BC, the study NCT04261517 is the one reported on yesterday. The other study of 150 patients, comparing HCQ versus Lopinavir/ritonavir, is in phase 2.
I'm surprised Laurie Garrett, with good credentials, would jump on one small study (which seems flawed to me) and declare "nada" when there was another study of about the same size (and seemed flawed to me too) that seemed to have different results.
30 treatment-naÏve patients, split randomly into a test group of 15 and a control group of 15.
I had to use Google Translate to pull some of the tabular results out It indicates "Mean course of the disease" (I presume time since first symptom?) was 6.6 days for test group, 5.9 for control. It indicates 9 of the test group had a fever while 13 of the control group had a fever. That seems a bit odd to me.
The trail seems to only take one subsequent test for the virus, at 7 days, where 90% of all patients were without the virus. That's not much room for discrimination. That was the study's primary endpoint.
Only 1(in the test group) of the 30 became severe. That's odd. 3% here versus 16% in the 1099-patient study. Better outcome due to improved care? How?
The test group median age was about 4 years older. (50.5 vs 46.7) which would bias things for worse outcome for the test group.
The test group had 5 of the 15 with hypertension, versus 3 in the control group. The control group had one person with COPD. (Each group had one with diabetes.)
Overall 11 coexisting conditions (36%, 40% test group, 27% control group) compared to 24% in the 1099-patient study).
To me, the jury is still out. My hopes are down though.
I'm surprised Laurie Garrett, with good credentials, would jump on one small study (which seems flawed to me) and declare "nada" when there was another study of about the same size (and seemed flawed to me too) that seemed to have different results.
30 treatment-naÏve patients, split randomly into a test group of 15 and a control group of 15.
I had to use Google Translate to pull some of the tabular results out It indicates "Mean course of the disease" (I presume time since first symptom?) was 6.6 days for test group, 5.9 for control. It indicates 9 of the test group had a fever while 13 of the control group had a fever. That seems a bit odd to me.
The trail seems to only take one subsequent test for the virus, at 7 days, where 90% of all patients were without the virus. That's not much room for discrimination. That was the study's primary endpoint.
Only 1(in the test group) of the 30 became severe. That's odd. 3% here versus 16% in the 1099-patient study. Better outcome due to improved care? How?
The test group median age was about 4 years older. (50.5 vs 46.7) which would bias things for worse outcome for the test group.
The test group had 5 of the 15 with hypertension, versus 3 in the control group. The control group had one person with COPD. (Each group had one with diabetes.)
Overall 11 coexisting conditions (36%, 40% test group, 27% control group) compared to 24% in the 1099-patient study).
To me, the jury is still out. My hopes are down though.