 hours after diagnosis.

~~~
giardini
48 hours is two days! "48 hours after diagnosis" is NOT early treatment. See
my earlier post!

------
dispose3141
Oh this is good. After reading this, the US President will be able to stop
taking it.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
I'd easily bet he was never taking it - easier instead to just say he was
taking it, say "Look, I'm not sick!", instead of having to admit he was wrong.

~~~
rsynnott
That seems likely; it would be quite risky for a doctor to actually prescribe
it to him.

------
vadiml
The study say nothing on what stade of infection the treatment was applied.
The HCQ + AZT treatment was shown effective on initial infection stages,
before heavy symptoms appears.

------
hprotagonist
tl;dr: “ There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these
treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. ... Tell me again
why anyone should be advocating such treatments. But your reasons had better
stand up to 14,888 patients versus 81,144 comparators. Make it good.“

[https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/22/hy...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-
enough-already)

~~~
rsynnott
I’m convinced the only reason this is being advocated by laypeople is to
provide false reassurance to vulnerable populations that an effective
treatment is available.

~~~
wnevets
I’m convinced the only reason this is being advocated so certain people can
make money

~~~
pwned1
Who is making money on a generic drug that costs $0.04 per dose?

~~~
brutt
It's wrong question. The correct one is "Who is NOT making money because of
this generic drug that cost $0.04 per dose?"

------
jakeogh
Analysis of all available papers as of Apr 20:
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq5WprDuARXrJl6N1aDjY/edit)

~~~
xenophonf
Written by who? Reviewed by who else for correctness and (just as importantly)
completeness? Paid for by who, with what potential conflicts of interest?

For something purporting to be the current consensus of evidence-based
medicine, it sure lacks the usual hallmarks of scientific inquiry: openness,
transparency, review.

Edited to add: Plus, that anonymous Google doc doesn't even represent the
latest research, because the Raoult paper (under the heading "12 April 2020")
has already been retracted:

[https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/21/french-
hydroxychloroq...](https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/21/french-
hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-study-withdrawn/)

